"In 1950 Stan Hubbard was an experienced test pilot based at the Royal Air- craft Establishment at Farnborough, site of one of the aeronautical indus- try’s most important annual events, the September air show. On the morning of 15 August, a dry, clear summer’s day, Flight Lieutenant Hub- bard was walking along the airfield runway towards his quarters. He later recalled his attention was attracted by what he described as ‘a strange dis- tant humming sound’. I had the chance to interview him in 2002 and he remembered then how, turning to investigate, he saw in the direction of Basingstoke an object that looked
‘for all the world like the edge-on view of a discus, the sort of discus we used to throw at sports day in school ... and it was rocking from side to side very slightly ... but maintaining a very straight approach.That was something that has stuck in my mind very clearly, vividly, to this day.’ 17
As it approached the airfield the sound emanating from the object increased in intensity to become ‘a heavy, dominant humming with an associated sub- dued crackling-hissing ... which reminded me strongly of the noise inside a large active electrical power station.’ He continued:
‘It was light grey in colour, a bit like mother of pearl, but blurred. It was obviously reflecting light because as it rocked it looked like a pan lid as you rotate it, with segments of light rotating around. And I could see that around the edge as it went overhead, it was a different colour, it had a definite edge to it. And the whole of the edge was a mass of tiny crack- ling, sparkling lights. And associated with that, there was a real impact of a very strong ozone smell.
‘There were no windows or portholes or any other characteristics at all. It was featureless, and the remarkable thing about it was there was no sound of air movement ... as the object was coming closer and then went overhead I tried to estimate its size, altitude and speed, but with the absence of any readily identifiable feature it was difficult to gauge these factors with any confidence... I guessed that its height above ground when first seen was probably between 700 and 1000 [ft] and since it certainly seemed to maintain altitude throughout the period of my observation, I guessed that it would have to be about 100 ft in diameter. It must have been travelling very fast, perhaps as high as 500 to 900 mph.’
Hubbard immediately reported this sighting to his commanding officer and soon afterwards received a visit from members of the Ministry of Defence’s Flying Saucer Working Party, which had been established that same month to look into the UFO mystery. Chaired by G.L. Turney, head of scientific intelligence at the Admiralty, it included five intelligence officers, two of whom were scientists, the other three representing the intelligence branches of the army, navy and RAF. Hubbard recalled the questions included:
‘ “How high was it?” “How big was it?” “How fast was it?” “What was it?” ... and one question which I think reflects the tenor of the interview was: “What do you suppose the object was, and where would it have come from?” I replied simply that in my opinion it was not something that had been designed and built on this Earth. Clearly, from the effect it had on the team, it was the wrong answer.’
The working party’s visit to Farnborough would not be the last. On the afternoon of 5 September 1950, just two weeks after Hubbard’s first obser- vation, he saw what he believes was the same object again. On this occasion he was standing with five other serving RAF airmen on the watch-tower waiting for a display by the Hawker P.1081 when he spotted the object in the sky to the south of the airfield, towards Guildford. ‘I grabbed hold of the chap next to me,’ he recalled, ‘and said: “Hey, what do you think that is?” Pointing ... and he shouted “My God! Go get a camera quick! Go get some binoculars!”’
Hubbard and his colleagues then watched an incredible performance of aerobatics by what the official report describes as ‘a flat disc, light pearl in colour [ and ] about the size of a shirt button.’ Hubbard described it as
‘fluttering, as though bordering on instability, in a hovering mode, the object would swoop off in a slight dive at incredibly high speed and in quite stable flight, then stop abruptly and go into another fluttering hover
mode. This performance was repeated many times ... and it appeared that all this was taking place some eight to ten miles south of us over the Farnham area.’
The UFO was under observation for some 10 minutes during which the lit- tle crowd had swelled to more than a dozen RAF personnel. ‘They were awestruck,’ Hubbard recalls, ‘but not one of them had a camera! I remem- ber one of them saying “Sorry Stan, I didn’t believe those first stories.” It made my day.’ Within 24 hours they were all questioned by the Flying Saucer Working Party. ‘We were not given their names and we were strictly warned not to ask questions of them, nor make enquiries elsewhere in the Ministry’, Hubbard said. ‘We were also warned not to discuss the
subject later, even amongst ourselves in private.’ Despite his misgivings Hubbard believed the assur- ance given by the Air Ministry member of the team that he ‘had never had a more reliable and authentic sight- ing than ours.’ He was unaware of the outcome of this investigation until he got to see a copy of the working party’s final report after its release in 2001. In its sum-
The UFO was under observation for some 10 minutes
during which the little crowd had swelled to more than
a dozen RAF personnel.
mary of Hubbard’s initial sighting the report said there ‘They were awestruck,’
was no doubt the experienced test pilot had honestly described what he had seen,
Hubbard recalls
‘but we find it impossible to believe that a mosunconventional aircraft, of exceptional speed, could have travelled at no great altitude, in the middle of a fine summer morning, over a populous and air-minded district like Farnborough, without attracting the atten- tion of more than one observer.’ ( DEFE 44 /119 )
Accordingly, they concluded he was ‘the victim of an optical illusion, or that he observed some quite normal type of aircraft and deceived himself about its shape and speed.’The report then turned its attention to the second inci- dent, which they described as ‘an interesting example of one report influ- encing another.’ Although Hubbard believed the objects he saw on both occasions were identical, the authors felt this opinion was of little value. While they had no doubt a flying object of some sort had been seen,
‘we again find it impossible to believe that an unconventional aircraft, manoeuvring for some time over a populous area, could have failed to attract the attention of other observers.We conclude that the officers in fact saw some quite normal aircraft, manoeuvring at extreme visual range, and were led by the previous report to believe it to be something abnormal.’(DEFE 44/119)
The working party were satisfied this solution was correct because of another example of misperception reported to them by the Air Ministry member of their team, Wing Commander Myles Formby. Whilst on a rifle range near Portsmouth he spotted what he at first thought was a ‘flying saucer’ in the distance.
‘Visibility was good, there being a cloudless sky and bright sunshine. The object was located and held by a telescope and gave the appearance of being a circular shining disc moving on a regular flight path. It was only after observation had been kept for several minutes, and the altitude of the object changed so that it did not reflect the sunlight to the observer’s eye, that it was identified as being a perfectly normal aircraft.’ ( DEFE 44 /119 )"
https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/the-ufo-files-extract.pdf