• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Attack On An American Transport Plane (1940s)?

The earliest documented version I can locate is Stringfield's 1955 account.

I can't confirm whether Gardner himself published anything about this alleged incident earlier. If he did, it couldn't have pre-dated Stringfield's account by more than circa 1 year (see below).

Many accounts state the same thing Berlitz claimed:

"The incident was successfully hushed up and did not come to light for fifteen years, when investigator Robert Coe Gardner learned of it from someone who was there."

This and the consistent inclusion of closely similar passages in other accounts indicate:

- Everything leads back to Gardner;
- Gardner's own source - if mentioned at all - remains mysterious (A witness?; a San Diego newspaper?); and
- Gardner didn't have a story to tell until circa 1954 (15 years after the alleged event).
 
The earliest documented version I can locate is Stringfield's 1955 account.

I can't confirm whether Gardner himself published anything about this alleged incident earlier. If he did, it couldn't have pre-dated Stringfield's account by more than circa 1 year (see below).

Many accounts state the same thing Berlitz claimed:



This and the consistent inclusion of closely similar passages in other accounts indicate:

- Everything leads back to Gardner;
- Gardner's own source - if mentioned at all - remains mysterious (A witness?; a San Diego newspaper?); and
- Gardner didn't have a story to tell until circa 1954 (15 years after the alleged event).
don't forget the alleged FSR article
 
don't forget the alleged FSR article

Clark wrote the following synopsis of the alleged 1939 incident as the introduction to his article 'Why UFOs are Hostile' (Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 47, no. 4, Winter 2002):

JClark-FSR-Winter2002.jpg

SOURCE: http://www.noufors.com/Documents/Bo...ns/Flying Saucer Review/FSR,2002,V 47,N 4.pdf

This certainly resembles the text everyone else has copied. There's no mention of sources for this story, not even in the references / footnotes to this article. Neither is there any mention of his having discussed it before.

I'm not sure what Clark would be expected to add to the story about the story - he was no more than 9 years old at the time the Stringfield account was published.
 
Clark wrote the following synopsis of the alleged 1939 incident as the introduction to his article 'Why UFOs are Hostile' (Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 47, no. 4, Winter 2002):

SOURCE: http://www.noufors.com/Documents/Books, Manuals and Published Papers/Specialty UFO Publications/Flying Saucer Review/FSR,2002,V 47,N 4.pdf

This certainly resembles the text everyone else has copied. There's no mention of sources for this story, not even in the references / footnotes to this article. Neither is there any mention of his having discussed it before.

I'm not sure what Clark would be expected to add to the story about the story - he was no more than 9 years old at the time the Stringfield account was published.
so where did the idea of this alleged "newspaper article" come from?
 
so where did the idea of this alleged "newspaper article" come from?

I'm not certain, but here's what I think based on the evidence so far ...

- The first writer to cite Gardner is Stringfield in 1955. Stringfield makes no mention of any newspaper article, but refers to Gardner's 'files'.

- Later accounts repeatedly claim the 1939 incident wasn't publicized until Gardner discovered the story somehow. Some of these later accounts mention a newspaper article, while others claim Gardner "learned of it from someone who was there."

- I've not seen any account that claims Gardner discovered - much less spread - the story until 15 years after it allegedly happened (i.e., circa 1954).

- I've not been able to locate any Gardner publication of this specific story until decades later. There's always the chance he published a note or letter in any of the UFO publications that came and went from the 1950's onward.

- It appears to me that all subsequent writers more or less copied and glossed Stringfield's account, so ...

- My current working theory is that Stringfield's account is 'Story Zero' until and unless someone either digs up a San Diego newspaper item from 1939 or an earlier / more seminal account from Gardner or someone else.
 
Additional notes ...

FWIW, I've found multiple claims among the (often snide and back-biting) UFO circles that Gardner was fond of clipping any old thing from a print publication (including newspapers) and shopping it around without any text or context. In other words, he was reputed to present clippings plus no more than his own verbal explanations for their significance. I don't know whether it's true, and I don't know when it allegedly started, but it's clear to me Gardner's reputation wasn't unblemished.

I've found one and only one official record of any 1939 aviation accidents / incidents involving the Marine / Naval Air Station(s) in San Diego. This involved a seaplane (PBY 'Catalina') that 'water-looped' when landing at or near NAS San Diego in May 1939. The records vary as to whether there were casualties.

This story hinges on there being a Navy / Marine transport aircraft with sufficient range to fly from San Diego to Honolulu. As of 1939, the USN had no transport aircraft or seaplanes with sufficient range for a one-way trip between these two locations.
 
I'm not certain, but here's what I think based on the evidence so far ...

- The first writer to cite Gardner is Stringfield in 1955. Stringfield makes no mention of any newspaper article, but refers to Gardner's 'files'.

- Later accounts repeatedly claim the 1939 incident wasn't publicized until Gardner discovered the story somehow. Some of these later accounts mention a newspaper article, while others claim Gardner "learned of it from someone who was there."

- I've not seen any account that claims Gardner discovered - much less spread - the story until 15 years after it allegedly happened (i.e., circa 1954).

- I've not been able to locate any Gardner publication of this specific story until decades later. There's always the chance he published a note or letter in any of the UFO publications that came and went from the 1950's onward.

- It appears to me that all subsequent writers more or less copied and glossed Stringfield's account, so ...

- My current working theory is that Stringfield's account is 'Story Zero' until and unless someone either digs up a San Diego newspaper item from 1939 or an earlier / more seminal account from Gardner or someone else.
frankly the springfield source tells me everthing that i want to know, spring was notorious for starting alongside richard doty, robert lazar and some other individuals the ufology dork age in the 80's, with unsubstantiated stories about ufo crashes and underground bases.
he likely got that story from one of his "contacts"
 
I don't think Stringfield was involved in any of the underground base nonsense. He was very active in the 50s, long before those other clowns. I've read a lot of what he published, mostly self-published, and while he might have been a lot more excited about some stuff than he needed to be, I think it's unfair to lump him in with the con artists. He did a hell of a lot of work in the field, and was no flake.
 
Has anyone questioned why this apparently bogus story seems to have always been framed as a UFO encounter?

This story seems to have originated within the UFO community, yet none of the accounts I've seen mention any facts that point to a UFO sighting / encounter.
 
I don't think Stringfield was involved in any of the underground base nonsense. He was very active in the 50s, long before those other clowns. I've read a lot of what he published, mostly self-published, and while he might have been a lot more excited about some stuff than he needed to be, I think it's unfair to lump him in with the con artists. He did a hell of a lot of work in the field, and was no flake.

I tend to agree ... Stringfield always struck me as an earnest, if sometimes excessively enthusiastic, person interested in the UFO phenomena.

It there's any con / BS artist behind the 1939 story, my bet is on Gardner.
 
Has anyone questioned why this apparently bogus story seems to have always been framed as a UFO encounter?

This story seems to have originated within the UFO community, yet none of the accounts I've seen mention any facts that point to a UFO sighting / encounter.

Good question. It's not the only such weird story to get thrown on the UFO pile, of course. If there is a nugget of truth in it, which I seriously doubt, there might have been more to it and the association begun there. Mostly I think it's another tall tale that got repeated too many times. It certainly is weird. But then, what else but a flying saucer could be responsible for all the damage and injuries claimed to have been sustained by a plane and its occupants in flight? Sea serpents? Witches? Poltergeists? Boris Badanov?
 
... But then, what else but a flying saucer could be responsible for all the damage and injuries claimed to have been sustained by a plane and its occupants in flight? Sea serpents? Witches? Poltergeists? Boris Badanov?

Some of the later (i.e., recycled / embellished) accounts touch on the notion the aircraft may have been intercepted and attacked by Japanese forces out in the Pacific. Those accounts that mention this possibility then dismiss it for one reason or the other.

To the best of my recollection, none of the accounts mentioning the possibility of a military attack bother to wonder why at least 2 sidearms had been emptied inside the aircraft.
 
I forgot to mention something about the 2002 Clark excerpt (cf. post #33) that's odd. Clark refers to the 1939 story as a "28 year-old air disaster."

This makes me wonder if his 2002 text was an inadvertently literal recycling of something written earlier - e.g., in 1967.
 
"The pilot whose parachute opened, that lowered him to his home field, had a bullet hole in his forehead. He had been dead for hours."

A great story, but what is the source please?
 
Has anyone questioned why this apparently bogus story seems to have always been framed as a UFO encounter?

This story seems to have originated within the UFO community, yet none of the accounts I've seen mention any facts that point to a UFO sighting / encounter.
typical ETH cultist logic
because if it happened in the skies it must be aliens, right?
 
I don't think Stringfield was involved in any of the underground base nonsense. He was very active in the 50s, long before those other clowns. I've read a lot of what he published, mostly self-published, and while he might have been a lot more excited about some stuff than he needed to be, I think it's unfair to lump him in with the con artists. He did a hell of a lot of work in the field, and was no flake.
he never did any hoaxes himself, but helped the spread of the fire
 
I forgot to mention something about the 2002 Clark excerpt (cf. post #33) that's odd. Clark refers to the 1939 story as a "28 year-old air disaster."

This makes me wonder if his 2002 text was an inadvertently literal recycling of something written earlier - e.g., in 1967.
hmmm, can you find any source of this story from that time period?
but i have to agree, looks like clark copy-pasted some old UFO article
 
hmmm, can you find any source of this story from that time period?
but i have to agree, looks like clark copy-pasted some old UFO article

Most likely his own article. He has been publishing his collections of reports for decades.
 
he never did any hoaxes himself, but helped the spread of the fire

He had a lot in common with John Keel beside being a contemporary of his. He collected and published reports, mostly, and also interviewed witnesses. He was also a lot like Charles Fort. Here's a collection of his newsletters, linked earlier in this thread, I think. Such things are valuable, and I'm glad these guys took the trouble to collect the stories.

http://www.cufos.org/Orbit/ORBIT Volume II 1955-56R.pdf

That was a well done newsletter. Makes Mysterious Universe look like, I dunno, Reddit or something.
 
He had a lot in common with John Keel beside being a contemporary of his. He collected and published reports, mostly, and also interviewed witnesses. He was also a lot like Charles Fort. Here's a collection of his newsletters, linked earlier in this thread, I think. Such things are valuable, and I'm glad these guys took the trouble to collect the stories.

http://www.cufos.org/Orbit/ORBIT Volume II 1955-56R.pdf

That was a well done newsletter. Makes Mysterious Universe look like, I dunno, Reddit or something.
but unlike john keel, who stayed clear until his dead, springfield din't resist and sadly entered into ufo mythology later in his life
 
The earlier version of Jerome Clarke's account can be found in FSR for Nov/Dec 1967. This is presumably the source Keel used in Our Haunted Planet. I must confess that in my youth I sometimes did not note the name or date of news clippings I cut out -- to me the interesting story I found was more important than such details, so it's possible Gardner just scooped the story up and remembered only that it was from a newspaper. Also, writers sometimes receive clippings from fans and readers that lack names/dates -- but some stories are so good, they just have to print them!
 
YA author Daniel Cohen noticed the "everything is caused by UFOs" phenomenon back in 1972: "A few years ago I attended a lecture by one of the country's leading saucer 'investigators'. He spoke about the various frightening things that had happened to people who became involved with flying saucers. Then, right in the middle of his lecture, he he launched into a very effective retelling of the story of Flight 19. When he got to the part about about the compasses going haywire, the audience gasped in shock and surprise . . . When he had finished the story of Flight 19, he simply followed it with another flying saucer tale. His audience assumed that one enigma must be related to another; there was no need to demonstrate any relationship." -- Voodoo, Devils, and the New Invisible World, pp. 155-156.
 
The earlier version of Jerome Clarke's account can be found in FSR for Nov/Dec 1967
*internet hug*
and again no mention of this "newspaper", where the hell keel got that information from? personal communications with jerome?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top