The Lubbock Lights

What the file holds

No unit of Project Blue Book in the National Archives catalogue is titled for Lubbock in 1951. The papers are images 7–118 of a unit that the catalogue titles “Orange, Va, September 1951” (NAID 28939743); images 1–6 are papers on a sighting at Orange, Virginia, and image 7 is a folder label, “LUBBOCK, TX”. The unit holds no Project 10073 record card for the case. Among its papers:

• extracts of status reports no. 1 and no. 2 (images 8–10 and 15–18);
• an undated summary that mentions a contact of 1959, and so was written after it (image 19; our reading);
• a case summary drawn from articles in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, “investigated and verified by the O.S.I. and Reece [sic] AFB officials”, with ATIC’s comments (images 21–26);
• three reports of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI): a spot intelligence report of 7 September 1951 (images 118 and 38–39) and reports of investigation of 8 October and 5 December 1951 (images 41–49 and 87–89);
• newspaper clippings (images 50–56) and prints of the photographs (images 58–61);
• Lt. E. J. Ruppelt’s report on his trip to Lubbock on 6–9 November 1951 (images 64–82);
• the professors’ “Report on Night Flying Objects”, forwarded by Reese AFB on 21 November 1951 (images 83–85);
• the photographic laboratory’s letter of 3 December 1951 (image 90) and its test report of 29 November 1951 (images 98–103);
• a memorandum of 10 October 1951 by Lt. Henry Metscher (image 108), a summary of the section’s operations (image 111), and the letter of 21 March 1952 that returned the negatives (image 115).

Blue Book’s index of sightings carries the case on image 42 of NAID 28921348.

Outside the Blue Book files there are two more sources. The Department of War’s release 06 holds a transcript of a presentation by Ruppelt, which the publisher dates 1952 (DOW-UAP-D154); it spends four pages on Lubbock (pp. 6–9). The FBI’s file 62-HQ-83894 holds a clipping of Donald H. Menzel’s article in LOOK of 17 June 1952 (Section 6, pp. 256–261). The CIA’s folder on the scientific panel of January 1953 (CIA-UAP-002, PDF p. 33) and the file of the Air Force’s committee of 1966–67 (DOW-UAP-D092, p. 71) name Lubbock only in passing, in the same sentence: “Reports of such artifacts would be expected to arise mainly from Western outposts in far closer proximity to the Iron Curtain than Lubbock, Texas!”

August to November 1951

The extract from status report no. 1 begins: “The first of a series of sightings related to this incident occurred the evening of 25 August 1951 at approximately 2110 CST. Four Texas Technical College professors were sitting in the backyard of one of the professor’s homes observing meteorites in conjunction with a study of micrometeorites being carried out by the college.” (image 8)

The professors’ own report, which four of them signed, names three first observers (image 84):

“The first observations of these objects were made by Messrs. [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] at about 9:20 P.M. on August 25, 1951. Two flights were observed and were about five minutes apart.”

They agreed that the objects travelled “from northeast to southwest and passing slightly southeast of overhead of the City of Lubbock”, and that “Each flight consisted of a series of lights in an arcuate formation which covered about 10° in the sky.” The lights “appeared as scintillating points of bluish-green color, clearly and plainly visible but not brilliant, and having approximately the same illumination as high cirrus clouds on a clear moonlight night.” “No sound was associated with the flights.” (image 84)

In the following week they saw five more flights. On 1 September “the above three were joined by Messrs. [redacted]”, and “The most unusual flight was observed at 12:17 A.M. on September second by the five people who had met for the purpose of making observations.” (image 84) Of that flight: “The startling characteristics of this one flight made calm observation difficult to impossible.” In all: “The members of this group have seen a total of ten or twevle [sic] flights of these objects between August 25 and about November 1, 1951.” (image 85) Ruppelt’s note of his meeting with them on 8 November gives the period as “from 25 August 1951 until about 15 Oct 1951” (image 77). A sighting of 5 September “was observed by a group of people with scientific backgrounds from the Texas Tech faculty”, which “included six men with PhD degrees” (image 24).

Others saw them too. Status report no. 1: “This phenomena was observed by at least one hundred people in and around Lubbock, Texas. Some of these people were of the opinion that the objects were birds.” (image 9) The OSI’s spot report of 7 September: “The formation of objects allegedly crossed the sky from horizon to horizon in three seconds.” (image 38) The case summary adds a sighting by “Big Spring Texas Airport Officials” (image 24) and calls two other incidents, on 25 August at Albuquerque and on 31 August near Matador, Texas, “possibly related” (image 25). On 10 October Lt. Henry Metscher, the project monitor, set the two Lubbock sightings beside the one at Albuquerque, of a “chevron shaped” object with “no fuselage, sweepback 15°”: “Two visual sightings, describing group of lights, can be associated with a sighting of swept wing aircraft as is described below. Present evaluation C-3.” He recorded “Radar detection none” for all three, and his action was “a query to Strategic Air Command, Offutt AFB, asking whether their aircraft were in the vicinity at stated times.” (image 108)

What the professors measured

The angular speed. The professors’ report: “Immediately after the flights it was estimated that the velocities of the flights were thirty degrees per second through an arc of ninety degrees beginning forty-five degrees below the zenith to forty-five degrees beyond the zenith.” (image 84) That makes about three seconds a pass; the calculation is ours. Status report no. 1 has “The angular velocity of the object was very nearly 30° of arc per second.” (image 8), and the undated summary says that “During subsequent observations the professors confirmed their estimate of the velocity by using protractors and stop watches.” (image 19) The photographer, asked to repeat how he had followed the lights with his camera, took “4 seconds” over an arc “very close to 120°”: “This comes out to be 30° per second. (Note: This is the same time obtained by Prof. [redacted])” (image 67)

The height. “Attempts were also made to get an estimate of the elevation by viewing the object from several locations at the same time and using trigonometric methods, and also by using clouds of known height. These attempts were not considered successful.” (image 19) Status report no. 1 describes one method: “Attempts were made to obtain an altitude measurement by laying out a measured base line perpendicular to the usual flight path of the object and placing angle measuring devices at the end of the base line, however, all their attempts failed because the objects did not appear on the nights the observers were waiting for them.” (image 8) Without a height there is no speed: “The speed could not be judged due to the inability to get an altitude measurement but the angular velocity was 30°/second.” (image 111) The professors worked out what the speed would be at assumed heights, more than 600 miles per hour at 2,000 feet (image 25) and 1,800 miles per hour at one mile (image 38).

The light. At the meeting with Ruppelt on 8 November: “All men agreed it appeared to have its own light source.” (image 77)

The summary’s reading of the speed. The undated summary fits the measurement to its birds: “The angular velocity of 30° per second seems rather high for birds during migratory flights (approximately 60 MPH at 168 feet altitude). It is probable that the angular velocity was less.” It takes the photographer’s success as a sign of the same: “Panning is quite difficult and the relatively high degree of success of this photographer is further indication that the angular velocity of the object was not as high as estimated.” (image 19) Neither sentence rests on a new measurement.

The photographs

What the file says was taken. Status report no. 1: “On the evening of 31 August 1951, at about 2330 CST, a college freshman from Texas Tech observed three flights of the object and allegedly obtained five photographs.” (image 9) Status report no. 2: “ATIC has four of the negatives but the other one was lost or misplaced by the photographer.” and “In one photo a single-V of lights appear, while in three photos there is a double-V.” (image 16) The photographer’s statement, typed by the OSI, ends: “The last negative has not been found and is not in my possession.” (image 89)

The file holds prints of the photographs on its inclosure sheets 7–10 (images 58–61), and two notes that count the prints (images 57 and 104). On 21 March 1952 ATIC sent the photographer back “four (4) 35 mm negatives of an unidentified aerial object that you so graciously loaned to the Air Force for analysis.” (image 115)

The date. The papers give two dates and a typing slip:

• 30 August: “These negatives were exposed at approximately 2330 CST, 30 Aug 1951”, in the test report (image 98); the same date is in ATIC’s request for the evaluation (image 93), in Metscher’s memorandum (image 108) and in the caption in LOOK (FBI file 62-HQ-83894, Section 6, p. 257);
• 31 August: in status reports no. 1 and no. 2 (images 9 and 16) and in Ruppelt’s presentation of 1952, which has the pictures “taken on the 31st of August” (DOW-UAP-D154, p. 7);
• the photographer’s statement begins “On Aug 50 [sic], 1951 at about 11:30 PM took pictures of strange objects passing overhead from North to South.” (image 89)

The files do not settle which date is right.

The photographer. In the Blue Book papers he is “a college freshman from Texas Tech” (image 9) and “an amateur photographer” (image 19), with his name blacked out. The caption in LOOK names him: “These are the Lubbock Lights, as photographed Aug. 30, 1951, over Lubbock, Texas, by 18-year-old Carl Hart, Jr.” (FBI file 62-HQ-83894, Section 6, p. 257) On the letter that returned the negatives someone has written “HART” by hand (image 115; our reading). Ruppelt questioned him at home on 7 November 1951 with the OSI’s agent and wrote that “all the data and procedures given by [redacted] were accurate and very logical”, and also: “No progress was made in attempting to determine whether or not the photos were faked.” (images 67–68)

What he and the professors saw. The photographer “stated that the object appeared to be about brighter than the brightest star in the sky. He compared it to Venus in the early evening.” (image 68) The professors saw lights “not brilliant” (image 84), and status report no. 2 gives their view: “The objects that the professors observed were, in their opinion, not bright enough to be photographed.” (image 17) Status report no. 1: “The college professors did not believe the photographs were authentic as they had never observed a V-shaped group of lights.” (image 9)

What the laboratory found. The preliminary findings of the photographic laboratory at Wright Air Development Center (WADC), as status report no. 2 gives them (image 18):

“1. The images on the negatives were caused by light striking unexposed film, (i.e., the negatives were not retouched). 2. The individual lights in the ‘formation’ varied in intensity. 3. The intensity was greater than any surrounding stars as the stars did not register. (The photos were taken under CAVU conditions.) 4. The individual lights changed position in the ‘formation’.”

The same page adds that, “If the photographs are authentic”, then “The light source, although it appeared to be of low intensity to the eye, was highly actinic.” (image 18) The laboratory’s test report of 29 November 1951 found: “There is relative movement within the formation of spots, so that they are not lights on a fixed object.” and “The angular size corresponds to an object size of 310 ± 30 ft, seen by the camera 1 mile away.” (image 101) The size follows from the mile the report assumes. The laboratory’s letter of 3 December 1951 gives its finding:

“It is not possible at this time to confirm or deny the authenticity of these negatives as a record of unknown objects against either a starlit or overcast sky. No images which could be interpreted as stars are present.” (image 90)

ATIC’s comment in the case summary: “The photographs were examined with negative results. All possibilities of airborne objects were examined with negative results. Conclusion:”, and the rest is blacked out (image 22). Ruppelt, in 1952: “We had those prints over to the photo lab and they checked them out. I mean, they are an actual image, there’s no doubt about that.” And: “We’ve never been able to prove that they were faked.” (DOW-UAP-D154, p. 8)

What the file says about its label

Blue Book’s index carries the case under “AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 1951 SIGHTINGS”:

“978 25 Lubbock, Texas (FOLDER)* Multiple (PHOTO) Other (BIRDS)” (NAID 28921348, image 42)

with the footnote “* IN SEPARATE FOLDER”. There is no record card in the unit.

The undated summary gives the reasoning (image 19):

“In 1959 Dr J Allen Hynek contacted one of the professors at Texas Tech regarding this case. This professor informed Dr Hynek that he had conducted an extensive study of the Lubbock sighting and determined that they were definitely birds.”

“The Air Force conclusion is that birds, with street lights reflecting from them, were the probable cause of this sighting.”

The contact of 1959 is known only from this summary, at second hand: the unit holds no letter or note of it, and the summary does not say what the professor’s study found beyond its verdict. On the kind of bird the summary writes: “The kind of birds responsible for this sighting is not known, but it is highly probable that they were ducks or plovers. Since plovers do not usually fly in formations of more than six or seven, ducks become the more probable.” And it adds that “The fact that this was late summer, and that the objects consistently flew to the south tends to substantiate the conclusion that the objects of this sighting were migratory birds.” (image 19)

The papers of 1951 and 1952 do not reach that conclusion:

• Status report no. 1. “The possible conclusion is that some people did see birds, but others saw some other objects.” And: “If the photos are authentic, the objects very probably are not ducks because an experienced photographer from the Lubbock Avalanche Newspaper attempted to get photos of ducks using both natural light and flash, but failed.” (image 10)
• The faculty group of 5 September, in the case summary. “a. There would not be enough light from reflections to obtain photographs of a bird in flight at night.. (Comment: Substantiated by the Photo Section of WADC.)” and “c. The object was sighted by Big Spring Texas Airport Officials from the airport, which was not lighted, so there could be no light to reflect.” (image 24)
• The meeting of 8 November. “They are rather firmly convinced that the object is not a flock of birds. This is due to the great speed at which they travel.” And: “Another doubtful point is the nearly perfect geometric pattern of the first two formation. Birds could not do that.” They also said “they will thoroughly discuss the possibility of birds in hopes that it is birds or some other such thing that can be explained.” (image 81)
• The laboratory. It could neither confirm nor deny the negatives as a record of unknown objects (image 90).
• The section’s summary of November 1951. “There is a possibility that the objects were some type of night flying migratory birds, although no conclusions have yet been reached.” (image 111)
• Ruppelt, 1952. “They might be ducks reflecting the city lights, although it’s still hard to believe that”, and “So we’re up against a blank wall on this certain, this one case.” (DOW-UAP-D154, p. 9)
• ATIC. Its conclusion in the case summary is blacked out (image 22).

The label rests on a summary that calls birds “probable” and a conversation reported at second hand; the papers written at the time argue both ways. The status of the case is therefore disputed. The files hold photographs measured by a laboratory, but the laboratory could not say whether they record unknown objects, and the professors said the photographs did not show what they had seen. Images whose authenticity the files leave open do not count toward the mark ◆ (see the methodology), so the case does not carry it.

Where it was

The professors watched from the backyard of one of their homes (image 8), and the flights passed “slightly southeast of overhead of the City of Lubbock” (image 84). No document gives coordinates. The pin is OpenStreetMap’s point for Lubbock (relation 115401, 33.5856° N, 101.8470° W), rounded to 33.59° N, 101.85° W. It marks the city, not a position of any sighting.

Why this scores where it does

Witnesses: 3. Professors of a technical college who watched for the flights on purpose and timed them, a student photographer, and, by a status report, “at least one hundred people in and around Lubbock, Texas” (image 9). Not higher: the professors watched as one group, the papers put their number at three, four, five or six, and the townspeople speak only through a status report and the press.

Radar: 0. Metscher’s memorandum records “Radar detection none” (image 108).

Optics: 2. Negatives examined by the Air Force’s photographic laboratory, which measured the spots and found “relative movement within the formation” (image 101), but could not confirm or deny the negatives as a record of unknown objects (image 90). The negatives went back to the photographer in 1952 (image 115).

Physical trace: 0. None.

Multi-channel: 2. The professors’ sightings and the photographs; the professors said the photographs did not show what they had seen (image 9).

Documentation: 4. Two status reports, three OSI reports, Ruppelt’s trip report, the professors’ own report, the laboratory’s letter and test report and the index entry can all be opened. Not 5: there is no record card, ATIC’s conclusion is blacked out (image 22), and the papers give two dates for the photographs.

Anomaly: 2. Formations that the professors timed at thirty degrees per second and said birds could not fly (image 81). The file offers birds as probable (image 19) and has no height, and so no speed.

Data today: 2. The negatives were returned in 1952 and one had been lost before that; the names are blacked out; the measurements are angular only.

The overall is 1.8: class D, testimony only.

What would settle it

• ATIC’s conclusion on image 22, without the blacking out.
• The original negatives, the lost fifth among them (images 16, 89 and 115).
• A Project 10073 record card for the case; there is none in the unit.
• A record of Hynek’s contact with the professor in 1959, known only from the undated summary (image 19).