Let's fall back, for a moment, to the timing of the event. This was July 1948. It was about the time that those at Project Sign who believed that flying saucers represented extraterrestrial visitation had put together their estimate of the situation. General Vandenberg rejected it and almost everyone who had been involved was replaced at Project Sign.
What this does is provide us with a couple of conclusions for this case. First, Captain Robert R. Sneider, one of those who lost his job in the great Sign cleaning, wrote on November 12, 1948, "A preponderance of evidence is available to establish that in almost all cases an unidentified object was seen within stated times and dates over an extended area, pursuing a general Southerly course. Descriptions as to size, shape, color and movements are fairly consistent."
Sneider also wrote, "The flying anomaly observed remains unidentified as to origin, construction and power source."
But eventually there was another solution offered. Hynek, in his attempts to explain the case suggested that Massey might have been mistaken. Maybe he saw the object at the same time as Chiles and Whitted. If that was the case, then, according to Hynek, "the object must have been an extraordinary meteor." The glowing ion trail might have produced the "subjective impression of a ship with lighted windows." Hynek thought that psychological research would be needed to answer the question of whether such an impression would result from the stimuli of a bright meteor seen close.
Philip J. Klass, who believes that all flying saucer reports can be explained in the mundane, in UFOs Explained, wrote about a series of sightings that took place on March 3, 1968 over parts of Tennessee, Indiana and Ohio. In Tennessee, three people, including the mayor of a large city, were talking when one of them saw something in the distance and pointed it out to the others. As the object approached, they saw an orange-colored flame firing from the rear. All thought the object was a fat cigar, "the size of one of our largest airplane fuselages… "
The woman sent a letter to the Air Force in which she described square shaped windows that appeared to be brightly lighted. And she thought the fuselage had been constructed of flat metal riveted together. She provided a drawing for the Air Force investigators.
At about the same time, a group of six near Shoals, Indiana saw a huge, cigar-shaped craft with a flaming tail and many brightly lighted windows flash overhead. The people thought the object was at treetop level. One of those who reported the sighting to the Air Force even suggested that it wasn't a meteor because "meteors don't have windows and don't turn corners."
There were other sightings in Ohio on that same night at about that same time. A school teacher with four academic degrees including a Ph.D. was out walking her dog when she saw three objects fly overhead. These craft looked like inverted saucers and she thought they were about 1500 feet above the ground.
But hers wasn't the only sighting in Ohio. An industrial executive who lived in Dayton was returning from Cincinnati when he saw three bright objects in what he thought of as a triangular formation. As they flew, they seemed to make a "distinct curve" in their flight path. Because of their speed, and a lack of noise, the executive believed that the three objects were under intelligent control.
If we assume that the observers in Tennessee and Indiana saw the same objects that were sighted in Ohio, and we check the time carefully, we learn that the re-entry of a Soviet booster of the Zond-IV occurred about the same time. Is it possible that the Zond-IV is responsible for the series of sightings, including those of a cigar-shaped craft that is quite similar to that reported by Chiles and Whitted almost twenty years earlier?
There is a problem with that assumption, however. The witnesses in Tennessee and Indiana saw a single object. Their descriptions do mirror those of Chiles and Whitted. But the witnesses in Ohio saw three objects. If we separate the sightings, then we have two events, not a single case. And, if there are two events, then the Zond-IV re-entry is inadequate to explain everything. In fact, the witnesses in Tennessee and Indiana might have seen exactly what they reported, and if that is the case, then a link to explaining Chiles and Whitted as a natural phenomenon is broken. There is no reason to assume that Chiles and Whitted saw a meteor, nor is there sufficient reason to believe that the witnesses in Tennessee and Indiana saw Zond-IV.
The connection was the similarity of the drawings made by Chiles and Whitted and one of the observers in Tennessee. If she saw Zond-IV, then that would be suggestive of a psychological aberration that would induce the hallucination of windows on bright streaks of light. But once again, we have the same problem that Hynek had two decades before. There is no solid scientific evidence to support the conclusion.
During the interviews with newspaper reporters, Chiles and Whitted supposedly said that they had felt turbulence that they believed was the result of the passage of the object. If true, that single fact would rule out a meteor as the culprit.
A search of the Blue Book files reveals that Chiles said in a statement he signed on August 3, 1948, "There was no prop wash or rough air felt as it passed."
In a statement taken by military officers in the days that followed the sighting, Whitted said, "We heard no noise nor did we feel any turbulence from the object."
It would seem, then, that neither man reported any turbulence or disturbance of the air as the object passed them. The quotes from the newspapers would, therefore, be in error.
On July 13, 1961, Dr. Donald E. Menzel, wrote to Major William T. Coleman at the Pentagon, discussing UFO sightings and a book that Menzel was writing. Menzel noted, "One further question that we have. Our study of the famous Chiles case indicates that the UFO was merely a meteor. Apparently this was a considered solution in the early days. We wonder why it was abandoned."
Of course, he is referring to Hynek's suggestion that had not gained much support at Sign in 1948. By way of contrast to Menzel's argument for the meteor theory is Dr. James McDonald's counter argument which was based on his review of the newspaper files and his own, personal interviews with Chiles and Whitted. McDonald wrote, "Both pilots reiterated to me, quite recently, that each saw square ports or windows along the side of the fuselage-shaped object from the rear of which a cherry-red wake emerged, extending back 50-100 feet aft of the object. To term this a 'meteor' is not even qualitatively reasonable. One can reject testimony; but reason forbids calling the object a meteor."
And, we can take this one step farther. As mentioned, it is well known that meteors can appear to fly parallel to the ground. They can fall straight. They come in a variety of colors that can fool people. But they never trail upwards. Remember Chiles, in his statement explained that they lost sight of the object as it "pulled up sharply" and disappeared into a cloud. That description alone should sufficient to eliminate a meteor from consideration for the explanation.
So we're back to where we started. Two airline pilots see something flash through the sky at them. Both talk of a double row of square windows, a cigar shape, and a red flame from the rear. A passenger on the plane sees a streak of light, but no details.
An hour earlier a man at Robins Air Force Base sees a cigar-shaped craft flash overhead. He sees no windows, but his position on the ground, and his viewing angle of the craft might have precluded those details. His general description matches that given by the pilots. If the cases are linked, then the meteor answer is lost.