Air Traffic Controller Saw a Spinning Object Change Position
In 1948, near Columbus, an object hovered and spun in the air. Then it moved to another spot and kept spinning.
In 1948, near Columbus, an object hovered and spun in the air. Then it moved to another spot and kept spinning.
In 1948, an air traffic controller near Columbus saw an object hovering and spinning. It moved to another spot and kept spinning. The Air Force investigated possible explanations but could not identify it with certainty.
By the controller’s estimate, about 30 to 40 seconds.
No. It said an aircraft could be built to imitate some of the reported characteristics, but did not conclude that this was the explanation.
An air traffic controller was at Lockbourne Air Force Base near Columbus, Ohio, when he spotted an object hovering in the air and spinning in place on January 7, 1948. That is how the incident was described in a US Air Force report.
The report compiled 100 sightings but could not identify the objects described with certainty. In the controller’s account, the object stayed aloft, moved to another spot, and kept spinning. The details gathered did not solve the mystery.
The controller described the object hovering in place and spinning around a single point. It then moved to another location and spun again. By his estimate, each spin lasted about 30 to 40 seconds.
The report also included other sightings from 1947 and 1948. People described objects that appeared in different ways: some hovered, while others moved at varying speeds. There were accounts of objects of different sizes and of several objects seen together. These were descriptions people had reported, not identifications of what they had seen.
The report’s authors considered whether illuminated advertising blimps could explain some of the sightings. They gathered the blimps’ schedules and compared them with the dates of the incidents. The report did not conclude that the blimps explained the controller’s sighting.
The Air Force also consulted a scientist, who said the available information was insufficient for a definite identification. The report’s authors added that it would be possible to build an aircraft that imitated some of the reported appearance and movement. They did not conclude that this was what the controller had seen.
The object the controller saw has not been identified. The report concluded that there was not enough information for a definite identification and raised the possibility that a specially built aircraft could have imitated some of the reported characteristics, without saying that this was the explanation.
The object changed location but kept spinning. The report leaves that movement, and what exactly was there, unexplained.