Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
471801034
label
1969: Unidentified Flying Objects - Unanswered (folder B156-24)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
471801034
contentType
document
title
1969: Unidentified Flying Objects - Unanswered (folder B156-24)
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Legislative Issues Files
subjects
Unidentified flying objects
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
471801034
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1969-01-01
year
1969
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1969-01-01
year
1969
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
291d45c4d6c30ab4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box B156, folder "1969: Unidentified Flying Objects
(folder 24)" of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the
United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives
collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in
the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are
presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject
to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
1969: Unidentified Flying Objects - Unanswered (folder
B156-24)
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
my roskopf
Helen
21 artman ark
72 840
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
Segialation
"U.F.O"
MEMO
N/A
paul Harvey Comments--NBC--TV--Noon, Tuesday, March 18, 1969:
"The highly respected Journal of Astronautics and Aeronautics, in
an article in the latest issue, recommends further investigations into
the UFO problem."
NEWSCAST--NBC-TV, TODAY SHOW, Friday, March 21, 1969:
"There was a series of 40 earthquakes just off the coast of southern
California last night. A team has been sent to investigate."
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
Segislative
" UFO"
December 26, 1968
MIF/A
Mr. Gerald Ford
Michigan Office
425 Cherry Street SE.
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Dear Mr. Ford
About three years ago in 1966 March 31, I wrote to you
about trying to obtain surplus equipment to track UFO,s.
My two friends Mark Turner and Greg Crowe worked with me at
this time. We could not reach the requirments given to us
to obtain this equipment.
Well Mark and Greg have lost there interest in UFO,s. This
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
is my eighth year in studing them. I have obtained very
much knowledge on them. By adding the facts and clues and
sightings, I do not have to call them undentified flying
objects. I know what they are and I know where they come from.
Mr. Ford young people hold big surprises. You may reply in
answer to this letter if you wish. And also take it serious
if you wish.
Kindest personal regards.
Sincerely,
J.P. P. Missad,
Gabriel UFO. Iv.
Bob Gabriel P Missad UFO. IV.
P0-34771 Greenville South Carolina
Jones University
Page 8
UFO INVESTIGATOR
THE
MONEY
(Continued from Page 5)
The radar screens at the Minot facilities are seldom watched
according to USAF officials.
These four items alone occupy 15% of the pages in the Report, and
U.F.O.
used up 21% of the total Project budget. Money was also wasted on
Three Civil Air Patrol cadets later reported that they saw one of the
Investigator
investigations of obvious crackpot/psychological reports, and on studies
objects between Bismarck and Mandan, flying fast toward the southeast.
It emitted "a sound. they never heard before.'
of radar chaff, lens flare (light leak) photographs, and other well-known
phenomena which NICAP had pointed out, in early briefings of the
FACTS ABOUT UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
Project staff, as useless, pointless lines of investigation.
Object Reacts to Light
If these lavish expenditures for little or no result had been spent to
Published by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena
better purpose, a great deal of solid and significant information might
A series of nightly reports in the Bismarck-Minot area followed. In
have been obtained. One outside scientist, for example, with a budget less
general, observers described the same or a similar object. At various times
than 1% that of Colorado, has followed up almost 300 strong cases,
it emitted a bright light beam, responded to a patrolman's spotlight,
Vol. IV, No. 9
(This Replaces Nov-Dec 68 Issue)
SPECIAL January 1969
interviewing witnesses in person and by telephone, and obtaining a great
hovered near a power plant, and was seen by an F-106 Air Force pilot
deal of new information and useful detail.
while in flight.
At 7 p.m., Nov. 27, a glowing, round, white UFO, with purple lights
lining the top and bottom, was seen by several witnesses over Belcourt,
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CONDON REPORT
Sighting Reports
near Bismarck. The object also carried a red light "that would shine a
red-colored beam toward the ground whenever (it) stopped."
Belcourt Police Officer Joseph Trotier got to within one-half mile of
A larger evaluation by numerous scientists and technical
the UFO, which was hovering about 500 feet from the ground. Officer
advisers is forthcoming. Meanwhile, here are some important
A UFO that executed a sharp, 180-degree turn and was tracked on
Trotier quickly shone his patrol car spotlight onto the object, which
points.
radar and an object that emitted a beam of light onto an automobile,
immediately extinguished its lights and disappeared. It reappeared five
apparently causing electro-magnetic (E-M) effects, highlight recent
minutes later with its lights on and moved south toward Minot.
The conclusions of the Colorado University UFO project are fully
Witnesses Discredited
high-quality reports.
"I checked with Minot AFB on that particular evening," Mr.
negative, as we predicted.
A radar-visual sighting from Bismarck, North Dakota, was the first in
Flickinger reported, "while I was listening to the police officers in
However, some of the chapters contain strange contradictions of what
In regard to witnesses, he said, "Phenomena is often noted by a
a group of reports from around the Bismarck-Minot area during late
Belcourt report their sighting over the state police radio. The Air Force
the project's director, Dr. Edward U. Condon, stated in his two opening
witness who is inexpert, inept or unduly excited." The reports, hestated,
November. NICAP's North Dakota Subcommittee Chairman, Donald
officials informed me that one of their F-106's had just landed and
are usually vague and inaccurate. He also said that witnesses often
sections. Several reports state the probable existence of structured,
Flickinger, investigated the incidents.
reported seeing this object in the Belcourt area also. The Air Force did
embellish their stories and multiple witnesses often compare notes and
intelligently controlled, unknown objects capable of precise maneuvers
At about 5:40 p.m., November 26, Jack Wilhelm, Jack Reeves, and
not investigate further, or at least if they did, they wouldn't tell us about
change their stories until they all agree.
and extremely high speeds.
John Fischer, FAA employees of the Bismarck Airport Control Tower,
it."
Even reports by some astronauts are indicated as dubious the
In one case (No. 46, Bantam, 396-407), a scientific evaluation of
A half-hour after the Trotier sighting, citizens in Deering, a town
project director. In one case he says that the window was smudged and
saw two round, white UFOs at their duty stations. They alerted Capital
photographs was carried out along with detailed interviews with the
about 25 miles northeast of Minot and in line with Belcourt, reported to
the astronauts were very busy, indicating that the report is not atthentic.
Aviation flight instructor Robert Watts, who was flying with a student in
witnesses. After an 11-page evaluation in the Bantam edition (entitled
the vicinity. (Watts sent a separate, confirming report to NICAP).
Minot FAA control tower operators seeing "a similar object" cross the
"When field studies are made by amateur organizations such as
Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects and available at most
One of the objects was heading northeast, about 45 degrees above the
sky east of town.
NICAP," Condon continued, "there are often several members present on
bookstores), the analyst states "the simplest, most direct interpretation
a team, but usually they are persons without technical training and often
horizon, and the other was going south at about 30 degrees. Suddenly,
of the photographs confirms precisely what the witnesses said they saw."
with a strong bias toward the sensational aspects of the subject.'
the UFO heading south executed a sharp, 180-degree turn, rose abruptly
Light Beam Affects Car
"This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated,
and joined the other object. The two UFOs hovered briefly, then dis-
geometric, psychological, and physical appear to be consistent with the
appeared "in seconds" toward the northeast.
At 8 p.m., November 22, Mr. Conway Jones was driving about 12
assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-
Condon and Low Praise NICAP
"There's nothing that could make a maneuver like the lower one did
miles west of Newton, Georgia, when his car radio "faded into static."
shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within
"At about this time," Jones reported to NICAP's newly-formed
On December 1, 1967, Dr. Condon wrote NICAP's Director urging
and at that rate of speed," Controller Wilhelm stated to a reporter on
sight of two witnesses," the analyst concluded. (Bantam, 407).
the (Fargo) Forum.
Georgia Subcommittee, "I saw a large bright object. about 100 feet
that we continue cooperation with the project.
in
Regarding this case, Dr. Condon stated, "The UFO images turned out
"We deeply appreciate the cooperation which has been given to our
In the investigation, Flickinger interviewed the FAA's Chief Flight
front of me and about the same distance off the ground. As I approached
to be too fuzzy to allow worthwhile photogrametric analysis."
own scientific study of UFOs," he wrote, "from both the central office
Controller at Bismarck, Mr. Alvin Bell. Following are excerpts from the
the object, a beam of light came from the yellowish-white oval down to
A Mohawk Airlines pilot computed a UFO's speed between 4,500 and
and field groups of NICAP. It is my earnest wish that we can continue to
Subcommittee chairman's report:
my auto. My engine shut off and my radio and lights ceased to
4,800 m.p.h.
"During the first few moments of the sighting, the tower operators
function."
work in full cooperation with NICAP because the help that you have
The project's analysis states that this sighting "must certainly be
had placed a call to the FAA Flight Control Radar Installation at
The light beam, Jones stated, not only lit up the car and the road but
given us so far has been of great importance
classed as an unknown pending further study, which it certainly
Malmstrom AFB, Great Falls, Montana. The radar facility there reported
the ditches and pine trees on both sides.
Further confirmation of NICAP's competence was indicated by
deserves." (Bantam, 143).
Project Coordinator Robert Low on December 8.
to the tower operators that they had the objects on radar that
they
A few minutes later, the object changed to an orange-red color and
Yet Dr. Condon's overall conclusion is that no further investigations
"NICAP's assistance has been invaluable," he stated. "I have said this
were moving erratically, at high speeds, and appeared to be about 10
withdrew its beam. Then it "moved straight up at a very high rate of
of UFOs are justified.
miles NNE of Bismarck.
speed."
A UFO paced an RAF fighter plane for 10 minutes while ground
to you many times and I would like to repeat it here. Your files, because
"Radar installations at Minot AFB and at the South Radar Base in
"My car then began to function as if it had never stopped," the
radar tracked it.
of the high caliber of field investigations NICAP has conducted, are of
Minot reported no 'bogies' on their screens at that time. However, during
witness, a bank accounts adjuster, concluded. "The engine was running
The Colorado report said of this case that the "probability that at
very good quality. Our working relationship with the headquarters office
an interview with the officers of the Minot Radar Facility, it was learned
with transmission still on drive. The lights and radio were operative."
least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high." (Bantam,
and NICAP members in the field have been from our point of view
that
their
radar. is sent by micro-wave to the FAA and USAF facility
Jones also told a reporter for the Albany Herald he was so scared
248-256).
excellent, and they have provided valuable support to our research effort.
at Malmstrom. and there it is watched visually on the screen. The FAA
that he "drove to Newton as fast as [I] could, hoping someone would
At least 20 percent of the less than 100 cases in the report are listed
It would be a great pity if they were terminated.'
facility there was the one that reported having the objects on the screen.
stop me."
as unidentified.
Kook Cases Get Coverage
Condon Did Not Investigate Cases
MESSAGE TO MEMBERS
Dr. Condon takes up considerable space in the report discussing
Dr. Condon, although he is named in the Air Force contract as the
numerous hoaxes and "contactee" trips to Venus but did not include, in
project's principal investigator, did not make a single field investigation.
his sections, even one strong, responsible case from a good witness. He
We need your help. It is crucial that we continue a full-scale campaign
Colorado report, but we feel the importance warrants it. Good sighting
Nor did he interview even one of the hundreds of pilots, astromomers,
also accepts Dr. Donald Menzel's misconceptions and states that
to bring the UFO subject out in the open in order to offset the Condon
reports are still coming in, however (see above). Now, more than ever, it
aerospace engineers, control tower operators, and other highly competent
witnesses should be examined for defective vision (spots before the eyes).
report. But the cost of doing so will be great.
is extremely important that members do all they can to send us good
witnesses sent to him by NICAP at Colorado's request.
From 1947 to 1966, Condon added, almost no attention was paid to
There will be costly printing and postage bills in preparing and
sighting cases, which will do much toward effectively offsetting the
Large volumes of case material was apparently completely ignored,
the subject by well-qualified scientists. This is not true. In 1949, for
sending vast amounts of material to scientists for evaluation. We will
Condon report. We also ask that you send us any newspaper editorials
(see page 2) including the deaths of three Air Force pilots involved in
instance, Project Grudge made use, however inadequately, of numerous
probably have to hire extra help, at least temporarily. We are making
and stories in regard to the report, complete with names and dates of the
UFO chases and a UFO encounter with an Air Force transport captain
government agencies, laboratories and private industries, including the
progress in attaining a tax-exempt status, which, if successful, will do
papers.
who said he believed they were "shot at."
Rand Corporation. Dr. Condon also ignored the fact that the Air Force,
much to relieve our financial burden, but we must hire a lawyer and an
We further ask that members make full use of the enclosed order
Dr. Condon stated that there should be no attack on the integrity of
for over 20 years, has had a chief UFO scientific consultant, Dr. J. Allen
accountant before we can continue with this.
forms.
persons having different opinions on UFOs. Yet, he ridiculed UFO
Hynek. There have been numerous other individual scientists, such as Dr.
Everyone should back us so we can get as much rebuttal material as
NICAP could never have survived this long without the generous
witnesses, well informed scientists on the subject, and NICAP. (Bantam,
James E. McDonald, who have given the subject careful study.
possible to scientists, Congressmen and news media personnel.
financial aid of its members and we are confident that you will give us
Section I).
(Continued on Page 2)
We regret that practically all of this issue has to be devoted to the
your full support during this crucial period.
Page 2
UFO INVESTIGATOR
UFO INVESTIGATOR
Page 3
NAS Report Inadequate
Credible Witnesses Ignored
Other notable early sightings were made by many private and military
pilots. The list is too long to itemize here.
THE
UFO INVESTIGATOR
A strong statement by the highly prestigious, 32,000-member
Hundreds of credible witnesses were therefore ignored because "they
One airline case discussed in some detail by Gordon Thayer (Bantam,
American Institute for Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA) calling for a
could not add anything new" to their original reports. But is this actually
Section III, Chapter 5, pp. 139-40) is the well-known BOAC sighting of
Published by
full scientific study of UFOs was presented to Dr. Condon before it was
the case? On the contrary. Both NICAP and individual investigators like
June 29, 1954, over the Quebec-Labrador area, in which the airliner was
The National Investigations Committee
published, but there is no indication that it was passed on to the National
Dr. McDonald have uncovered new information and testimony regarding
paced for a number of minutes by a large object which changed shape
on Aerial Phenomena
Academy of Sciences (NAS) for consideration.
important cases, although working on a far more modest budget than
and up to six smaller objects that emerged from and merged with the
1536 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
The NAS report fully accepting the project's conclusions and
Colorado's. In the very case that Craig mentions, the Washington
parent UFO. The project's solution for this report is a classic in itself:
Washington, D. C. 20036
recommendations was based solely upon Colorado's report itself. NAS
sightings of 1952, project scientists were given explicit new leads to
"Some almost certainly natural phenomenon, which is so rare that it
Copyright, 1969, National Investigations Committee on
scientists conducted no study and interviewed no witnesses. They also
additional information by NICAP-for example, the report of an airline
apparently never has been reported before or since."
Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) All rights reserved, ex-
cept that up to 300 words may be quoted by press media,
must have read the report quickly because there is no mention of the
employee who was present during the sightings and whose testimony had
providing NICAP is credited.
discrepancies between the report's "no evidence" conclusion and the
never been heard. The information was ignored by Colorado.
unidentified cases listed. Dr. James E. McDonald stated that the
Thus, arguing from a false premise, the Condon committee authorized
Reports by Police
Academy's acceptance of the report will prove "a serious source of future
itself to sweep aside most of the important and unexplained reports by
NICAPO Staff: Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe, Director &
Among the omissions are reports by police officers and sheriffs'
Editor-in-Chief, Gordon I. R. Lore, Jr., Assistant Direc-
embarrassment" to NAS. (See p. 7).
highly credible witnesses. Is this the scientific method?
deputies. In several cases, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
tor & Associate Editor.
Statements of dissent are pouring into NICAP from scientists,
officials also figured in the reports, such as the one at Redmond, Ore., on
Top Cases Omitted
Trademark "NICAP" Registered
newspaper editorials, cartoons, and persons, many of them highly
9/24/59, when a large disc was seen pursued by a formation of F-102s,
qualified technically, who were "disgusted" after reading the report, as
Among the cases that were brushed off were many reports by
while the flight was tracked on FAA radar; and repeated sightings, some
one correspondent put it. (See p. 7).
scientists-case material that certainly met Colorado's own requirements
at close range, of a large, lighted, cigar-shaped UFO at Red Bluff, Calif.,
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
NICAP feels that the collective body of criticism to the report will, in
of witness reliability. These unexplained cases include the following:
in mid-August, 1960.
the final analysis, discredit Colorado's conclusions and force the subject
A round, silvery UFO that flew north near the White Sands test
Other excluded cases in which police officers were involved are the
more into the open than it has ever been.
center, seen by missile expert Dr. Carl J. Zohn and three others
well-known Socorro, N. M. report by Officer Lonnie Zamora, who
Dr. Marcus Bach: Formerly head of the State Univ. of Iowa
In addition to more than half a million dollars, Colorado is also
(6/29/47); a rapidly ascending ellipsoidal UFO, seen near the horizon by
observed a landed, egg-shaped object which left traces (4/24/64); and the
School of Religion. Author & playwright, member American
receiving royalties from the hardcover and Bantam editions of the report.
astronomer Dr. Lincoln LaPaz and his family near Fort Sumner, N.M.
equally well-known police report of an 80-mile chase of a UFO from
Academy of Political & Social Sciences. PhD University of
(7/10/47); a high-speed, oval object tracked with theodolite by aerologist
Portage County, Ohio, into Pennsylvania (4/17/66).
Iowa.
Charles E. Moore and his staff during a balloon tracking at Arrey, N.M.
The number of important cases involving key witnesses is hardly
Rev. Albert H. Baller; Congregational Minister, Clinton, Mass.
WHAT HAPPENED TO KEY WITNESSES?
(4/24/49); passage overhead of a fixed formation of rectangular lights
exhausted by the examples listed above. The project's decision to ignore-
Author of children's books, graduate Nebraska Wesleyan Univ.
seen by astronomer Dr. Clyde Tombaugh and his wife at Las Cruces,
them was ill-advised. It not only removed from the field of study some of
& Boston University School of Theology.
Col. J. Bryan III, USAFR (Ret.) Writer & author, Richmond, Va.
Among the omissions in the Condon report are the hundreds of
N.M. (8/20/49); sightings of several glowing objects performing "con-
the strongest and potentially most significant data that have been
Former special asst. to Secretary of Air Force (1952-53),
detailed UFO sightings by reputable witnesses whose intelligence and
trolled maneuvers" on two consecutive days by cosmic-ray expert J.J.
accumulated in the past 20 years; it also greatly weakened the project
assigned to staff of Gen. Lauris Norstad, NATO (1959), edi-
credentials make examinations of their reports essential. Without an
Kaliszewski and associates in the air over Wisconsin and Minnesota
conclusions.
torial staff of national magazines.
evaluation of these high-quality UFO cases any conclusions are meaning-
(10/10-11/51); the sighting by aeronautical engineer Paul R. Hill and a
No study failing to examine carefully these classic cases from groups
Col. Robert Emerson, USAR; Research chemist, Emerson Test-
less.
companion at Hampton, Va., of a maneuvering flight of four objects
of well-qualified witnesses can be regarded as complete or even taken
ing Lab., Baton Rouge, La. Member American Chemical So-
Their exclusion from the official report cannot be because Dr.
(7/16/52); three round UFOs seen by astronomer Dr. H.P. Wilkens over
seriously.
ciety Speaker's Bureau, graduate Chemical Warfare School
Condon did not know that this source material existed or could not
northern Georgia during a flight from Charleston, W. Va., to Atlanta
Edgewood Arsenal, General Staff College (Ft. Leavenworth),
obtain access to it. Not only NICAP, but independent researchers, such as
(6/11/54); a sighting by physicist Dr. Vasil Uzunoglu of a lighted,
& other military schools.
Dr. James E. McDonald, made special efforts to be certain that the
low-flying UFO near Andrews AFB, Md. (8/1/66); a boomerang-shaped
Mr. Dewey J. Fournet: former major, USAF (Intelligence);
Colorado University scientists were aware of these cases.
object over Houston, Texas, observed by Dr. Albert Kuntz, University of
former AFHQ Monitor of official UFO program; nowa business
The fact that the project did have these reports in its records is
Houston psychologist (1/21/67); geology professor Bryce M. Hand's
analyst for a national corporation; Baton Rouge, La.
Mr. J. B. Hartranft, Jr.: President, Aircraft Owners & Pilots
unequivocally established by examination of the project's computer
sighting of an elongated, silvery UFO near Amherst, Mass. (9/23/67); and
MEMBERSHIP RATES INCREASE
Assoc., Wash., D.C. Former Army Air Corps Col., founder
print-out, listing case references with a coded number assigned each case.
a low-hovering, white-glowing object seen by physicist Lewis Hollander
of U.S. Air Guard (now Civil Air Patrol), graduate University
Obviously, the project had to select certain reports and omit others, but
and his wife at Mendota, Calif. (10/14/67).
of Penna.
when one examines the 59 case histories the project reviewed in Section
Pilots' Sightings Not Included
In response to the recent emergency appeal, the overwhelm-
IV, Chapters 1-3, an important question emerges: why were certain
ing suggestion was that we raise our dues to cover rising costs as
Dr. Charles P. Olivier; President, American Meteor Society,
Narbeth, Pa. Prof. Emeritus of Astronomy, Univ. of Penna.
low-priority, easily-explained sightings chosen for investigation and
Reports by scientists were not the only category rejected by project
well as the heavy expense of our operations. Most people
Former Director of Flower & Cook Observatory. Contributor
discussion rather than cases such as those listed below?
investigators on the basis of their exclusion criteria. There was wholesale
suggested $10 a year, a few as high as $15 a year. We have
to Encyclopedia Britannica & Smithsonial Astrophysical Ob-
In Section II, Summary of the Study (6. Field Investigations),
elimination of sightings by engineers and other technical personnel,
compromised at $8.00 for the basic U.S. rate. For the past ten
servatory reports on meteors.
Condon offers a partial answer.
including many airline pilots. While the report does include several of the
years, the rate has been $5.00; but expenses have mushroomed
Dr. Bruce A. Rogers; Emeritus Prof. of Mechanical Engineering,
"We concluded that there was little to be gained from the study of
more recent airline pilot reports, the omission of the older, well-known
during that period, and the costs of servicing a large member-
A & M College of Texas. PhD (Physics & Metallurgy), Harvard
old cases, except perhaps to get ideas on mistakes to be avoided in studies
cases constitutes a glaring defect. A complete listing of such cases,
ship have caused a chronic financial squeeze.
Univ.; M.S. (Physics), Univ. of Chicago. Member, American
of new cases. We therefore decided not to make any field trips to
beginning with the United Airlines sightings of July 4, 1947, in which
As of February 1 NICAP membership (and renewal) rate for
Nuclear Society; American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy,
investigate cases that were more than a year old, although in a few cases
Capt. E.E. Smith and co-pilot Ralph Stevens saw two groups of disc-like
the U.S. will be $8.00 per year, $15.00 for two years. Renewal
& Petroleum Engineering; & Electrochemical Society.
we did do some work on such cases when their study could be combined
objects while flying between Emmett, Idaho, and Ontario, Oregon, would
payments postmarked no later than February 28 will be accepted
with a field investigation of a new case." (Bantam, 15-16).
fill several columns. Even a small selection would have to include the
at the old rate of $5.00 per year (or six issues of The U.F.O.
By this arbitrary decision, a large body of important reports was left
following, none of which was considered:
Investigator). To take advantage of the old rates, send a renewal
unexplored and unexplained.
The Eastern Airlines case of 7/24/48, over Montgomery, Alabama, in
payment now.
TRUTH
(Continued from Page 1)
Another explanation is offered by Dr. Roy Craig in discussing field
which Capt. C.S. Chiles and co-pilot John Whitted saw a rocket-like
Due to the cost of postage and currency exchange, member-
studies: "In general, testimony of the witnesses recorded shortly after
object pass close to their DC-3, then pull up in a sharp climb; the TWA
ship rate for Canada and Mexico will be $9.00 a year, $17.00 for
Secrecy Denied
their experiences can be considered more reliable than their retelling of
sighting (and associated reports from the ground and other pilots) near
two years; Foreign $10.00 per year, $18.00 for two years.
the story two to 20 years later, both because of memory and because of a
Dayton, Ohio (3/8/50); the observation of a circular UFO with a ring of
Deadline for Canadian, Mexican, and foreign renewals at old
Dr. Condon denied in the report that there was any evidence of
tendency to crystallization of the story upon repeated retelling. For this
lighted "ports" underneath by Chicago and Southern Airlines pilots
rate: March 31.
secrecy. NICAP gave him evidence of cases that were withheld, reports
reason, reexamination of witnesses in 'classic' cases was not considered a
Adams and Anderson over Stuttgart, Ark. (3/20/50); the TWA plane-
whose very existence was denied, and sightings whose conclusions were
useful way for the project to invest time. Field investigation of classic
pacing over Goshen, Ind., reported by Capt. Robert Adickes and co-pilot
changed years later.
cases was therefore limited to those in which existing reports contained a
R.F. Manning (4/27/50); the sighting near Washington, D.C., by
Two days after Colorado signed the contract with the Air Force, Dr.
serious discrepancy which might be resolved." (Bantam, Section III,
American Airlines Capt. Willis Sperry and co-pilot William Gates of a
Condon was asked about possible Air Force secrecy. He replied that some
Chapter 1, p. 52).
cigar-shaped body that circled the airliner (5/29/50); the Mid-Continent
VOLUNTEERS NEEDED
people believed this, but that he personally didn't. "Maybe they are
This is a specious argument. By this principle, all testimony in courts
Airlines observation by pilots Lawrence Vinther and James Bachmeier, at
[misleading us] he stated. "I don't care much." (Rocky Mountain
would be thrown out where it was consistent. Referring to the
Sioux City, Iowa (1/20/51); the Pan American sighting of eight
News, November 5, 1966).
Washington, D.C., radar reports of July 1952, for example, Craig writes:
maneuvering discs seen by pilots William Nash and William Fortenberry
NICAP headquarters is in need of volunteer office helpers. If you
Although the Congressional hearings of July 29, 1968, before the
"On-site interviewing had contributed no new information. Since our
over Newport News, Va. (7/14/52); and the American Airlines sighting of
live in the Washington, D. C., area and can contribute some time weekly,
House Committee on Science and Astronautics was mentioned in the
experience generally showed that new interviews of witnesses in classic
a glowing orange UFO over central N.Y. by Capt. Raymond Ryan
please telephone us. Work must be done in the office, but evening and
report (Bantam, 49), virtually all of the evidence presented by the highly
cases did not produce dependable new information, few on-site investiga-
(4/8/56).
week-end hours can be arranged. Call 667-9434 and ask for Miss Davis.
qualified scientist participants was ignored.
tions of such cases were undertaken." (Bantam, 55).
Page 4
UFO INVESTIGATOR
UFO INVESTIGATOR
Page 5
ASTRONAUT SIGHTINGS
Gemini 4 The first sighting by astronaut McDivitt occurred at 3 a.m.
Gemini 11 On the 18th orbit of GT-11, over Tananarive, Madagascar,
(CST) on 4 June 65 somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, according to Dr.
astronaut Charles Conrad reported "a large object that was tumbling at
WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?
Roach. (NASA had earlier pinpointed the location as "over Hawaii.") It
about 1 r.p.s. I guess he [the object] could have been anything from
UNEXPLAINED
was described as a cylinder with an arm-like protuberance. McDivitt
our ELSS [extravehicular life support system] to something else. We
reportedly took one still shot of it, plus black & white movie film. After
took pictures of it." Two of the pictures appear as plates 17 & 18 in the
The University of Colorado spent over half a million dollars of
first denying that anything showed up on film, NASA released a
Condon Report (See photo No. 2). Next day, according to Dr. Roach,
taxpayers' money ($525,905) on what was supposed to be a "scientific
U.S. astronauts, while in orbit around the earth, have made at least
photograph consisting of three movie frames showing an oval object with
NORAD identified the object as the Russian Proton III satellite, at the
investigation of UFOs." But now, in order to read the final report, the
three sightings of unusual objects that remain unexplained, according to
what looks like a trail of some kind. (See photo No. 1; one frame of
time "more than 450 kilometers" from the capsule. Although Proton III
taxpayer must either pay an additional two dollars to a commercial
an astro-physicist on the Colorado UFO Project. Dr. Franklin Roach
NASA photo no. 65-H1013).
was estimated to be only 4 meters in diameter (its booster rocket about
publisher (Bantam Books, paperback edition), with royalties going to the
reports this conclusion in Section III, Chapter 6 of the Condon Report.
On behalf of the Condon committee, Dr. Roach interviewed McDivitt
10 meters in largest dimension), Dr. Roach does not dispute this
University, or must pay even more, directly to the University, for the
Dr. Roach's chapter, titled "Visual Observations Made by U.S.
and learned that he did not think the photographs were of the objects he
interpretation. His analysis distinguished "four distinct objects" in the
hard-cover edition.
Astronauts," sheds new light on some of the astronaut sightings
had seen. McDivitt later examined the films himself, and reportedly
photographs which he concludes were "multiple pieces of Proton III
If this money had been spent on studies of important past cases and
previously reported in the U.F.O. Investigator. However, it leaves the
found a hazy image which he though might be the object. (The photo has
including possibly its booster plus two other components." The Russian
on useful field investigations, we might be nearer to a scientific resolution
astronauts' photographs of unexplained objects in a state of confusion.
not been released). McDivitt felt that he "probably" saw another
research satellite re-entered the atmosphere 16 September 1966, the day
of the UFO problem. It was not so spent. Very little of the Colorado
Beginning on page 204 (Bantam paperback edition) of the Condon
satellite, but Dr. Roach questions this explanation. NORAD (Air Force)
after GT-11 landed. (NICAP Note: A scientist has computed that an
funds and effort went toward studying hard-core significant reports from
Report, Dr. Roach discusses three visual sightings made by the
later explained the sighting as the Pegasus satellite, some 1200 miles away
object 10 meters in diameter 450 km distant would be 1/10 of a minute
credible observers (see item on "Omissions" elsewhere in this issue).
astronauts while in orbit which, in the judgement of the writer, have not
at the time. However, McDivitt personally doubted this explanation, and
of are in angular size. Normal visual acuity under favorable conditions
Where did the money go? The following table indicates how four large
been adequately explained." Two of these were sightings by astronaut
Dr. Roach, upon analyzing NORAD data, was unable to find any satellite
can only distinguish an object 2 minutes of arc or larger; in other words,
chunks of it were spent. (The "Number of Pages" column refers to the
James McDivitt aboard Gemini 4 and one by astronaut Frank Borman on
which could explain it.
something 20 times larger than Proton III would have appeared).
original report.)
Gemini 7.
The second sighting by McDivitt, according to Dr. Roach, occurred
This totals at least four unusual sightings and two (possibly three)
To clarify where matters now stand, each Gemini flight which in-
after GT-4 had been in orbit about 51 hours. McDivitt reported seeing a
photographs or film clips, all within the space of 15 months in 1965 and
No. of
volved unusual sightings is discussed in order. (Excluded is a report from
bright, star-like object passing above the capsule (lowest point of GT-4
1966.
Expenditure Sub-Contract
Condon Report
Pages
Cost
May 1963 that astronaut Gordon Cooper in Mercury 9 saw a green object
orbit 100 statute miles), apparently in a south to north orbit. No
with a red tail over Australia. The report was denied by Cooper and
mention is made of a photograph in connection with this sighting.
1. Stanford Research Institute,
Sec. VI,
158
$ 50,000
NASA, and may have resulted from a garbled story of something sighted
WHAT HAPPENED TO CASE MATERIAL?
for state-of-the-art study &
Chaps. 4 & 5
from the ground in Australia).
literature search on optics
Borman Spots "Bogey"
and radar
GEMINI FLIGHTS INVOLVING UNUSUAL SIGHTINGS
Gemini 7 At the start of the second orbit of GT-7 on 4 December
Significant Data Omitted
1965, astronaut Frank Borman radioed a report to Houston flight control
2. Raytheon Corporation, for
p. 50
30,000
Flight
Astronauts
Launch Date
Landing Date
Sighting
Another major defect of the Colorado Project was the meager use it
center that he was observing a "bogey at 10 o'clock high," flying in
photo-analysis.
made of the enormous reservoir of case material available to it. Over the
GT-4
McDivitt,
3 June 65
7 June 65
(1) cylinder w/
formation with the spacecraft. The transcript, quoted by Dr. Roach,
White
arm-like extension
indicates that Borman was asked to clarify and repeated that this was an
20 years preceding the project, between 10,000 and 15,000 UFO sighting
3. Caravan Surveys, for public
Sec. III,
48
29,750
reports had been recorded. Yet the report treats only 50 cases from this
(photo taken);
"actual sighting" of something other than the GT-7 booster rocket,
opinion poll
Chap. 7
period, or ½ of 1% of the available material.
(2) star-like obj.
which was visible separately at the 2 o'clock position. Also visible off the
The March 1966 wave, chiefly in Michigan, received nation-wide
above capsule,
left side of the capsule were hundreds of particles apparently in polar
4. Samuel Rosenberg, for
Sec. V,
31
3,200
publicity and was the immediate cause of the establishment of the
orbit.
"UFOs in History"
polar orbit.
Chap. 1
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD BRARY
Colorado Project. Hundreds of sightings were recorded, including many
No description of the unidentified object is given, nor does Dr. Roach
chapter
by police officers; but not one of the Michigan 1966 cases is examined in
GT-7
Borman,
4 Dec 65
18 Dec 65
"Bogey" (unident-
mention any photographs taken by Borman or Lovell. Again, Dr. Roach
the Report. One case in particular from this period, a March 31 sighting
Lovell
is unable to account for the observation in terms of known satellites or
TOTALS
230
ified object)
$112,950
near Kalamazoo, Michigan, in which a disc-like UFO, inches above the
above spacecraft,
stray fragments (all tracked and logged by NORAD).
highway, maneuvered around the witness's car, buffeting it violently, was
polar orbit.
NBC News on Friday night, January 10, showed the photo which
(References in UFOs? Yes!, Saunders & Harkins, p. 131-2)
furnished to the Project, at Mr. Low's specific request, immediately after
NASA had identified as taken by McDivitt (see photo No. 1), and
the Project began. The case, although it certainly warranted careful
GT-11
Conrad,
12 Sept 66
15 Sept 66
"Large object
another photograph identified as taken by astronaut Frank Borman from
examination, does not appear in the Report.
The costly Stanford report merely duplicates existing information;
Gordon
that was tum-
Gemini 7. This apparently was an error of identification, and was actually
The sighting wave of July-September 1965, which touched off
the literature on radar and optics is accessible elsewhere to scientists and
bling.
the object photographed from Gemini 11 (see below).
countless editorials critical of the Air Force, also involved hundreds of
is well known. By the terms of the sub-contract SRI was specifically
(Photo taken).
(Continued on Page 5)
reports. Only three are treated in the Report. The radar case of August 2
exempted from confronting any specific case histories.
in Wichita, Kansas, "may probably" be due to false radar returns;
The Raytheon sub-contract for $30,000 apparently went for nothing,
associated visual sightings "may have been enhanced" by temperature
since there is no evidence in the Condon Report of where and how the
inversions. Analysis of the Heflin photographs of August 3 in Santa Ana,
funds were spent. The report mentions (p. 50) an analysis, done by
California is inconclusive. The August 8 photographs in Beaver, Pennsyl-
Raytheon in cooperation with NICAP, of a photographic case which
vania, are considered a probable hoax. Among the omitted cases are the
NICAP had already, independently, evaluated as a probable hoax. This
remarkable close-range sighting near Damon, Texas (Sept. 3) by two
case happened to include sufficient data for photo-grammetry (geo-
sheriffs (furnished to the Project both by NICAP and by Dr. J. E.
metrical analysis), and the photos were loaned to Raytheon by NICAP
McDonald). The sightings at Exeter, N. H., of the same date and later, are
for the purpose of a demonstration of photogrammetric techniques while
briefly mentioned but not analyzed.
Raytheon was trying to obtain a sub-contract with the project. This
One of the most extraordinary sighting waves of all time, in
analysis was published by Raytheon in June 1967 (copy in NICAP files).
November 1957, is scarcely explored at all. A previously unpublished
It should not have cost the Project a cent. Yet this is the only indication
radar case from Blue Book files is presented, which occurred November
in the Report of what the Project might have obtained from Raytheon
4, 1957, at Kirtland AFB in New Mexico, but at least 118 sightings were
for its $30,000. (Raytheon appears in the acknowledgments but is not
reported that November (see The UFO Evidence, pp. 163-67), and 20 of
even listed in the Index to the Report.)
these were in New Mexico and the adjacent Texas panhandle; none are
The public opinion poll (item 3), according to Dr. Saunders, carried
referred to in the Report.
out the recommendation by Robert J. Low, in his notorious memo of
The wave of summer 1952 is similarly neglected. It included a large
August 1966, that the proper investigation of UFOs is to study the
number of puzzling radar-visual sightings by the Air Force and the FAA,
people who report them." Naturally, it sheds no light on the real
and jet pursuits of UFOs. The Report discusses only five cases, with
problem.
"explanations" that are subject to challenge (some will be disputed in a
The chapter on "UFOs in History" merely recounts myths and
later NICAP report). A major omission is the classic sighting (July 14,
legends, much of the material coming from dubious sources. It ignores
1952) by two Pan-American Airways pilots, who saw 8 discs moving in
the entire 1896-97 wave of "airship reports." (See Lore-Deneault,
formation at high speeds over Newport News; this case was recommended
Mysteries of the Skies, Prentice-Hall 1968.) For this the Project paid
to the Project both by NICAP and by Dr. McDonald. Important
$3200, or about $100 per typewritten page, to a self-styled professional
PHOTO NO. 1
"trivialist." (Saunders & Harkins, p. 131)
PHOTO NO. 2
radar-visual jet pursuit cases on July 23 (Massachusetts), July 26
UFO Sighted by Astronaut McDivitt
(Continued on Page 8)
Unknown Photographed from Gemini II
(California), and July 29 (Michigan) are omitted.
Page 6
UFO INVESTIGATOR
UFO INVESTIGATOR
Page 7
From the Condon Report
Photographs Declared Authentic
AIAA Conducts Investigation
THE CASE FOR THE UFOs
May 11, 1950. McMinnville, Oregon. Mr. and Mrs. Paul Trent saw a
A special UFO Committee of the American Institute of Astronautics
bright, metallic UFO with a superstructure. As it tipped up, the witnesses
and Aeronautics (AIAA), the largest non-governmental aerospace agency
"felt a gust of wind. Mr. Trent took two photographs within 30 sec-
in the world and chaired by Dr. Joachim P. Kuettner, of Boulder's ESSA
onds (see photograph below). The object moved fast toward the west just
Research Laboratories, was established. The 10-man scientific committee
Pilot Reports
after the second photograph was taken. The McMinnville "Telephone
stated that it "has made its own objective investigation of the [UFO]
In direct contradiction to the negative conclusions of the Condon
Register" examined the pictures and declared them authentic. "Life"
subject and plans to develop certain recommendations and to give
report, its own pages contain data that make a strong case for UFOs.
November 14, 1956, and August 30, 1957. Jackson, Alabama and
magazine also ran the photographs as presumably genuine. The Colorado
some insight into its reasoning. The committee concluded that the
Although the report is padded with superficially impressive "background
near Norfolk, Virginia. Viscount Captain W. J. Hull and co-pilot Peter
investigator said the Trents were "very industrious farm people" whose
UFO "controversy cannot be resolved without further study in a
studies" (see separate sections) and with weak case material whose
MacIntosh were flying over central Alabama on the evening of November
veracity was attested to by "various reputable individuals." The
quantitative scientific manner and it deserves the attention of the
justification for inclusion is unclear, the reports that were actually
14, 1956, when they saw an object that "abruptly halted" and hovered in
investigator concluded in the Condon report that all factors in the case
engineering and scientific community."
examined in some detail contain about 20 percent that are unexplained.
front of their aircraft.
"appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying
A "Joint Statement by Scientists," released by NICAP, brought
This is approximately seven times larger than comparable figures given by
The UFO began to dart "hither and yon, rising and falling in undu-
object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and
strong support from scientists in various fields, including aerospace,
the U.S. Air Force.
Even more important than this percentage, however, is the nature of
lating flight, making sharper turns than any known aircraft, sometimes
evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses." (396-406.)
psychology, physics, chemistry, botany, sociology and biology. Because
changing direction 90 degrees in an instant." After about 30 seconds, the
"continuing reports from reputable and competent witnesses
the unexplained reports. For 12 years NICAP's main thesis has been
object stopped and hovered again. Then it "began another series of crazy
about 50 scientists signed a statement urging "an appropriate committee
that unidentified, structured objects which may be of extraterrestrial
gyrations" and "shot out over the Gulf of Mexico
at.
fantastic
of the Congress to initiate an investigation of. UFOs."
origin are present in our skies, and it has been said repeatedly that one
a
unimpeachable photograph would prove this thesis. Now the report
speed." On August 30, 1957, Captain Hull was again piloting a Viscount,
News media personnel were also not accepting the report.
analyzes pictures of a structured object photographed over McMinnville,
this time over the Chesapeake Bay, near Norfolk, Virginia, when he saw a
Nationally syndicated columnists Roscoe and Geoffrey Drummond
Oregon, in 1950, finds no reason to reject either of the two pictures, and
brilliant object that "flew fast and then abruptly halted 20 miles in front
told NICAP that the Condon report had not settled the question. There
of us." Both the Viscount and another aircraft, a DC-6, got radar returns
are enough "sufficient, creditable sighting reports" that leave the
classifies the objects as "unidentified." Also analyzed is the sighting and
photograph by astronaut James McDivitt on June 4, 1965, of cylinder
from the UFO. The object, Captain Hull reported, "dissolved right in
UFO question "still open," they said. They added that the "Condon
with a structured arm-like projection. The report's conclusion: "unex-
front of my eyes and the crew lost it from the [radar] scope at the
report should be read with great care as to its credibility. The father and
plained."
same time." The Condon team said "these two cases must be considered
son team supported future scientific investigation, despite the report
as unknowns." (127-29.)
recommendation to the contrary.
June 23, 1955. Near Utica, N.Y. A pilot and co-pilot of a Mohawk
Airlines DC-3 reported a gray, round UFO with portholes emitting a
Newspapers Protest
Impressive Reports Examined
blue-green light that traveled at "great speed." Two other planes also
A minimum of 17 cases of a total of less than a hundred in the report
reported seeing the object and radar tracked it flying east over Boston.
The State, South Carolina's largest newspaper, has carried a number
are listed as unidentified. These include three astronaut sightings; one
The Mohawk pilot computed the UFO's speed between 4,500 and 4,800
of positive editorials in past years. In a recent one entitled "A Study That
photograph case; five radar cases, with all but one including visual
m.p.h. Colorado concluded that this "is a most intriguing report that
Wasn't," the newspaper stated that the Colorado findings "may be
observations; and two electro-magnetic (E-M) effect reports. Military and
must certainly be classed as an unknown pending further study, which it
instantly repudiated. The paper also praised NICAP as "the most
commercial pilots were among the witnesses in six of the cases and police
certainly deserves." (143.)
sober and efficient of the private [UFO] organizations" and attacked
officers in two others. Six cases occurred during the period of Colorado's
* May 13, 1967. Colorado Springs, Colorado. A UFO was first
Condon and Low as being "increasingly hostile to those who insisted on a
investigations.
tracked on radar as a Braniff flight touched down at the airport. Then the
strictly objective approach." The editorial concluded that "the public
The following cases from the report offer puzzling evidence that
object turned east and flew over the field at an altitude of about 200
could place more confidence in. [Colorado's] findings if it were not
something unexplained is visiting our air spaces. These, without consider-
feet. "This must remain as one of the most puzzling radar cases on
positively known, as is the case, that the Condon group first arrived
UFO "Evidently Artificial"-Condon Report
ing hundreds of others excluded from the Colorado study, constitute
record, and no conclusion is possible. the report stated.
this [negative] conclusion and then went through the motions of
sufficient support for further scientific study. It is impossible to
(310-16.)
assembling the evidence almost as an afterthought.'
understand how the project, confronted by these reports from its own
UFO Swoops Down on Witness
Other unidentified cases in the report include three sightings in Joplin,
The New York Daily News also dissented. "The study it said,
files, could conclude that "further extensive study of UFOs probably
Missouri, and southeast Kansas on January 13, 1967 (286-90); an
"has been under fire from the start as allegedly rigged to bring in the
cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced
April 22, 1966. Beverly, Massachusetts. A football-shaped UFO
observation at Granville, Massachusetts, two days later (285-86); a report
verdict the Air Force wanted. Let's keep our minds open on UFOs.
thereby."
with flashing red lights frightened witnesses and caused interference with
from Winchester, Conn., on September 9, 1967; and a sighting over
An editorial in the Knoxville, Tennessee, Journal indicated that the
June 4 and 5 and December 4, 1965. Three U.S. astronauts observe
TV reception. The observers saw three red lights. One was erratically
Concordia, Kansas, on December 5, 1967. (391-940).
public will give the report little credence. The paper stated that it was the
and photograph UFOs (see details and photos, page 4) while in earth
moving over a school building while the others played tag with it. As the
unknown cases in the project's findings that "raise concern."
orbit. The Condon report finds that these "three unexplained sightings
nearest object made a closer approach, the frightened observers saw it
Letters of protest are also beginning to pour in from NICAP members.
are a challenge to the analyst. (204-8.)
was a metal disc, as big as a large car, flat on the bottom and round. The
UFO flew 20-30 feet over the head of one witness, then tilted and again
THE DISSENTERS
One mechanical engineer wrote his Congressman that "the American
people deserve more for their tax money than to be deluded.
flew over the school. Two police officers arrived and saw the object
Radar-Visual Sightings
maneuvering over the school building. "No explanation is attempted to
There was immediate dissent from the report by a Congressman,
account for the close UFO encounter reported. the Colorado report
scientists, news media personnel and NICAP members.
FALSE STATEMENTS
August 13-14, 1956. Lakenheath, England. One unexplained object
reads. (266-70.)
In a U.S. House of Representatives floor speech, Congressman William
was tracked by air traffic control radar operators at two USAR-RAF
* August 19, 1966. Donnybrook, North Dakota. The witness was
F. Ryan (D-NY) attacked the project's findings, saying they "may result
False statements misquoting the Director and ridiculing NICAP have
stations while other round, white, fast-moving UFOs were seen visually.
driving when he observed a metallic, tilted disc with a dome on top
in delaying an eventual solution of the UFO puzzle, making more
RAF fighter planes attempted interception. One pilot reported tracking
descend to about 10 feet from the ground with a "falling leaf" motion. It
difficult a scientific breakthrough in an understanding of the problem."
appeared in two syndicate features and several editorials. NEA reporter
Tom Tiede falsely quoted the Director as admitting strong evidence for-
an object on radar as the UFO circled behind his plane and paced it for
then rose and hovered over a reservoir. After about a minute, it moved to
He added that it "is the duty and responsibility of the House Science and
"little green men." William Hines (Science Service) attacked NICAP, ac-
about 10 minutes. The pilot performed evasive maneuvers in an attempt
a field and descended to "within a few feet of the ground." The disc
Astronautics Committee to review and hold hearings on the University of
to lose the object. Of this case, Colorado concluded that the "probability
tilted again and disappeared rapidly "with a whooshing sound." The
Colorado UFO report and its implications.'
cusing us of publishing sensational paperbacks and living on donations
from "excitable old ladies."
that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high."
witness reported his car radio had ceased functioning during the sighting
Dr. James E. McDonald, of the University of Arizona and probably
(248-56.)
the most knowledgeable scientist on the UFO subject, stated that the
Indignant members have already indicated their help in exposing un-
but returned to normal after the UFO disappeared. Two groups of three
true statements in-or caused by-the Condon report. We hope every
*
September 19-20, 1957. Ft. Worth, Texas. An Air Force major was
depressions each and "recently displaced" rocks were discovered at the
report "must be vigorously challenged lest it succeed in cutting off
member who feels this indignation will back us every way possible in this
piloting a bomber when he saw a UFO that was also tracked on ground
site of the near-landing. The Condon team said it could not find an
serious scientific attention to a matter of extremely great importance."
flight control radar. After alerting his crew, the pilot said they saw a
Dr. McDonald also held a "special colloquim" at his university criticizing
fight. With your help in making it known, nationwide, we can win.
explanation for this sighting. (It is interesting to note that Robert Low
white object that crossed in front of the aircraft, then moved to the right
was one of the investigators on this case). (273-74.)
the report and stated that the National Academy of Science's "approval
at speeds far exceeding those of ordinary planes. The UFO disappeared
January 1967. New Richmond, Michigan. At 2 a.m., a woman saw
of the scope and methodology underlying the Condon Report is not
The Condon Report is now available in paperback, titled:
from view, but the plane's radar continued to track it. Then the
a brightly illuminated object just over her car. It remained over the
justified and will become a serious source of future embarrassment
SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS.
mysterious craft also disappeared from the radar scope but reappeared
automobile and paced it for 10 or 15 minutes, but the car would not
to that prestigious scientific body.
Conducted by the University of Colorado under Research Contract
later on both the ground radar and plane scopes and visually. As the
accelerate. The witness said she felt she was somehow being controlled by
Simultaneously with the release of the report, Dr. David R. Saunders'
No. F44620-67-C-0035 with the U.S. Air Force. Dr. Edward U.
aircraft closed, the UFO suddenly vanished from both radar and visual
book, UFOs? Yes!, was published. Dr. Saunders, one of the two scientists
Condon, Project Director. Introduction by Walter Sullivan, Ban-
the object. The UFO "made a big check mark in the sky" and rapidly
observation. The Colorado project said it could not identify "the
fired from the project for opposing Dr. Condon's views, made it clear
tam paperback YZ-4747. January, 1969. 965 pp. $1.95. Page ref-
disappeared. Colorado rather curiously concluded: "The case remains
phenomenon encountered." (260-66.)
that the indifference of the project's director and coordinator and their
erences in this issue of the Investigator refer to the Bantam edition.
interesting but unexplained." (282-85.)
inadequate research administration went far toward scuttling the project.
NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE
ON AERIAL PHENOMENA (NICAP)
Doralt
I536 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe, USMC (Ret), Director
FOR IMMED IATE RELEASE
Gordon I.R. Lore, Jr., Assistant Director
12 February 1969
Phone: 202-667-9434
NICAP CHALLENGES COLORADO UNIVERSITY REPORT ON UFOs
"The University of Colorado UFO Project report fails to examine hundreds
of important sightings from credible witnesses,' according to the National
Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), a Washington-based pri-
vate organization. The project was headed by Dr. Edward U. Condon and its re-
port was made public in January.
Yet the report itself, NICAP said, despite the overwhelming amount of ig-
nored evidence, "contains data that makes a strong case for UFOs," including
unexplained sightings by astronauts, radar-visual reports, a photograph of a
structured object, and cases in which physical effects were reported.
"At least 26% of the less than 100 cases in the report are listed as
unidentified,' NICAP pointed out. "And many of the so-called 'explained'
cases are explained in a way that strains the imagination."
In its current bi-monthly newsletter released today, The UFO Investigator,
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
NICAP severely criticized the project for allegedly ignoring "20 years of ac-
cumulated testimony" in writing off UFOs as unworthy of further scientific
study. "A major defect, 11 said NICAP, "was the meager use it made of the
enormous reservoir of case material available to it. Over the 20 years pre-
ceding the project, between 10,000 and 15,000 UFO sighting reports had been
recorded. Yet the report treats only 50 cases from this period, or Help of 1%
of the available material."
NICAP also claimed that $113,000 or more of the project's $526,000 budget
was wasted on duplicating knowledge already available. Raytheon Corporation,
NICAP said, apparently was paid $30,000 for photo-analysis work, none of which
appears in the final report.
"Dr. Condon accused NICAP of tellings its members the project was merely
a 'whitewash, 1111 a spokesman said, "but anyone who examines our publications
will see that we defended the project against its critics until it became
clear that a biased, non-objective investigation was being conducted. We gave
them the benefit of the doubt at every turn. Then when 1t became obvious they
had failed to accomplish a thorough review, we withdrew out support and pub-
lished the facts."
Summing up the organization's position, a spokesman stated, "It would be
a tragedy if the Condon report is accepted as the final answer to UFOs. The
project's directors obviously were biased, over-emphasized crackpot stories,
looked at serious reports very superficially, and padded their final report
with irrelevant material. We will continue to press for a scientific study."
Strong support for a continued scientific investigation was indicated in
a "Joint Statement by Scientists," released by NICAP. At least 50 highly
qualified scientists signed a statement urging "an appropriate committee of the
Congress to initiate an investigation of
UFOs."