Mysterious Crewless B-17G Landed Itself During World War 2!
Crewless B-17G Lands–The Unsolved Aviation Mystery!
It's a documented fact that, on November 21, 1944, a crewless B-17G Flying Fortress (the same type in video keyframe with nose blown apart by a direct hit from flak) of the 91st Bomb Group, somehow landed itself. To be clear, only in the last few years has it been possible for a drone to land itself autonomously, making it effectively impossible to say the autopilot or nonexistent ALS (Automatic Landing System) did it! The American bomber landed unannounced in front of, almost atop, shocked British antiaircraft gunners in Belgium. When it landed, no one on the ground knew the big heavy bomber was devoid of crew, either.
At this point, we're off into the realm Schroedinger's Cat Paradox, the quantum paradox in which a cat is sealed into a steel box into which a flask of poison and a vial of radioactive material have been added, both of which can kill a cat after an indeterminate time driven by what the cat does or doesn't do, air supply, etc., but there's no way to observe inside the box. Thus, at any given moment the cat is simultaneously dead and alive. Why? Two wildly disparate, and mutually exclusive, descriptions of what happened and how have been presented, and neither one makes sense. As described in the above fascinating video, the plane seemed to appear out of nowhere with all four engines turning but flying erratically, had the landing gear down but, being too high, missed the airfield completely and would up making a remarkably low damage crash landing in a farm field. Other than the minor damage from the crash landing, the B17G was completely intact as an airplane.
15 minutes after the plane was down, with no one having come out, and 3 of 4 engines still running on a plane quite possibly still carrying at least a ton of bombs, a rescue team was sent in, and when a member of it finally got inside not only found no one, but found all necessary parachutes still in the plane, together with that day's radio frequencies, recognition signals and even codes at what's reported as being the navigator's position but had to be the radio operator's position.
Okay. So a plane with no crew somehow made a phenomenal crash landing and, upon careful inspection by multiple witnesses, found not to be battle damaged at all. Weird, right?
But now, let's look at what makes this case even stranger, for in that scenario, the plane took, according to the pilot, a direct hit in the full bomb bay. To give you some sense of what that looks like, this is the loaded bomb bay for a B-17.
Now, imagine an antiaircraft shell goes off inside that very confined space. Would the combination of the blast and thousands of fragments leave definitive proof of such an explosion, in such a way there'd be no mistake of such a hit? Even if the plane exploded in midair, there would be telltale holes and explosive residue on the pieces which fell from the sky. Here's what kind of damage a direct hit can do. As it happens, this was also a 91st Bomb Group aircraft!
If the shell was a dud, wouldn't there be at least one readily visibly hole in the bomb bay doors (unless already open) and likely clean through the opposite side of the plane whether they were closed or not ? Of course there would.
Since no one was on the plane when checked, and without any way of explaining the autonomous landing, concern shifted to the crew's safety. The thought was that the crew had bailed out and the plane somehow landed itself. Those inconveniently still present parachutes made that hard to sell, but someone claimed the crew bailed out using spare parachutes. Hardly likely, for parachutes are issued items, which must be signed for. In fact, every parachute had its own logbook! The scale of issue is one parachute per man. Have never heard or read of spare parachutes being carried on a bomber, not least because they were crammed end to end with men in bulky high altitude electrically heated flight suits, .50 caliber ammunition galore and the heavy machine guns themselves, oxygen bottles, fire extinguishers and more. Do you see room for extra parachute sets in this wartime photo? What, then happened to the crew? How could a plane which carried a total of 10 crew not only have 10 parachutes still left aboard, but apparently 1 or 2 additional ones? Does any of this make sense? Not to me!
Let's review. The nameless B-17G, with no observable damage whatsoever, other than that from the crash landing, is inspected and found to have no crew, but parachutes over and above those needed for everyone aboard. Yet the pilot says the plane took a direct flak hit in the bomb bay and lost an engine. This is why I invoked the famous Schroedinger's Cat Paradox. Here, we have an aircraft which somehow takes a direct hit to the bomb bay by flak and also suffers first an engine loss, then two. Can the plane be both simultaneously unscathed by flak and really badly damaged? No, it can't.
How can an entire crew bail out yet leave not only all the crew's parachutes behind, but one or two spares? Can understand a couple of spares as backups in case one or two chutes is damaged by flak coming into the plane or fire from enemy fighters, but can conceive of no scenario in which the person issuing the parachutes would issue an entire additional set. Yet we're told the entire crew survived. Consequently, we're left with a plane both intact and ruined which landed, a crew that, because it bailed out without parachutes, should be dead, no report whatsoever of pictures of this marvelous aircraft which made aviation history. Oh, and a great story for the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, followed by other papers!
As soon as I understood what happened while watching the video, a bell went off in my head and my guts started figuratively talking to me. Gut feeling! Learned long ago and several times the hard way to pay attention to these, and I suddenly recalled an incident with some similarities, albeit loose ones. In respected broadcaster, lecturer and UFO researcher Timothy Good's landmark tome Above Top Secret (pp. 228-229), he describes a 1965 incident in Russia in which a big biplane propeller driven Antonov An-2 mail transport with seven people aboard was found, post disappearance, in a forest clearing with no one aboard and showing every evidence of having been simply set down in the grass vertically. No landing marks and no footprints. Further, there was circular scorching of grass and a circular dent in the ground ~100 yards from the plane. Unfortunately, no one bothered to state the characteristics or dimensions of either the scorch marks or the dent. Have read another account of this in which the passengers were described as high-ranking officers, which suggests to me this wasn't a mail plane but a military plane used as an executive transport. Frankly, this whole thing screams UFO, tractor beam and alien abduction for purposes unknown. Another, more exotic but descriptive term for aliens would be ETs/EDs (Extraterreresrials/ Extradimensionals).
Clearly, there is a gigantic chasm between the two versions of the crewless B-17G landing story, but here is a one that makes far better sense–in an extraordinary way. It not only explains the observables, but also indicates a likely coverup by baffled military offiacaldom. What if this is what really happened?
An Outrageous Explanation That Best Fits The Evidence
Suppose the ghost ship was intercepted and taken by a UFO before hitting the target area; that there really was lots of flak (totally to be expected, given that the vast Leuna synthetic oil plant, the target near Merseburg, Germany, was vital to Germany's war effort). Further, suppose that the otherworldly/otherdimensional interlopers remove the crew either physically while the plane is inside the UFO or with the plane still airborne and via the sort of teleporter seen on Star Trek™. Either way, this explains why the parachutes remained aboard and why the plane was abandoned, yet untouched. If the plane was held by a tractor beam and a transporter used, then the plane would've been still airborne throughout the entire incident. Have no direct explanation to offer ref the landing gear being down. What's known for sure is that UFOs, in incident after incident, have been found to interfere with flight controls and electronics, with full function restored in every instance when the UFO broke contact and left the area. See, for example, the famous Tehran, Iran UFO incident in 1976. Interference with electrical and electronic devices has also been reported regarding cars and surface installations. B-17 landing gear is electrically operated, with manual crank down as backup. And where Red Army senior command officers were apparently likely taken and never returned, here the crew was returned, possibly with memory of their abduction erased and hypnotically induced screen memories substituted, as reported by such pioneers as artist, author and alien abduction researcher Bud Hopkins and bestselling author, alien abduction experiencer and UFO researcher Whitley Strieber. Was the crew returned because its members were of no use to the ETs/ EDs, as opposed to high-ranking Red Army officers and staff?
If we posit at least the gist of my notion to be true, now 8th Air Force leadership has a problem, for it's got two wildly disparate sets of information and no apparent explanations. If the crewmen's memories were indeed altered, then interviewing the crew would've only gotten firmly stated screen memories from people who absolutely believed them to be true, but the intact bomber told another story altogether. From an organizational survival and PR standpoint, the best course was to simply let the incident be seen as a miracle and not let the crew talk to the press at all. What I posit provides an explanation that resolves several apparent gigantic disconnects in the two stories, albeit in an extreme manner. Also, if anyone could identify flak damage, it would be an antiaircraft gun crew, as described in this account. In turn, in evaluating the testimony, believe that primacy in credibility should be given to the known direct observers of the appearance, landing and exploration of the crewless bomber that somehow landed and not to the mysteriously found crew of the bomber, for whom have been seen no interview docs or any other kind of interview.
Overall, the best evidence appears to support a case that both the plane and the crew were likely temporarily taken by aliens/ETs/EDs in a UFO, that the eyewitness accounts of the appearance, landing and exploration of the crewless B-17G that landed anyway are credible, and that, for the reasons given by me, the still unfound interviews by the pilot and remaining crew are suspect and in no way fit the multiple eyewitness observations. Finally, it appears 8th Air Force command may have, for several reasons, kept the entire crew of that B-17G away from the reporters, the plane or both in order to both generate favorable publicity on the home front and avoid trying to explain irreconcilable differences between the two different stories. Am sure many on the Home Front took the view that God took the men to heaven and sent the plane home to inspire the people and back the war effort against the evil incarnate Nazis.