Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4530435",
    "label": "UFOs",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4530435"
}

{
    "id": "4530435",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4530435",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "UFOs",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4530435",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Press Secretary Reference Materials"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Unidentified flying objects"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0034/642095/4530435.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0034/642095/4530435.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0034/642095/4530435.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4530435",
    "naId": 4530435,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1966-04-01",
        "month": 4,
        "year": 1966
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1966-01-01",
        "month": 1,
        "year": 1966
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0034/642095/4530435.pdf",
    "mediaId": "915e38667c4522d8",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D113, folder \"UFOs\" of the Ford Congressional\nPapers Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the\nUniversity of Michigan his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives\ncollections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in\nthe public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are\npresumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject\nto a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\n[No. 55]\nUNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS\nHEARING\nBY\nCOMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES\nOF THE\nHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nEIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS\nSECOND SESSION\nAPRIL 5, 1966\n[Pages of all documents printed in behalf of the activities of the House\nCommittee on Armed Services are numbered cumulatively to\npermit a comprehensive index at the end of the Con-\ngress. Page numbers lower than those in\nthis document refer to other\nsubjects.]\nU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE\n50-066 0\nWASHINGTON : 1966\n[No. 55]\nHOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES\nUNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS\n2D SESSION, 89TH CONGRESS\nL. MENDEL RIVERS, South Carolina, Chairman\nHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,\nCOMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,\nPHILIP J. PHILBIN, Massachusetts\nWILLIAM H. BATES, Massachusetts\nF. EDWARD HÉBERT, Louisiana\nLESLIE C. ARENDS. Illinois\nWashington, D.C., Tuesday, A pril 5, 1966.\nMELVIN PRICE, Illinois\nALVIN E. O'KONSKI, Wisconsin\nThe committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., the Honorable L.\nO. C. FISHER, Texas\nWILLIAM G. BRAY, Indiana\nPORTER HARDY, JR., Virginia\nBOB WILSON, California\nMendel Rivers (chairman of the committee), presiding.\nCHARLES E. BENNETT, Florida\nCHARLES S. GUBSER, California\nThe CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order.\nJAMES A. BYRNE, Pennsylvania\nCHARLES E. CHAMBERLAIN, Michigan\nMembers of the committee, Secretary Brown and General McCon-\nSAMUEL S. STRATTON, New York\nALEXANDER PIRNIE, New York\nnell are back this morning for the purpose of responding to questions.\nOTIS G. PIKE, New York\nDURWARD G. HALL, Missouri\nRICHARD (DICK) ICHORD, Missouri\nDONALD D. CLANCY, Ohio\nAt the end of our last hearing I asked that Secretary Brown give us\nLUCIEN N. NEDZI, Michigan\nROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont\nsome information with respect to unidentified flying objects. I under-\nALTON LENNON, North Carolina\nRICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania\nstand that he is prepared to do that this morning and I also understand\nWILLIAM J. RANDALL, Missouri\nthat he has with him Dr. J. Allen Hynek, consultant to Project Blue\nG. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia\nCHARLES H. WILSON, California\nBook, which is the group charged with responsibility with respect to\nROBERT L. LEGGETT, California\nUFO's. Also present this morning is Maj. Hector Quintanilla, Jr.,\nDONALD J. IRWIN, Connecticut\nUFO project officer.\nJED JOHNSON, JR., Oklahoma\nI think it would be well to get the UFO business out of the way first.\nFRANK E. EVANS, Colorado\nRODNEY M. LOVE, Ohio\nSo I will ask Dr. Brown to give us his report at this time.\nFLOYD V. HICKS, Washington\nMr. Secretary, see if you can shed some light on these highly illumi-\nHERVEY G. MACHEN, Maryland\nnated objects.\nSPEEDY 0. LONG, Louisiana\nWe can't just write them off. There are too many responsible people\nE. S. JOHNNY WALKER, New Mexico\nwho are concerned.\nSANTIAGO POLANCO-ABREU, Puerto Rico, Resident Commissioner\nMr. Ford has come out, he has a pretty good size stature in the Con-\ngress, and SO tell me what you know, Mr. Secretary, and let's see if we\ncan have some answers.\nPROFESSIONAL STAFF\nGo ahead, Mr. Secretary.\nJOHN R. BLANDFORD, Chief Counsel\nPHILIP W. KELLEHER, Counsel\nSecretary BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here which is ad-\nFRANK M. SLATINSHEK, Counsel\ndressed to you, and I signed it. Let me run through it quickly, because\nWILLIAM H. COOK, Counsel\nit summarizes pretty well what our views are on unidentified flying\nEARL J. MORGAN, Professional Staff Member\nobjects.\nRALPH MARSHALL, Professional Staff Member\nJOHN FORD, Professional Staff Member\nFollowing that, if there are some questions, I can try to answer them,\nor the Chief, or Dr. Hynek, or Major Quintanilla.\nII\nThe CHAIRMAN. Why don't we have the doctor come up to the table\nnow, because when we start asking questions we will have him there,\nand we will just go all over the board.\nSit at the end of the table, Doctor.\nGo ahead, sir.\nSTATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD BROWN, SECRETARY OF AIR FORCE\nSecretary BROWN. This is in response of your recent request for\ninformation concerning Air Force activities in the area of reported\nunidentified flying objects.\nWithin the Department of Defense the Air Force has the respon-\nsibility of investigating reports on unidentified flying objects and of\n(5991)\n5992\n5993\nevaluating any possible threat to our national security that such ob-\n(The information referred to is as follows:)\njects might pose. In carrying out this responsibility let me assure\nyou that the Air Force is both objective and thorough in its treat-\nSightings of unidentified flying objects\nment of all reports of unusual aerial objects over the United States.\nUnder the name \"Project Blue Book,\" the Air Force carries out a\nYear\nTotal\nUnidentified\nYear\nTotal\nUnidentified\nthree-phase program. We (1) make an initial investigation of each\nsightings\nsightings\nreport received; (2) make a more detailed analysis of reports not\n1947\n122\n12\n1958\n627\n10\nexplained; and (3) disseminate information on sightings, findings,\n1948\n156\n7\n1959\n390\n12\n1949\n186\n22\n1960\n557\n14\nand statistics.\n1950\n210\n27\n1961\n591\n13\nIn order to evaluate this subject as thoroughly as possible, the\n1951\n169\n22\n1962\n474\n15\n1952\n1,501\n303\n1963\n399\n14\ncapabilities of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board have recently\n1953\n509\n42\n1964\n562\n19\nbeen focused upon the subject of UFO's. This Board has just com-\n1954\n487\n46\n1965\n886\n16\n1955\n545\n24\npleted a detailed review of this subject and concluded that the UFO\n1956\n670\n14\nTotal\n10,147\n646\n1957\n1,006\n14\nphenomena presents no threat to the security of the United States,\nand that the present Air Force program dealing with UFO sightings\nhas been well organized. Recommendations by the Board are pre-\nAIR FORCE STATEMENT REGARDING THE UFO SIGHTINGS AT DEXTER, MICH., ON\nsently under study and are expected to lead to even stronger emphasis\nMARCH 20, 1966, AND HILLSDALE, MICH., ON MARCH 21, 1966\non the scientific aspects of investigating the sightings that warrant\nThe investigation of these two sightings was conducted by Dr. J. Allen Hynek,\nextensive analysis.\nscientific consultant to Project Blue Book; personnel from Selfridge Air Force\nBased upon 10,147 reported sightings from 1947 through 1965, a\nBase, Mich.; and personnel from the Project Blue Book office at Wright-Patter-\nson Air Force Base, Ohio.\nsummary of which is attached, I believe it significant that the Air Force\nIn addition to these two specific cases, there has been a flood of reports from\nhas succeeded in identifying 9,501 of these objects. Virtually all of\nthis area both before and after March 20 and 21. The investigating personnel\nthese sightings were derived from subjective human observations and\nhave not had the time to investigate all of these. It has been determined, how-\ninterpretations. The most common of these were astronomical sight-\never, that in Hillsdale, over and above the sincere and honest reporting by the\nyoung ladies at Hillsdale College, certain young men have played pranks with\nings that included such things as bright stars and planets, comets and\nflares. It has also been determined that the photographs released yesterday\nmeteors, and fireballs and auroral streamers.\nthrough the press was taken on March 17 just before sunrise near Milan, Mich.,\nOther major sources of reported sightings include such objects as\nand have nothing to do with the cases in question. The photograph clearly\nsatellites, mirages, and spurious radar indications. The remaining\nshows trails made as a result of a time exposure of the rising crescent moon and\nthe planet Venus.\n646 reported sightings are those in which the information available\nThe majority of observers in both the Dexter and Hillsdale cases have reported\ndoes not provide an adequate basis for analysis, or for which the in-\nonly silent glowing lights near the ground--red, yellow, and blue-green. They\nformation suggests an hypothesis but the object or phenomenon ex-\nhave not described an object. The only two observers who did describe an\nplaining it cannot be proven to have been here or taken place at that\nobject have stated that they were no closer than 500 yards-better than a\nquarter of a mile away-a distance which does not allow details to be determined.\ntime.\nWitnesses have described glowing lights-lights that seem to move but\nIn evaluating these sightings, the Air Force has used carefully\nnever far from a definite place or lights which suddenly disappeared and popped\nselected and highly qualified scientists, engineers, technicians, and\nup at another place. The locale in both cases was a swamp. In both cases, the\nconsultants. These personnel have utilized the finest Air Force labo-\nlocation of the glow was pinpointed-in Dexter it was seen between two distant\ngroups of people and at Hillsdale it was seen in a swampy depression between\nratories, test centers, scientific instrumentation, and technical equip-\nthe girls and the distant trees. It was in both cases a very localized phenomena.\nment for this purpose.\nThe swampy location is most significant.\nAlthough the past 18 years of investigating unidentified flying ob-\nA swamp is a place of rotting vegetation and decomposition. Swamps are not\njects have not identified any threat to our national security, or evidence\na province of astronomers. Yet, the famous Dutch astronomer, Minnaert, in his\nthat the unidentified objects represent developments or principles\nbook, \"Light and Colour in the Open Air,\" describes lights that have been seen\nin swamps by the astronomer, Bessel, and other excellent observers. The lights\nbeyond present-day scientific knowledge, or any evidence of extra-\nresemble tiny flames sometimes seen right on the ground and sometimes rising\nterrestrial vehicles, the Air Force will continue to investigate such\nand floating above it. The flames go out in one place and suddenly appear in\nphenomena with an open mind and with the finest technical equip-\nanother, giving the illusion of motion. The colors are sometimes yellow, some-\ntimes red, and sometimes blue-green. No heat is felt, and the lights do not burn\nment available.\nor char the ground. They can appear for hours at a stretch and sometimes for\nI am attaching a special report of the USAF Scientific Advisory\na whole night. Generally, there is no smell and no sound except for the popping\nBoard Ad Hoc Committee To Review Project \"Blue Book,\" the latest\nsound of little explosions such as when a gas burner ignites.\nedition of Project Blue Book, dated February 1, 1966, and an Air\nThe rotting vegetation produces marsh gas which can be trapped during the\nForce statement regarding the UFO sightings at Dexter, Mich., on\nwinter by ice. When the spring thaw occurs, the gas may be released in some\nquantity. The flame, Minnaert says, is a form of chemical luminescence, and its\nMarch 20, 1966, and at Hillsdale, Mich., on March 21, 1966.\nlow temperature is one of its peculiar features. Exactly how it occurs is not\nI trust that the above information will be of assistance to you. If I\nknown and could well be the subject of further investigation.\ncan help you further in any way, please do not hesitate to let me know.\nThe glowing lights over the swamps near Dexter and Hillsdale were observed\nfor 2 or 3 hours, and they were red, green, and yellow. They appeared to move\nsideways and to rise a short distance. No sound was heard except a popping\nsound.\n5994\n5995\nIt seems entirely likely that as the present spring thaw came, the trapped\nof the UFO problem. Unavoidably these are also related to Air Force public\ngases, CH4, H2S, and PH₃, resulting from decomposition of organic material,\nrelations, a subject on which the committee is not expert. Thus the recom-\nwere released. The chemistry book by Sienko and Plane has this to say: \"In\nmendations which follow are made simply from the scientific point of view.\nair, Phosphine PH₂ usually bursts into flame apparently because it is ignited by\na spontaneous oxidation of the impure P₂H₄. The will-of-the-wisp, sometimes\nIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nobserved in marshes, may be due to spontaneous ignition of impure PH₂ which\nIt is the opinion of the committee that the present Air Force program dealing\nmight be formed by reduction of naturally occurring phosporus compound.\"\nwith UFO sightings has been well organized, although the resources assigned\nIt has been pointed out to the investigating personnel by other scientists in\nto it (only one officer, a sergeant, and secretary) have been quite limited. In 19\nthis area that in swamps the formation of H2S and CH4 from rotting vegetation\nyears and more than 10,000 sightings recorded and classified, there appears to be\nis common. These could be ignited by the spontaneous burning of PH₂.\nno verified and fully satisfactory evidence of any case that is clearly outside\nThe association of the sightings with swamps in this particular instance is\nthe framework of presently known science and technology. Nevertheless, there\nmore than coincidence. No group of witnesses observed any craft coming to or\nis always the possibility that analysis of new sightings may provide some\ngoing away from the swamp. The glow was localized, and Deputy Fitzpatrick\nadditions to scientific knowledge of value to the Air Force. Moreover, some of\ndescribed the glow from beyond a rise adjacent to the swamp as visible through\nthe case records which the committee looked that were listed as \"identified\" were\nthe trees. He stated that the light brightened and dimmed such as stage do-\nsightings where the evidence collected was too meager or too indefinite to permit\nsmoothly and slowly-and this description exactly fits the Hillsdale sighting\npositive listing in the identified category. Because of this the committee recom-\nalso. The brightening and dimming could have been due to the release of vari-\nmends that the present program be strengthened to provide opportunity for scien-\nable quantities of marsh gas.\ntific investigation of selected sightings in more detail and depth than has been\nThe disappearance of the lights when people got close with flashlights or car-\nlights would indicate that the glow seemed bright to dark-adapted eyes. The\npossible to date.\nTo accomplish this it is recommended that-\nnight was dark and there was no moon. The Hillsdale girls kept their rooms\n(a) Contracts be negotiated with a few selected universities to provide\ndark in order to see the swamp lights.\nscientific teams to investigate promptly and in depth certain selected sight-\nIt appears very likely that the combination of the conditions of this particular\nings of UFO's. Each team should include at least one psychologist, pref-\nwinter (an unusually mild one in that area) and the particular weather condi-\nerably one interested in clinical psychology, and at least one physical scien-\ntions of that night-it was clear and there was little wind at either location-\ntist, preferably an astronomer or geophysicist familiar with atmospheric\nwere such as to have produced this unusual and puzzling display\nphysics. The universities should be chosen to provide good geographical\ndistribution, and should be within convenient distance of a base of the Air\nForce Systems Command (AFSC).\nSPECIAL REPORT OF THE USAF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD AD Hoc COMMITTEE\n(b) At each AFSC base an officer skilled in investigation (but not neces-\nTo REVIEW PROJECT BLUE Book\nsarily with scientific training) should be designated to work with the cor-\nresponding university team for that geographical section. The local repre-\nsentative of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) might be\nI. INTRODUCTION\na logical choice for this.\nAs requested in a memorandum from Maj. Gen. E. B. LeBailly, Secretary of\n(c) One university or one not-for-profit organization should be selected\nthe Air Force Officer of Information, dated September 28, 1965 (tab A), a\nto coordinate the work of the teams mentioned under (a) above, and also to\nScientific Advisory Board Ad Hoc Committee met on February 3, 1966, to review\nmake certain of very close communication and coordination with the Office\nProject Blue Book. The objectives of the committee are to review the resources\nof Project Blue Book.\nand methods of investigation prescribed by Project Blue Book and to advise the\nIt is thought that perhaps 100 sightings a year might be subjected to this\nAir Force of any improvements that can be made in the program to enhance\nclose study, and that possibly an average of 10 man-days might be required per\nthe Air Force's capability in carrying out its responsibility.\nsighting SO studied. The information provided by such a program might bring\nIn order to bring themselves up to date, the members of the committee initially\nto light new facts of scientific value, and would almost certainly provide a far\nreviewed the findings of previous scientific panels charged with looking into the\nbetter basis than we have today for decision on a long-term UFO program.\nUFO problem. Particular attention was given to the report of the Robertson\nThe scientific reports on these selected sightings, supplementing the present\npanel which was rendered in January 1953. The committee next heard briefings\nprogram of the Project Blue Book office, should strengthen the public position\nfrom the AFSC Foreign Technology Division, which is the cognizant Air Force\nof the Air Force on UFO's. It is, therefore, recommended that-\nagency that collates information on UFO sightings and monitors investigations\n(a) These reports be printed in full and be available on request.\nof individual cases. Finally, the committee reviewed selected case histories of\n(b) Suitable abstracts or condensed versions be printed and included in,\nUFO sightings with particular emphasis on those that have not been identified.\nor as supplements to, the published reports of Project Blue Book.\n(c) The form of report (as typified by Project Blue Book dated Feb-\nII. DISCUSSION\nruary 1, 1966) be expanded, and anything which might suggest that informa-\ntion is being withheld (such as the wording on page 5 of the above cited\nAlthough about 6 percent (646) of all sightings (10,147) in the years 1947\nreference) be deleted. The form of this report can be of great importance\nthrough 1965 are listed by the Air Force as \"Unidentified,\" it appears to the\nin securing public understanding and should be given detailed study by an\ncommittee that most of the cases SO listed are simply those in which the infor-\nappropriate Air Force office.\nmation available does not provide an adequate basis for analysis. In this con-\n(d) The reports Project Blue Book should be given wide unsolicited\nnection it is important also to note that no unidentified objects other than those\ncirculation among prominent Members of the Congress and other public\nof an astronomical nature have ever been observed during routine astronomical\npersons as a further aid to public understanding of the scientific approach\nstudies, in spite of the large number of observing hours which have been devoted\nbeing taken by the Air Force in attacking the UFO problem.\nto the sky. As examples of this the Palomar Observatory Sky Atlas contains\nsome 5,000 plates made with large instruments with wide field of view; the\nHarvard meteor project of 1954-58 provided some 3,300 hours of observation;\nDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,\nthe Smithsonian visual prairie network provided 2,500 observing hours. Not\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,\na single unidentified object has been reported as appearing on any of these\nWashington, D.C., September 28, 1965.\nplates or been sighted visually in all these observations.\nThe committee concluded that in the 19 years since the first UFO was sighted\nMemorandum for military director, scientific advisory board\nthere has been no evidence that unidentified flying objects are a threat to our\nSubject Unidentified flying objects (UFO's)\nnational security. Having arrived at this conclusion the committee then turned\nIn keeping with its air defense role, the Air Force has the responsibility for\nits attention to considering how the Air Force should handle the scientific aspects\nthe investigation of unidentified flying objects reported over the United States.\n5996\n5997\nThe name of this project is Blue Book (attachment 1). Procedures for con-\nducting this program are established by Air Force regulation 200-2 (attach-\ntions and material reviewed and discussed, are available in the SAB secretariat\nment 2).\noffices for review by authorized persons or agencies.\nThe Air Force has conducted Project Blue Book since 1948. As of June 30,\nApproved by\n1965, a total of 9,267 reports had been investigated by the Air Force. Of these\nHAROLD A. STEINER,\n9,267 reports, 663 cannot be explained.\nLieutenant Colonel, USAF,\nIt has been determined by the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff/Plans and\nAssistant Secretary, USAF Scientific Advisory Board.\nOperations that Project Blue Book is a worthwhile program which deserves the\nsupport of all staff agencies and major commands and that the Air Force should\ncontinue to investigate and analyze all UFO reports in order to assure that\nPROJECT BLUE BOOK\nsuch objects do not present a threat to our national security. The Assistant\nDeputy Chief of Staff/Plans and Operations has determined also that the\nThe U.S. Air Force has the responsibility under the Department of Defense\nForeign Technology Division (FTD) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base should\nfor the investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFO's). The name of this\ncontinue to exercise its presently assigned responsibilities concerning UFO's.\nprogram, which has been in operation since 1948, is Project Blue Book. It has\nTo date, the Air Force has found no evidence that any of the UFO reports\nbeen identified in the past as Project Sign and Project Grudge.\nreflects a threat to our national security. However, many of the reports that\nAir Force interest in unidentified flying objects is related directly to the Air\ncannot be explained have come from intelligent and technically well qualified\nForce responsibility for the air defense of the United States. Procedures for\nindividuals whose integrity cannot be doubted. In addition, the reports received\nconducting this program are established by Air Force Regulation 200-2.\nofficially by the Air Force include only a fraction of the spectacular reports\nThe objectives of the Project Blue Book are twofold first, to determine\nwhich are publicized by any private UFO organizations.\nwhether UFO's pose a threat to the security of the United States; and, second, to\nAccordingly, it is requested that a working scientific panel composed of both\ndetermine whether UFO's exhibit any unique scientific information or advanced\nphysical and social scientists be organized to review Project Blue Book-its re-.\ntechnology which could contribute to scientific or technical research. In the\nsources, methods, and findings-and to advise the Air Force as to any improve-\ncourse of accomplishing these objectives, Project Blue Book strives to identify\nments that should be made in the program in order to carry out the Air Force's\nand explain all UFO sightings reported to the Air Force.\nassigned responsibiltiy.\nDr. J. Allen Hynek who is the chairman of the Dearborn Observatory at\nHOW THE PROGRAM IS CONDUCTED\nNorthwestern University is the scientific consultant to Project Blue Book. He\nhas indicated a willingness to work with such a panel in order to place this\nThe program is conducted in three phases. The first phase includes receipt\nproblem in its proper perspective.\nof UFO reports and initial investigation of the reports. The Air Force base\nDr. Hynek has discussed this problem with Dr. Winston R. Markey, the\nnearest the location of a reported sighting is charged with the responsibility of\nformer Air Force Chief Scientist.\ninvestigating the sighting and forwarding the information to the Project Blue\nE. B. LEBAILLY,\nBook Office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.\nMajor General, USAF, Director of Information.\nIf the initial investigation does not reveal a positive identification or explana-\ntion, a second phase of more intensive analysis is conducted by the Project Blue\nAD Hoc COMMITTEE ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO's)\nBook Office. Each case is objectively and scientifically analyzed and, if neces-\nsary, all of the scientific facilities available to the Air Force can be used to assist\nAGENDA\nin arriving at an identification or explanation. All personnel associated with the\nThursday, 3 February 1966\ninvestigation, analysis, and evaluation efforts of the project view each report\n0800 Welcoming remarks Commander or vice commander, FTD.\nwith a scientific approach and an open mind.\n0805 Introduction: Dr. O'Brien, SAB.\nThe third phase of the program is dissemination of information concerning\n0810 The Air Force problem : Lieutenant Colonel Spaulding, SAFOI.\nUFO sightings, evaluations, and statistics. This is accomplished by the Secre-\n0830 Briefing on Project Blue Book Major Quintanilla, FTD.\ntary of the Air Force, Office of Information.\n1000 Break.\nThe Air Force defines an unidentified flying object as any aerial object which\n1015 Review of selected case histories FTD Staff.\nthe observer is unable to identify.\n1145 Lunch.\nReports of unfamiliar objects in the sky are submitted to the Air Force from\n1315 Executive and writing session.\nmany sources. These sources include military and civilian pilots, weather ob-\nservers, amateur astronomers, business and professional men and women, and\nSPECIAL REPORT OF THE USAF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD AD HOC COMMITTEE\nhousewives, etc.\nTO REVIEW PROJECT BLUE BOOK\nFrequently such objects as missiles, balloons, birds, kites, searchlights, aircraft\nnavigation and anticollision beacons, jet engine exhaust, condensation trails,\nDistribution\nastronomical bodies and meteorological phenomena are mistakenly reported as\nunidentified flying objects.\nThe Air Force groups its evaluations of UFO reports under three general head-\nSymbol\nCopies\nings: (1) identified, (2) insufficient data, and (3) unidentified.\nIdentified reports are those for which sufficient specific information has been\nSecretary of the Air Force Office of Information\nSAFOI\n25\naccumulated and evaluated to permit a positive identification or explanation of\nMilitary Director, DCS/R. & D\nAFRDC\n1\nCommittee members (1 each): Dr. Brian O'Brien (chairman), Dr. Launor\nthe object.\nF. Carter, Mr. Jesse Orlansky, Dr. Richard Porter, Dr. Carl Sagan, Dr.\nReports categorized as \"Insufficient Data\" are those for which one or more ele-\nWillis H. Ware\n6\nments of information essential for evaluation are missing. Some examples are\nCommander, Foreign Technology Division\n5\nDCS/Foreign Technology (AFSC)\nSCF\n2\nthe omission of the duration of the sighting, date, time, location, position in the\nChairman, SAB\nAFBSA\n1\nsky, weather conditions, and the manner of appearance or disappearance. If the\nSAB secretariat\nAFBSA\n1\nelement is missing and there is an indication that the sighting may be of a\nsecurity, scientific, technical, or public interest value, the Project Blue Book Office\nconducts an additional investigation and every attempt is made to obtain the in-\nMeeting statistics bearing on this report including all times, dates, places, a\nformation necessary for identification. However, in some instances, essential in-\nlisting of persons in attendance and purposes therefor, together with their affilia-\nformation cannot be obtained, and no further action can be taken.\n50-066 0-66-No. 55-2\n5998\n5999\nThe third and by far the smallest group of evaluations is categorized as\n\"Unidentified.\" A sighting is considered unidentified when a report apparently\ngiven any indication of threat to our national security; (2) there has been no\ncontains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the\nevidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized\ncause or explanation of the report but the description of the object or its motion\nas unidentified represent technological developments or principles beyond the\ncannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena.\nrange of present-day scientific knowledge; and (3) there has been no evidence\nindicating that sightings categorized as unidentified are extra terrestrial vehicles.\nTYPES OF UFO IDENTIFICATIONS AND EVALUATIONS\nThe Air Force will continue to investigate all reports of unusual aerial phe-\nnomena over the United States. The services of qualified scientists and tech-\nThere are various types of UFO sightings. Most common are reports of\nnicians will continue to be used to investigate and analyze these reports, and\nastronomical sightings, which include bright stars, planets, comets, fireballs,\nperiodic reports on the subject will be made.\nmeteors, auroral streamers, and other celestial bodies. When observed through\nThe former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Carl Vin-\nhaze, light fog, moving clouds, or other obscurations or unusual conditions, the\nson, recently commented on the conduct of the UFO program by the Air Force\nplanets, including Venus, Jupiter, and Mars have been reported as unidentified\nand stated that congressional hearings on this subject are unnecessary.\nflying objects. Stellar mirages are also a source of reports.\nThe Air Force does not deny the possibility that some form of life may exist\nSatellites are another major source of UFO reports. An increase in satellites\non other planets in the universe. However, to date, the Air Force has neither\nreported as UFO's has come about because of two factors. The first is the in-\nreceived nor discovered any evidence which proves the existence and intraspace\ncrease of interest on the part of the public; the second is the increasing number\nmobility of extra terrestrial life. The Air Force continues to extend an open\nof satellites in the skies. Positive knowledge of the location of all satellites at\ninvitation to anyone who feels that he possesses any evidence of extra terrestrial\nall times enables rapid identification of satellite sightings. Keeping track of\nvehicles operating within the earth's near space envelope to submit his evidence\nmanmade objects in orbit about the earth is the responsibility of the North\nfor analysis. Initial contact for this purpose is through the following address:\nAmerican Air Defense Command space detection and tracking system. This\nProject Blue Book Information Office, SAFOI, Washington, D.C.\nsophisticated electronic system gathers complex space traffic data instantly from\nAnyone observing what he considers to be an unidentified flying object should\ntracking stations all over the world.\nreport it to the nearest Air Force base. Persons submitting a UFO report to\nOther space surveillance activities include the use of ballistic tracking and\nthe Air Force are free to discuss any aspect of the report with anyone. The\nlarge telescopic cameras. ECHO schedules are prepared by the NASA Goddard\nAir Force does not seek to limit discussion on such reports and does not withhold\nSpace Flight Center at Greenbelt, Md., and schedules of the south-north Equator\nor censor any information pertaining to this unclassified program.\ncrossings are prepared by the Smithsonian Institution at Cambridge, Mass. From\nthe data produced by these agencies, satellites mistakenly reported as UFO's\nNONAVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS\ncan be quickly identified. Some of these are visible, to the naked eye.\nAircraft account for another major source of UFO reports, particularly during\nThe following items are for internal use only and are not available for dis-\nadverse weather conditions. When observed at high altitudes and at some dis-\ntribution to the public. These concern internal management and procedures\ntance, aircraft can have appearances ranging from disc to rocket shapes due to\nfor forwarding UFO reports to the appropriate agency:\nthe reflection of the sun on their bright surfaces. Vapor or condensation trails\n1. Air Force Regulation 200-2.\nfrom jet aircraft will sometimes appear to glow fiery red or orange when reflect-\n2. JANAP 146.\ning sunlight. Afterburners from jet aircraft are often reported as UFO's since\nThe Air Force has no films, photographs, maps, charts, or graphs of un-\nthey can be seen from great distances when the aircraft cannot be seen.\nidentified flying objects. Photographs that have been submitted for evaluation\nThe Project Blue Book Office has direct contact with all elements of the Air\nin conjunction with UFO reports have been determined to be a misinterpretation\nForce and the Federal Aviation Agency civil air control centers. All aerial\nof natural or conventional objects. These objects have a positive identification.\nrefueling operations and special training flights can be checked immediately. Air\nThe Air Force no longer possesses, and thus does not have for distribution,\ntraffic of commercial airlines and flights of military aircraft are checked with the\noutdated reports on Project Sign, Project Grudge, Blue Book Special Report No.\nnearest control center, enabling an immediate evaluation of aircraft mistakenly\n14, and outdated Project Blue Book press releases. Nonmilitary UFO publica-\nreported as UFO's. However, since many local flights are not carried, these\ntions should be requested from the publisher, not the Air Force.\nflights are probable causes of some reports.\nBalloons continue to be reported as UFO's. Several thousand balloons are\nSUGGESTED READING MATERIAL\nreleased each day from military and civilian airports, weather stations, and re-\nBooks listed below deal with facts and theories about our solar universe, the\nsearch activities. There are several types of balloons-weather balloons,\nrawinsondes, radiosondes, and the large research balloons which have diameters\nsun, planets, comets, meteorites, the universe, stars, constellations, and galaxies;\nup to 300 feet. At night, balloons carry running lights which cause an unusual\ntelescopes, the computation of time as it relates to astronomy, star maps and\nappearance when observed. Reflection of the sun on balloons at dawn and sunset\ncharts, and the history of astronomy.\nsometimes produce strange effects. This usually occurs when the balloon, because\n\"Sky and Telescope,\" by Sky Publishing Corp., Harvard College Observatory,\nof its altitudes, is exposed to the sun. Large balloons can move at speeds of over\nCambridge, Mass. Monthly magazine, 60 cents per copy.\n100 miles per hour when moving in high altitude jet windstreams. These balloons\n\"Weather Elements,\" by Blair, published Prentice Hall. Has an excellent\nsometimes appear to be flattened on top. At other times, they appear to be saucer-\nchapter on often misidentified weather phenomena.\nshaped and to have lights mounted inside the bag itself due to the sun's rays\n\"Planets, Stars, and Space,\" by Chamberlain, Joseph M., and Nicholson, Thomas\nreflecting through the material of the balloon. The Balloon Control Center at\nD. An illustrated, untechnical explanation of the earth, planets, stars, and the\nHolloman Air Force Base, N. Mex., maintains a plot on all military upper air re-\nuniverse. Prepared in cooperation with the American Museum of Natural\nsearch balloons.\nHistory.\nAnother category of UFO evaluations labeled \"Other\" includes missiles, reflec-\n\"Junior Science Book of Stars,\" by Crosby, Phoebe. An easy to read, exciting\ntions, mirages, searchlights, birds, kites, spurious radar indications, hoaxes, fire-\nstory of what scientists know about the stars, planets, the Moon, and the\nworks, and flares.\nMilky Way.\nAircraft, satellites, balloons, and the like should not be reported since they\n\"Challenge of the Universe,\" by Hynek, J. Allen and Anderson, Norman. Dis-\ndo not fall within the definition of an unidentified flying object.\ncusses the nature of the universe; astronomy and cosmology, published by\nScholastic Press.\nCONCLUSIONS\n\"The Story of the Stars,\" by Maloney, Terry.\" An introduction to the universe:\nour solar system, our galaxy, and other galaxies. Many interesting illustrated\nTo date, the firm conclusions of Project Blue Book are: (1) no unidentified\nanalogies help build concepts of size and distance. Includes reference to the\nflying object reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever\nVan Allen radiation belts and zodiacal light observation of 1960.\n6000\n6001\n\"The World of Flying Saucers,\" by Menzel and Roy. A scientific examination of\n2, 167\n167\n665\n1, 1,240\n916\n417\n237\n6, 6,817\n1,295\n805\n67\n2, 167 2,167\n226\n83\n54\n59\n37\nI8\n47\n27\n34\n87\n40\n70\n23\n48\n916\nthe classic UFO reports.\nTotal\n\"Tht Moon. Meteorites, and Comets,\" Dated 1963, by Middlehurst and Kuiper,\nContinuous analysis of Soviet moon photos. Chapter on Siberian meteorite\n20\n88\n19\n19\n55\n7\n123\n34\nL\nis\n7\n2\n9\n0\nI\n4\n2\n9\n3\n3\n9\n123\n71\n66\n143\n562\n83\nand photos or comets computation of various comet orbital photos.\n1964\n\"The Nature of Light and color in the Open Air,\" by Minnaert, Dover Publica-\ntions. This is an excellent paperback written in understandable lay language.\n85\n73\n23\n59\n50\n82\n14\n57\n23\n5\n85\n16\n13\n0\n3\n0\n2\n5\n2\n2\n1\n3\n3\n4\n4\n1963\n399\n58\n\"Meteors,\" by Oliver. Standard text by foremost authority on meteors.\n\"Photographic History of Mars,\" 1905-61, by Slipher, E. C., published by Lowell\nObservatory.\n68\n19\n94\n65\n77\n15\n95\n36\n5\n136\n11\n6\n3\n3\n3\n3\n4\n5\n2\n0\n2\n15\n3\n2\n136\n474\n65\n\"Anatomy of a Phenomenon,\" by Valle, Jacques.\n1962\n\"First Man to the Moon,\" by Von Braun, Wernher.\n77\n77\n69\n13\n78\n9\n203\n17\n13\n3\n4\n9\nI\n119\n5\n3\n2\n6\n3\n00\n4\nTotal UFO (object) sightings¹\n203\n37\n1961\n115\n591\n77\nYear\nTotal\nUnidentified\nSource\n66\n22\n105\n94\n14\n557\n187\n45\n3\n235\n13\n12\n6\n7\n5\n9\n4\n4\n3\n6\n9\nL\n0\n3\n$ 1\nsightings\n1960\n235\n21\n1947\n122\n12\nCase files.\n1948\n156\n7\nDo.\n144\n63\n31\n65\n75\n0\n12\n1959\n390\n100\n40\n4\n144\n14\n14\n11\n5\n4\n5\n3\n1\n0\n00\n4\n3\n0\n3\n75\n1949\n186\n22\nBlue book, page 108.\n1950\n210\n27\nCase files.\n1951\n169\n22\nDo.\n2\n8\n5\n6\n3\nL\n1952\n1,501\n303\nBlue book, page 108.\n10\n5\n1958\n221\n104\n50\n111\n93\n13\n10\n827\n168\n56\nL\n29\n6\n7\n3\n1\nI\n231\n93\n1953\n509\n42\nCase files.\n1954\n487\n46\nDo.\n1955\n545\n24\nDo.\n1956\n670\n14\nDo.\n210\n6\n179\n144\n18\n37\n2\n2\n8\n5\n12\n9\n2\nI\n1,006\n27\n1\n5\n0\n6\n120\n1957\n1,006\n14\nDo.\n1957\n341\n114\n191\n120\n14\n341\n1958\n627\n10\nDo.\n1959\n390\n12\nDo.\n1960\n557\n14\nDo.\n1961\n591\n13\n222\n148\n93\n132\n61\n0\n14\n670\n88\n131\n3\n222\n1\n61\nDo.\n1962\n474\n15\nDo.\n1956\n1963\n399\n14\nDo.\n1964\n562\n19\nDo.\nStatistical data for years 1953-64\n0\n3\n2\n5\n0\n4\n1965\n886\n16\nDo.\n135\n124\n102\n95\n65\n0\n24\n545\n79\n52\n4\n135\n18\n1\n4\n8\n4\n14\n2\n1\n65\n1955\nTotal\n10,147\n646\n80\n69\n102\n58\n0\n46\n92\n44\nI\n137\n6\n1\n6\n4\n3\n6\n3\n3\nL\n7\n1\n9\n0\n7\n1 Compiled Jan. 17, 1966.\n1954\n137\n437\n69\n73\n78\n79\n83\n0\n42\n70\n4\n4\n175\n15\n2\n4\n1\n3\n8\n6\n0\n15\n1\n1\n0\n1\n1953\n175\n505\n101\n62\nTOTAL CASES BY CATEGORY\nASTRONOMICAL SIGHTINGS\nOTHER CASES\nHoaxes, hallucinations, unreliable reports and psychological causes.\nAstronomical\nAircraft\nBalloon\nInsufficient data\nOther\nUnidentified\nTotal\nSatellite.\nMeteors\nStars and planets.\nTotal\nMissiles and rockets\nReflections.\nFlares and fireworks.\nMirages and inversions\nSearch and groundlights.\nOther\nClouds and contrails\nChaff\nBirds\nRadar analysis.\nPhoto analysis.\nPhysical specimens\nSatellite decay\nTotal\n1 Compiled Nov. 1, 1965.\nOther\n6002\n6003\n246\n210\n33\n66\n122\n152\n16\n17\n667\n101\n135\n6\n245\n34\n10\n5\n3\n11\n3\n6\n8\n126\nFIREBALL REPORT\nTotal\nPersons observing a fireball or meteor should report the information to the\nAmerican Meteor Society. The information desired is contained below.\n12\n5\n2\n1\n3\n3\n2\n28\n510\n12\n0\n1\n0\n1\n1\n3\nDecem-\nChemical trails from research rocket.\nA very brilliant meteor or fireball is reported to have passed in your vicinity\nber\non\nat the hour of Will you please answer as fully as possible the\nfollowing questions, which are asked on behalf of the American Meteor Society\nin order that permanent records of such phenomena may be obtained. When\n22\n0\n3\n0\n1\n55\n130\n22\n0\n3\n1\n1\n2\n1\nthese reports are published each contributor whose report is fairly complete\nNovem-\nber\n26\nwill be mentioned, if possible, and due credit given. It is only by the help of\n25\n24\n27\nannomoo\n70\n20\n3\n0\nDebris in wind.\n23 Man on ground.\nMissile launch.\nthose who can give personal information that data can be secured for the\nLighting.\ncomputation of the orbits of meteors. These data are of great scientific value\n1\n27\n1\n1\n9\nKites.\nand all reasonable efforts should be made to obtain them. You will be unable\nOctober\n13\n22\nprobably to answer all questions below, but answer those you can, as they may\nbe of the greatest importance.\n(1) Give your name and address.\n20\n2\n15\n7\n2\nSeptem-\n24\n104\n16\n30\n1\n0\nI\n0\n7\n(2) Where were you when you saw the meteor? (If the town is small please\n10\nber\n17\ngive county as well.)\n(3) Give the date, hour, and minute when the meteor appeared; also kind\nof time used.\n61\n6\n24\n42\n41\n2\n262\n55\n2\nAugust\n82\n3\n3\n3\n2\n42\n20 Misinterpretation of conventional ob-\n(4) In what direction did it appear (or in what direction was it first seen) ?\n17\n23\n13\n20\nThis is not asking in what direction it was going.\n12\n(5) In what direction did it disappear (or in what direction was it last seen) ?\nFor questions (4) and (5), simply N, E, S, or W is not accurate enough, unless\n27\n32\n16\n2\n135\n10\n3\n47\n2\n1\n1\n2\n1\n2\n0\n6\nthose were the exact directions. If compass is used, state it; also if magnetic\nJuly\n18\n17\ncorrection has been applied to compass reading.\n33\n10\n1\nI\n0\n6\nJune\nLT\n22\nDeveloper smear.\nFree falling object.\n17 Poor photo process.\nNo image on film.\n(6) At what height did it appear? (Use degrees in answering.)\nTracer bullets.\n(7) At what height did it disappear? (Use degrees in answering.)\n(8) Did it pass directly overhead (i.e., through the zenith)\n(9) If not, to which side of the zenith did it go, and how far from it? (Use\nStatistics for 1965\n2\n5\n41\n2\n2\n2\n1\n0\n0\njects (3).\ndegrees in answering.)\n(10) Did it appear to reach the horizon? What sort of a horizon have you?\n15\n5\nMay\n15\n(11) What angle did the path of the meteor make with the horizon and in\nwhich direction was it then going?\n(12) If you are familiar with constellations describe the path of the meteor\n3\n8\n5\n36\nNNO\n4\nI\n1\n2\nthrough the sky with reference to stars.\n1\n2\n8\nApril\n11\n21\n(13) Did the meteor appear to explode?\n20\n(14) What was the duration of its flight in seconds?\n(15) Describe the train if one was left. If it lasted long enough to show\n14\n2\n7\n5\n43\n30000\n3\n11\n4\n0\ndrift, most carefully tell in what direction train drifted. Give sketch, if possible,\n7\nMarch\n16\nshowing this with regard to horizon.\n15\n000\n8\n2\n4\n8\n5\n0\n0\n6\n1\n1 2\n1\n8\nFebru-\nary\n11 Anomalous propagation.\n12 Electronic countermeasures.\n(16) What was the duration of the train in seconds?\n(17) Did you hear any sound?\n35\n8\n3\n14 Weather returns.\nHow long after seeing the meteor was it before you heard this sound?\n13 False targets.\nDid you hear an actual explosion?\n11\n5\nMetal ball.\nPlastic bags.\nHow long after seeing the explosion was it before you heard it?\n3\n10\nGourd.\n(18) Of what color was the meteor?\n10\n3\n4\n45\n5\n2\n1\n1\n0\n2\n(19) What was the size of the meteor? (Compare it with the moon or with\nJanuary\n11\n20\n10\na planet or star.)\n19\n(20) Was more than one body seen before the explosion (if any)\n(21) What was condition of sky at time?\n(22) Give names and addresses of others who saw the meteor.\n(23) Please mail this reply to: Charles P. Oliver, American Meteor Society,\n521 North Wynnewood Avenue, Narberth, Pa., 19072.\nCASES\nbe an executive session\nOTHER CATEGORY\nHoaxes, hallucinations, unreliable re-\nports, and psychological causes\nReflected moonlight, parbelia, moon.\nThe CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you this. Should this\nSecretary BROWN. No, nothing I have said SO far has been classified,\nSearch and ground lights\nCompiled Jan. 18, 1966.\nand nothing I will say.\nThe CHAIRMAN. Is there any reason to keep this executive? I think\nAstronomical\nAircraft\nBalloon\nInsufficient data\nUnidentified\nTotal\nSatellite\nPending\nStars and planets\nTotal\nMeteors\nOther\nMissiles and rockets\nReflections\nFlares and fireworks\nMirages and inversions.\nClouds and contrails\nPhysical specimens.\nRadar analysis\nPhoto analysis\nSatellite decay\nMiscellaneous\nTotal\nSolar image.\nReflected moonlight.\nComet Ibeya-Seki.\nwe have a lot of people outside of the door. Let them come in.\nMr. PRICE. In yiew of the reason you are having it, I see no ob-\nOther\nChaff\nBirds\nMoon.\njection.\nSun.\nThe CHAIRMAN. I don't either. Why not open the door?\nMr. BRAY. I would like 'to make this observation off the record.\n6004\n6005\n(Discussion off the record.)\nThe CHAIRMAN. We are going to decide what the future is going\nSecretary BROWN. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the Air\nto be. I am talking about this testimony now. If there is no reason\nForce, and no one in the executive branch has expressed such a be-\nfor them not being here, let them in here.\nlief. Nor have I ever heard a Member of Congress make such a state-\nSecretary BROWN. This letter is unclassified. Some of the ques-\nment. I know of no one of scientific standing or executive standing,\ntions you ask may lead to classified material.\nor with a detailed knowledge of this, in our organization who believes\nMr. Schweiker. Are all the files unclassified?\nthat they come from extraterrestrial sources.\nThe CHAIRMAN. Let them come in and listen to the testimony.\nThe CHAIRMAN. But you have found parts of meteors and things\nWhen we get into the questions we will decide.\nof this character that have been continuing to hit the earth forever?\nOpen the doors.\nSecretary BROWN. Meteors, of course, are of extraterrestrial origin.\nMr. Secretary, we will let you start.\nI am talking about extraterrestrial flying craft.\nYou gentlemen who have come in, the Secretary is explaining a letter\nThe CHAIRMAN. Objects that are made for the purpose of coming\nhe is sending to the committee.\nto earth?\nYou gentlemen of the press, TV, and radio, whatever you represent,\nSecretary BROWN. That is right.\nlisten. That is the best way to find out.\nThe CHAIRMAN. That is what I have in mind.\nGo ahead.\nSecretary BROWN. That is right.\n(Secretary Brown repeats his statement previously read to the com-\nThe CHAIRMAN. So then your testimony, or your answer in re-\nmittee.)\nsponse to my letter in effect is that there are things caused by various\nThe CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I have before me some pages from\nphenomena, reflection of radar waves, the northern lights, somebody\nLife magazine. I don't know what the date is, but it is recent.\nhas said marsh gases.\nMr. KELLEHER. Two weeks ago, I think.\nSecretary BROWN. Yes; that is another explanation of some of the\nThe CHAIRMAN. Two weeks ago.\nphenomena.\nIt mentioned 10,000-odd sightings of these mysterious objects. I\nThe CHAIRMAN. As well as meteors?\nnote it has a picture.\nSecretary BROWN. Yes, sir.\nHave you seen this? I will pass it on to you.\nThe CHAIRMAN. What else?\nSecretary BROWN. Yes, I have seen the picture.\nSecretary BROWN. Some of them turn out to be balloons. Some of\nThe CHAIRMAN. Here are two pictures. One taken in Oregon in\nthem turn out to be aircraft seen under peculiar circumstances, and\n1950 and the other taken 4 years later in France. They both look very\nso on.\nmuch alike. Actually it looks something like a battleship.\nAnd we can explain 95 percent of them this way. This does not\nThen here is something on another page here that is alleged to have\nimply that a large part of the remaining 5 percent, the unexplained\nbeen seen in Michigan, and it is even sketched here with an antenna\nones, are not also of this character, but we simply have not been able\nand all that goes with it.\nto confirm this because we don't have enough information about these\nHere is my question: Responsible, well-trained people, like pilots-\nsightings.\nI think some B-52 people, Mr. Kelleher?\nIt may also be that there are phenomena, the details of which we\nMr. KELLEHER. I don't recall that. I do remember sightings by\ndon't understand, which are natural phenomena, and which account\ncommercial pilots.\nfor some of the sightings we have not identified. In certain instances,\nThe CHAIRMAN. Certainly commercial pilots have reported all kinds\nI think a further scientific explanation is a possibility. Therefore, we\nof things.\nwill continue to develop this approach.\nHow do you explain away these clearly defined mysterious things\nThe CHAIRMAN. Now, we have here Dr. Hynek, and Major\nthat these responsible people allege having seen.\nQuintanilla.\nHow do your experts reconcile this?\nWe have these two gentlemen who are authorities on the Blue Book.\nSecretary BROWN. I will turn this over to my experts in a moment,\nOne is a scientist, the other is the UFO project officer.\nMr. Chairman.\nNow, we have asked that you gentlemen come. Dr. Hynek, is there\nHowever, I should like to say this: We haven't explained all of the\nanything you would like to say to us?\nreported sightings which we have investigated. We have explained\nDr. HYNEK. Mr. Chairman, the press has recently treated me rather\n95 percent of them, but are not sure about the other 5 percent. There\nunkindly.\nare possible explanations for the other 5 percent in most cases. How-\nThe CHAIRMAN. You ought to be chairman of this committee.\never, since we can't prove that our findings are the correct explana-\nDr. HYNEK. The press has described me as \"a puppet of the Air\ntions they are regarded as sightings which have not been completely\nForce,\" and has stated that I say only what the Air Force tells me to\naccounted for.\nsay. I would like to do something which may be a little daring, and\nThe CHAIRMAN. Well, now, does anybody, in authority or of stature,\nread to the committee a statement I have prepared which has cer-\nallege that these things, whatever they may be, have come from other\ntainly not been dictated by the Air Force.\nplanets or from somewhere outside of this universe?\nThe CHAIRMAN. At this point, I want you to turn the loud speaker\nup.\n50-066\n0-66-No.\n6006\n6007\nNow, Doctor, before you give us this, would you give your back-\nmany of us firmly believed that, like some fad or craze, it would\nground for the record\nsubside in a matter of months. Yet in the last 5 years, more reports\nDr. HYNEK. Yes, sir. This information is included in my state-\nwere submitted to the Air Force than in the first 5 years.\nment.\nDespite the seeming inanity of the subject, I felt that I would be\nderelict in my scientific responsibility to the Air Force if I did not\nSTATEMENT OF DR. J. ALLEN HYNEK, SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT\npoint out that the whole UFO phenomenon might have aspects to it\nTO THE AIR FORCE\nworthy of scientific attention. What we have here is a signal-to-noise\nratio problem: There is indeed a fantastic amount of noise, represented\nDr. HYNEK. My name is J. Allen Hynek, and I reside at 2623 Ridge\nby the many misidentifications of familiar objects seen under unusual\nAvenue, Evanston, Ill. I am director of the Dearborn Observatory\nor surprising circumstances-balloons, birds, satellites, meteors, air-\nand of the Lindheimer Astronomical Research Center, and Chairman\ncraft, stars-yet, in all scientific honesty, one is led to ask whether there\nof the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University. Since\nmight not indeed be a signal somewhere in the noise.\n1948 I have acted as a frequent scientific consultant to the Air Force\nAs a scientist, I must be mindful of the lessons of the past; all too\non the problem of the UFO (Unidentified Flying Objects)\noften it has happened that matters of great value to science were over-\nphenomenon.\nlooked because the new phenomenon simply did not fit the accepted\nThe UFO phenomenon might be defined as (1) the persistent re-\nscientific outlook of the time. Thus, the evidence of fossiles for biologi-\nporting by a wide cross section of the public, in this and in other\ncal evolution was overlooked; X-rays were overlooked, meteorites were\ncountries, of alleged aerial objects which, to the observer, seem to defy\noverlooked as astronomers steadfastly refused to accept stories of\nexplanation because of their appearance and behavior, and (2) the\nstones which fell from the sky.\nwidespread and growing interest in these matters by segments of the\nTherefore, I have set aside for further study some 20 particularly\npublic which, in some cases, has led to the formation of civilian orga-\nwell-reported UFO cases which, despite the character, technical com-\nnizations dedicated to the investigation of the said reports, often ac-\npetence and number of the witnesses, I have not been able to explain.\ncompanied by vilification of the Air Force for their handling of the\nI have done this to illustrate that neither I nor the Air Force hide\nproblem, a matter not beneficial to the Air Force image. Such people\nthe fact there are unexplained reports, and to illustrate also that the\ngenerally charge either (a) that UFO's are in reality secret devices\nAir Force does not maintain, contrary to some public opinion, that re-\nof the Air Force, whose existence is kept from the public, or (b)\nporters of UFO's are lacking in intelligence or are objects fit only for\nthat the Air Force knows all about visitors from space and is de-\nridicule.\nliberately withholding information to prevent panic.\nFor of these reports, 10 are from scientists and highly trained indi-\nA third aspect of the UFO phenomenon has been the association\nviduals, 5 are from members of the Armed Forces, and members of\nof the terms UFO or \"flying saucer\" with the idea of visitation of\nthe police force, and 5 are reports made by reliable American civilians.\nintelligences from outer space, an association which is not warranted\nIn my view, the reliability of the observers was above average in all\neither by the data on hand, or by logical inference. It is entirely con-\n20 cases. The recent cases in Michigan have not been included in this\nceivable that there might be unidentified aerial phenomena about us\nparticular collection since I feel that they are subject to simple, albeit\nwhich have no connection with extraterrestrial visitation.\nsomewhat unusual, explanation.\nThus, the phenomenon should essentially be viewed in its entirety\nI cannot prove beyond doubt that this is the case, but these two now\nThe fact that the recent sightings in Michigan caused a reaction far\nfamous reports illustrate the method the Air Force has used with\nout of proportion to the original sightings, the fact that my press con-\ngreat success in finding logical explanations for the great majority of\nference in Detroit the week before last was the largest in the history\nthe reports.\nof the Detroit Press Club, the fact that I receive many letters from\nWe have used as a working hypothesis, when first confronted with\nschoolchildren who are writing class reports on UFO's and indeed the\na report, that a conventional explanation existed, either as a misiden-\nfact that I am speaking here before you, are all parts of the UFO\ntification or an otherwise well-known object or phenomenon, a hallu-\nphenomenon.\ncination, or a hoax. This has been a very successful and productive\nIn this context, the kind of activity that the press has reported in\nhypothetsis. One must be aware, however, that complete adherence\nMichigan is not unusual. It only happened that the Dexter and Hills-\nto one hypothesis may turn out to be a roadblock in the pursuit of\ndale incidents, although of little sicentific significance, have attracted\nresearch endeavors.\nnational interest. Now, similar incidents, and some considerably\nAs the saying goes, \"If one digs too intently for coal he is apt to\nmore intriguing, have been occurring for many years, without such\nmiss diamonds.\" Scientists should never be guilty of poverty of\ntreatment on the part of the news media. While such glamorous at-\nhypotheses. And in dealing with the truly puzzling cases, we have\ntention is quick to wane, the underlying concern about UFO's, fed by\ntended either to say that, if an investigation had been pursued long\na continuous trickle of reports, is indeed growing in the mind and sight\nenough, the misidentified object would have been recognized, or that\nof the public.\nthe sighting had no validity to begin with.\nDuring this entire period of nearly 20 years I have attempted to\nThe UFO public, on the other hand, is equally prone to poverty of\nremain as openminded on this subject as circumstances permitted, this\nhypotheses: Either UFO's mean utter bilge and nonsense, or they\ndespite the fact that the whole subject seemed utterly ridiculous, and\n6008\n6009\njump to the far-out conclusion that the earth is host to space visitors.\nThe CHAIRMAN. What you have recommended is being done now?\nSurely, in scientific fairness, we must examine other hypotheses.\nDr. HYNEK. It is about to be done, I believe.\nAs early as 1952, in a paper written for the journal of the Optical\nThe CHAIRMAN. Is about to be done?\nSociety of America, I called for scientific attention to the problem,\nDr. HYNEK. Yes. I should like to make one comment:\npointing out that \"ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and\nThe puzzling thing is that one would think many more people would\nthe public should not be taught that it is.\"\nsee these flying objects than do. There should be many more wit-\nIn 1953, I had further recommendations to make, when I wrote in\nnesses. We should see a craft, if it actually exists as a tangible thing,\na report to the Air Force:\nand we should see it go from point to point. This doesn't seem to\nIt occurs to me that the public interest in \"flying saucers\" may be dormant,\nhappen. Also, there should be far more radar sightings. During the\nbut can be excited with small provocation. I would recommend that: (1) se\ninternational geophysical year, I was in charge of the optical satellite\nlected \"unknowns\" continue to be worked upon and due publicity be given them\nwhen a satisfactory solution is reached; (2) an announcement be made that\ntracking program, and you would think with the surveillance that the\nthe Air Force is interested in the phenomena which cause reports on a scientific\nastronomers placed on the sky, if these objects existed as tangible\nbasis; (3) use of a small civilian scientific panel to examine a few selected\nobjects, surely these astronomers would have seen more than they did.\n\"unknowns.\"\nIt is a dilemma. It is a puzzle, as you say, as to how responsible people\nAnd this, I repeat, was my recommendation in 1953. In 1965, in\ncan report such objects, and that they are not obvious to scientists.\nmy capacity as scientific consultant, I again advised that the reports\nThe CHAIRMAN. And then they see them and they disappear and\nbe studied by a civilian scientific group, in a letter to the Office of the\nthey don't know where they go, and they land in these remote places\nSecretary of the Air Force:\nwhere there is no intelligence to procure?\nDr. HYNEK. I would say so, yes, sir.\nIf there be any potential scientific value in the fragmentary UFO reports, as\nscientific consultant it is clearly my duty to point this out. I have done so, in\nThe CHAIRMAN. We don't know where they go, who they have on\nthe past on a less formal basis, in private conservation with, and informal reports\nboard, we see them a few moments, and then they are gone. This is\nto, Air Force officials-I feel it is my responsibility to point out that enough\nthe end of that.\npuzzling sightings have been reported by intelligent and often technically com-\nThis is what puzzles me. I am not going to ask further questions,\npetent people, to warrant closer attention than Project Blue Book can possibly\nencompass at the present time. If the preliminary survey of the problem\nbecause I am not knowledgeable with respect to the varying reports\nshould bear me out; namely, that there exists the possibility of new scientific\nthat have been made.\ninformation in the UFO phenomenon, then definitely let the recommendation be\nSo I will turn it over to some of the experts, and I will start with\nmade to have the National Academy of Sciences, or some other civilian group of\nMr. Bates.\nrecognized stature, undertake a longer study of the reported phenomena.\nMr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I don't know-if I have to qualitfy on\nI am happy that my appearance before this committee affords me a\nthat basis.\nchance to once again reiterate my recommendations.\nBut, Secretary Brown, you indicated no one of scientific knowledge\nSpecifically, it is my opinion that the body of data accumulated since\nin your organization has concluded these phenomena come from extra-\n1948 through the Air Force investigations deserves close scrutiny by a\nterrestrial sources?\ncivilian panel of physical and social scientists, and that this panel\nSecretary BROWN. That is correct. We know of no phenomena or\nshould be asked to examine the UFO problem critically for the express\nvehicles, intelligently guided, which have come from extraterrestrial\npurpose of determining whether a major problem really exists.\nsources. I excluded meteors, which do come from extraterrestrial\nI would, of course, be willing to assist such a panel in whatever way\nsources.\nI might and would even be willing to take a short leave of absence\nMr. BATES. Is this your conclusion, Doctor?\nfrom my university if it would help place this problem in its proper\nDr. HYNEK. This is also my conclusion. I know of no competent\nperspective.\nscientist today who would argue the sightings which do puzzle intel-\nThank you.\nligent people. Puzzling cases exist, but I know of no competent scien-\nThe CHAIRMAN. You say you can't write these reports off. You\ntist who would say that there objects come from outer space.\ncan't ridicule those who have made them. They are highly responsible\nMr. BATES. Then what you are looking for is an explanation in nat-\npeople, in various walks of life, that have reported them. And that\nural phenomena, thus far you have not determined the factors involved\nsometime in the past you recommended that a panel be set up to clear\nin it?\nthese things, a civilian panel, to obviate the accusation that the Air\nDr. HYNEK. Yes.\nForce is or has been hiding their reports.\nMr. BATES. But the interesting thing, of course, is we have so many\nNow, are you saying to us this morning that there should be a panel\nprominent people in the scientific world here who have taken a position,\nset up of scientists authorized by the Air Force before whom these\na rather strong position-I have here a letter from a constituent of\nthings may be brought, and from whom a report could come?\nmine. He is a project administrator or engineer in the MINUTEMAN\nDr. HYNEK. Yes, sir. I am saying that. This would be the gist of\nprogram. That is a responsible position, would we say\nmy statement.\nGeneral McCoNNELL. Yes.\nHowever, I have been scooped by Secretary Brown who has men-\nMr. BATES. On the basis of scientific ability he has been given a\ntioned that the Scientific Advisory Board has recommended the same\nrather important position toward the security of this country; is that\nthing.\ncorrect?\n6010\n6011\nSecretary BROWN. I would like to know who he is and what his\nbe inaugurated that presents facts. I am urging you to support a full con-\ngressional open inquiry on the UFO problem.\nresponsibilities are before I comment on this, Mr. Bates. Certainly,\nSincerely,\nfrom the information contained in the letter that you quote, he appears\nRAYMOND E. FOWLER,\nto occupy a position of some responsibility.\nChairman NICAP Massachusetts Subcommittee.\nMr. BATES. It does seem to be. And as I read the letter which he has\n(The attachments to the previous letter are as follows:)\nwritten to me, it is certainly written by a well-educated person. And of\ncourse, we here all kinds of comments on the other side of the issue\n[Excerpt from Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, Sept. 6, 1965]\nnow, with this Lunar II excursion around the moon, people say I sup-\nPOLICE, CIVILIANS SIGHT UFO IN EXETER AREA\npose the people up there are making the same kind of reports as the\ndoctor has just made to us. They are making these kinds of state-\nEXETER.-At least five people here, including two police officers, have reported\nments.\nseeing a flying saucer in this area.\nThe incidents occurred early Friday morning. According to those who saw\nDoctor, to be more specific, the paper which I have-Mr. Chairman,\nthe unidentified flying object, it was about the size of a house and had a red\nI would like to get unanimous consent to insert in the record the in-\nglow around it, and moved silently through the night.\nformation which has been provided to me.\nWhen Exeter police investigated a parked car on the Exeter-Hampton bypass\nThe CHAIRMAN. Without objection.\nat about 12:30 investigating officer Eugene Bertrand. who approach the car and\nfound two women in a state of near shock. They told that they had been chased\n(The letter to Congressman Bates is as follows:)\nalong Route 101 all the way from Epping, about 12 miles, by flying object which\nWENHAM, MASS., April 1, 1966.\nglowed with a brilliant halo of red. According to the women, the \"thing\" fol-\nCONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,\nlowed their car until they stopped.\nHouse of Representatives,\nAs the one woman told their story one of them sighted the object once more,\nWashington, D.C.\nabout 2 miles away, which Bertrand thought was a star low on the horizon.\n(Attention, Speaker John W. McCormack).\nREPORTS CHASE\nDEAR SIR: My name is Raymond E. Fowler. I am employed as a project\nadministrative engineer in the Minuteman Program Office for Sylvania Electric\nAt 12 a.m., Norman J. Muscarello, 18, of 2051/2 Front Street, Exeter, came into\nProducts, Waltham, Mass. I am presently serving as chairman of a Technical\nthe police station with a hair-raising report of having been chased by a flying\nInvestigating Subcommittee for the National Investigations Committee on Aerial\nobject as he was hitchhiking toward Exeter on Route 150 in Kensington.\nPhenomena, Wash., D.C.\nMuscarello told Desk Officer Reginald Toland that as he walked along the\nThe reasons for my writing are twofold, firstly-I have been asked by NICAP\nhighway, a large, brilliant object began making passes on an adjacent field and\nto submit to you our subcommittee's complete file covering our investigation of\nhouse and along the highway. Not knowing what it was and being understand-\nthe Exeter, New Hampshire UFO sighting witnessed at close range by local\nably shaken, he crouched in a ditch along the road as the object, SO brilliantly\ncitizens and police officers on September 3, 1965. I am sure that you are aware\nred that its shape could not be determined in the glow, made what seemed to\nof this sighting as it gained nationwide publicity recently through NICAP-backed\nhim to be searching passes at him.\narticles in the Saturday Review and Look magazines. Secondly, I do want\nShortly thereafter the \"thing\" disappeared silently, as quickly as it had ap-\nto put myself on record as supporting the claims and views of NICAP and\npeared. Muscarello then hitched a ride to the police station and related what\nothers which indicate that congressional hearings on the matter of UFO's are\nhe had seen.\nlong overdue.\nAthlough Muscarello's story was extraordinary, Patrolman Bertrand drove him\nI feel that the American people are capable of understanding the problems and\nback to the scene of the incident in the police cruiser. When they arrived,\nimplications that will arise if the true facts about UFO's are made known\nnothing was there.\noffically. The USAF public information program and policy, as directed by the\nPOLICE SEE UFO\nPentagon, of underrating the significance of UFO's and not releasing true, perti-\nnent facts about UFO's, is not only a disservice to the American people now but\nOfficer Bertrand suggested that they walk into the field where the flying object\nin the long run could prove to have been a foolish policy to follow. After years\nwas last seen, and they were joined there by Exeter Patrolman David Hunt,\nof study, I am certain that there is more than ample high-quality observational\nwho also drove to the scene. Bertrand was talking reassuringly when Muscarello\nevidence from highly trained and reliable witnesses to indicate that there are\nshouted \"Look, there it is, rising up from behind those trees.\" The officers spun\nmachinelike solid objects under intelligent control operating in our atmosphere.\naround and looked.\nThe aerodynamic performance and characteristics of the true UFO rule out\nFrom behind a stand of trees in the black of the night, a huge blinding glow\nmanmade or natural phenomena. Such observational evidence has been well\nof brilliant red light surrounding it, the object rose, not fast but waveringly.\nsupported in many instances by reliable instruments such as cameras, radar,\nIt traveled slowly and yawed slightly from side to side. They were stunned\ngeiger-counters, variometers, electrical interference, physical indentations in soil\nby the blinding red light as it moved toward them across the field. The object\nand scorched areas at landing sites, etc.\nseemed to be coming toward them and Bertrand made a move toward his police\nI am reasonably sure that if qualified civilian scientists and investigators are\nservice revolver but thought better of it. Then the three men ran to the police\nable to come to this conclusion, that the USAF, supported by the tremendous\ncruisers. When questioned on the size of the object, Officer Bertrand estimated\nfacilities at its disposal, have come to the same conclusion long ago. However,\nit to be \"about the size of a house.\"\npresent official policy deliberately attempts to discredit the validity of UFO's\nUsually, when incidents such as this are reported, the sightings take place\nand a wealth of data and facts are not being released to the public.\nover a period of a few seconds, but in this instance, the men observed the object\nI trust that you will examine the attached UFO report and related corre-\nfor 15 or 20 minutes at what appeared to be a relatively short distance.\nspondence in detail. Sightings such as the Exeter, N.H., sighting have and are\nOne of the most amazing points which Officer Bertrand made while being in-\noccurring throughout the world at night and in the daytime. It is high time that\nterviewed was the complete absence of sound as the flying object hovered over\nthe real facts about UFO's are released. A public information program should\n6012\n6013\na nearby farm building, casting a brilliant glow over the dwelling, while the\nADDREDUN I\nfarm animals in the barn caused a tremendous commotion. Horses whinnied\nand kicked the walls of their stalls. Then the object disappeared rapidly in the\nUFO RFT-9/3/65 - KENSYNGTON, 11.4.\ndistance.\nANOTHER SIGHTING\n0,221\n(Additional information obtained from\nnotor of one who personally interviewed\nOfficer Eugene Bertrand's report on the trio's sighting of the strange object was\nMascurallo on 6 1965)\nmade to Officer Toland, desk man at the Exeter police station, at 2:55 a.m.\nThen at 3:30 p.m. Officer Hunt reported from his cruiser that he had again\nsighted the UFO, while he was at the intersection of the Route 101 bypass in\n0,221\nExeter and Route 87 to Newfields from Exeter.\nTopping the strange activities, Exeter police reported that a telephone call\nfrom an unidentified pay station in Hampton had been made by a hysterical man,\nbut that the line had gone dead before the call could be completed or the pay\nphone station identified. The man had dialed the operator and cried \"Get me\n0,22)\nthe police\" and said he had been chased by a flying saucer.\nHampton police were notified, but nothing was determined about the point from\nSHAPE\nwhich the call was made, what had frightened the man-or why the call was SO\nSmot chaped Joncenled by gloro of\nabruptly broken off.\nfinching red lighto Dolwoon and\nduring flashes Officer Dortrand\ngot the improssion that the object\nNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE\nuno with no protrusions\n\"like and but this is just an\nON AERIAL PHENOMENA,\neducated guens.,\nWashington, D.C., September 15, 1965.\nRAYMOND FOWLER,\nLIQUES PULSED DEII A SMOOTH\nWenham, Mass.\nSEQUENCE 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1\nDEAR RAY: Your excellent report on the September 3 New Hampshire sight-\nTAKING TWO SECONDS TO COMPLETE\nings has been received. You certainly are to be commended for a prompt and\nA. FULL CYCLE,\nthorough investigation. The information is most interesting and will be of\ngreat value. We are very fortunate to have people of your ability donating their\nservices to us.\nAll ultnesson abourved\nA\nMr. John Fuller of Saturday Review may be getting in touch with you about\nthe object rook back and\nthese sightings. He is doing a straightforward column (he writes \"Trade\nforth several times during\nWinds\") on the recent wave of sightings, and has long had a sincere interest in\nits flight.\nthe subject. We are cooperating fully, and I have given him a lot of specific\ninformation.\nEach light sconed\nOur New York No. 2 Subcommittee in Chautauqua County (western New\nround in shope.\nYork.) and an intelligent young member have been investigating a landing report\n3\nnear Buffalo (Cherry Creek) August 19. It appears to be a solid case, and\ncaused several E-M effects.\nOn the same night as the New Hampshire sightings, two police officers near\nC\nAngleton, Tex. (Between Houston and gulf coast) saw a reddish UFO on the\nground in a field, started to investigate until the object moved toward them—\nwhereupon they fled in panic. Sounds very similar to New Hampshire, but\nintefited on 10 CRUD the\nwe may not be able to get much details.\n01576 toward (Inibial\nThanks again for your hard work on our behalf.\nsighting) this position\nVirils WITH Ruscell residence\nSincerely,\nAlso Vhon approached\nDICK HALL.\nRhynord E. Fetter\nRICAP Investigator\nADDENDUM II\n(UFO Report, September 3, 1965, Kensington, N.H. (Bertrand-Hunt-Muscarello)\nSubject Weather, September 3, 1965, a.m.\nTo: NICAP, Washington, D.C.\nFrom: Raymond E. Fowler, chairman: NICAP Massachusetts Investigating\nSubcommittee.\nU.S. Weather Forecast: Skies: Clear. Wind direction Northwest, Wind\nvelocity 5 miles per hour. Temperature: Lower fifties.\nRespectfully submitted.\nRAYMOND E. FOWLER,\nNICAP Investigator.\n50-066 0-66-No. 55-4\n6015\n6014\n\"He was right. It was coming up over a row of trees. There was no noise\n[From the Saturday Review, Oct. 2, 1965]\nat all. It was about 100 feet in the air, and about 200 feet away from us. I\nADDENDUM IIA (UFO RPT, SEPTEMBER 3, 1965, KENSINGTON, N.H. (BERTRAND-\ncould see five bright red lights in a straight row. They dimmed from right to\nHUNT-MUSCARELLO))\nleft, and then from left to right-just like an advertising sign does. It lit up\neverything around us. But it was silent. The horses started kicking and making\nTRADE WINDS\nan awful fuss, and the dogs in the farm started barking. The kid froze in his\ntracks, and I grabbed him and pulled him toward the police car. I reached for\n(By John G. Fuller)\nmy revolver and then thought better of it. Then Officer David Hunt arrived in\nanother patrol car.\nWhen the tidal wave of reports about unidentified flying objects hit even the\n\"We sat there and looked at it for at least 10 minutes. My brain kept telling\naugust pages of the New York Times last summer, we made a mental note to\nme that this doesn't happen-but it was, right in front of my eyes. There was\nfollow the story through to see just what conclusions might eventually be drawn.\nno tail, no wings, and again no sound. It hovered there, still about 100 feet\nState police in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico had risked their jobs\naway, sort of floated and wobbled. I don't know what it was. All I can say is\nand reputations for sanity in reporting a wide number of observations, corrobo-\nthat it was there, and three of us saw it together.\"\nrated by radar trackings from the Tinker and Carswell Air Force Bases. Later,\nNobody else can tell you exactly what it was, either. Lieutenant Cottrell will\nhowever, the Air Force made it a point to release a statement that the radar\ntell you that the whole story is on the police blotter, and that you can't find two\ntrackings did not correspond to the visual findings of the Oklahoma Department\nbetter officers than Hunt and Bertrand. \"If I didn't believe these guys, I'd put\nof Public Safety, and the story disappeared from the pages of the press.\n'em in a locked room and give 'em some blocks to play with,\" he says. The\nSkepticism is a healthy thing, especially when you get involved with whirling\nHampton police will tell you that too many reliable people have reported these\nsaucers that defy the laws of aerodynamics. But curiosity is also a powerful\nsightings to doubt them. The editors at the Manchester Union Leader and the\nforce, and it was for this reason that we decided to track down at least one\nExeter News-Letter will tell you that the reports are from too many reliable\nspecific case of UFO chasing.\nsources to doubt.\nA phone call to the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomenon\nMoreover, officials suspect other local UFO landings have gone unreported.\nin Washington, D.C., put us in touch with Richard H. Hall, its acting director.\nAs Lieutenant Cottrell said, \"If I had seen that thing-and I was all alone,\nWe learned from Mr. Hall that the Oklahoma State Police had released a nine-\nnobody else would have ever heard about it.\"\npage report through its department of public safety, contradicting the Air Force\nstatement and indicating that without question the Carswell Air Force Base\n[From the Haverhill Gazette, Oct. 27, 1965]\nradar trackings and the State police visual reports were identical. What's more,\na steady stream of new findings had been received by NICAP. Most interesting\nPENTAGON DOESN'T BELIEVE UFO EXETER SIGHTINGS\nwas a report that the NICAP representative in New England, Mr. Raymond\nFowler, was just completing a survey on an alleged landing of a UFO in Exeter,\nWASHINGTON, D.C.-The Pentagon believes that, after intensive investigation,\nN.H., witnessed by not just one but two police officers.\nit has come up with a natural explanation of the UFO sightings in Exeter, N.H.,\nWe talked successively and at length to Mr. Fowler; Lieutenant Cottrell of\non September 3.\nthe Exeter police; the Hampton, N.H., police desk; James R. Bucknam, managing\nA spokesman said the several reports stemmed from \"multiple objects in the\neditor of the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader; Officer Bertrand, of the Exeter\narea,\" by which they mean a high-altitude Strategic Air Command exercise out\npolice force; and the Pease Air Force Base in nearby Portsmouth, N.H.\nof Westover, Mass., was going on at the time in the area.\nUnderstandably, the Air Force is extremely wary about the matter of UFO's,\nA second important factor was what is called a weather inversion wherein a\nand the Pease base could only confirm that a large number of sightings had been\nlayer of cold air is trapped between warm layers.\nreported locally.\nThe Pentagon spokesman said this natural phenomena causes \"stars and\nBeyond that, however, we were able to piece together the following story:\nplanets to dance and twinkle.\"\nShortly after midnight, on September 3, Officer Eugene Bertrand of the Exeter\nThe spokesman said \"We believe what the people saw that night was stars\npolice force was on routine duty. cruising along an overpass on Route 101 near\nand planets in unusual formations.\"\nthe town. He pulled up besides a parked car and found in it two women who\n(This is the official Air Force \"explanation\" for the September 3, 1965, UFO\nwere visibly disturbed. They reported to him that an airborne object, bright\nsightings in the Kensington-Exeter, N.H. area. I have asked the USAF public\nred and flashing, had been trailing them for nearly 12 miles, all the way from\ninformation officer at the Pentagon for a copy of their official evaluation for the\nthe town of Epping. Bertrand, an Air Force veteran of the Korean war, was\nsubcommittee and NICAP files.¹)\nskeptical, made a routine radio report, and went on with his cruising.\nRAYMOND E. FOWLER,\nWithin that same hour, Norman Muscarello, an 18-year-old resident of Exeter,\nChairman, NICAP Massachusetts Subcommittee.\nwas hitchhiking home from Amesbury, Mass., and had reached a point 2 miles\nout of town along Route 150, near Kensington. According to his statement to\nthe police, he looked up into the sky and saw a similar object approaching him\nwith a yawing, kitelike motion. He threw himself against a stone wall while\nNICAP MASSACHUSETTS INVESTIGATING SUBCOMMITTEE,\nthe object hovered over a nearby farmhouse, lighting up the entire area. He\nWenham, Mass.\nfinally made a run for the farmhouse as the object sailed out of sight. Unable\nSubject: Addendum IV, UFO report, September 3, 1965 (Kensington, N.H.)\nto make sense of his hysterical story, the farmer took no further action and the\n(Bertraund-Hunt-Muscarello)\nboy hitchhiked into town. Here he reported the story to the police, even though\nDate: October 10, 1965.\nhe was in a state bordering on shock.\nFrom: Raymond E. Fowler, chairman, NICAP Massachusetts Subcommittee.\nIt was now about 2 a.m., Officer Bertrand was called on his car radio and\nTo: NICAP.\ninstructed to take the boy back to the farm area to investigate.\nThis newsclip identifying UFO reports in the southern New Hampshire area\n\"I was sure that these women and this kid had seen a helicopter, or something\nis misleading. At the time of the September 3, 1965 UFO sighting I checked\nlike that,\" Officer Bertrand told us. \"But we went out to the spot, and I parked\nwith the manager of \"Sky-Lite Aerial Advertising Co.\" and its aircraft was not\nthe cruiser. It was a clear night. No wind. No fog. We walked about a hundred\nflying on this night. On October 9 I went over the advertising plane's flight\nyards out on the field, near a barn where a lot of horses were kept. Then, the\npaths between August and October 8. The plane was not even airborne between\nkid yelled, \"There it is\nAugust 21 and September 10.\n1 See later USAF letter in file which reverses their position.\n6016\n6017\nJoseph Rodina also informed me that his aircraft rarely flies into southern\nNew Hampshire and when it does it is usually in the Salem and Manchester\nHunt who filled out and signed an eight-page UFO questionnaire and later gave\narea, miles away from the Exeter area. He told me that he had told the\npermission to use his name in connection with the report. I preceded to the\nAmesbury News that perhaps some UFO's reported in New Hampshire could\nresidence of Norman Muscarello and discovered that he was out of State until\nhave been his aircraft. Unfortunately, this newspaper used his statement to\nSeptember 14. Arrangements have been made for a personal interview upon\nexplain the sightings in the Seabrook area which borders Kensington, N.H.\nhis return. I then drove out to the sighting area of sightings two and three,\nThe \"Sky-Lite\" aircraft* does not carry red flashing lights. It carries a rec-\nand interviewed residents in the general area. Next, I went to the home of\ntangular sign carrying white flashing lights. It was not airborne during the\nOfficer Bertrand and drove him back to the area of sighting two and three where\nsoutheast New Hampshire UFO flap. I have notified the Amesbury News of\nhe filled out a UFO questionnaire, signed it and gave NICAP permission to use\nthe true facts and have asked them to set the record straight. I am issuing this\nhis name in connection with his sighting. While at the sighting area he gave\naddendum to avoid further confusion.\nme a detailed description of the sightings and related information. I inter-\nRAYMOND E. FOWLER,\nviewed others in the area who had related information and arrived back home\nChairman, NICAP Massachusetts Subcommittee.\nat 2:45 p.m. My brother, Richard A. Fowler, and I returned to the area and\ntook photographs. We walked several miles along some powerlines near the\nsighting area examining this area for any signs of a UFO landing. We feel that\nthe UFO might have been attracted to the area by these powerlines. We found\n[From the Amesbury (Mass.) News, Oct. 6, 1965]\nnothing.\nSIGHTING ACCOUNT NO. 1\nUFO IDENTIFIED AS AD GIMMICK\nAt approximately 12:30 a.m., e.d.t., Officer Bertrand came upon one woman\nThe unidentified flying object spotted in this area by many residents has finally\n(not two as reported by newspapers) parked in an automobile on route 101 just\nbeen identified.\noutside Exeter. When asked if she needed help she said excitedly that she had\nIt's a flying billboard which contains 500 high-intensity lights that spell out an\nbeen chased along Route 101 between Epping and Exeter for 12 miles by a flying\nadvertising message.\nobject which was encircled with a brilliant red glow. She stated that the\nThe electronic billboard is towed by a specially rigged light aircraft owned by\nobject dived at her moving automobile several times. When Bertrand asked\nSky-Lite Aerial Advertising Agency of Boston and piloted by Daniel C. Vale of\nwhere the object was, she pointed to what he thought was a bright star on the\nLondonderry, N.H.\nhorizon. He dismissed the incident and after watching the light source for a few\nRecently the rig has been flown over the Amesbury, Seabrook, and southern\nminutes to reassure the woman he proceeded on in the cruiser. He dismissed\nNew Hampshire area carrying the advertising message, \"Put a Tiger in Your\nthe incident and did not attach enough importance to the woman's account to\nTank-See Your Esso Dealer.\"\nwarrant obtaining her name.\nHowever, when spotted from an angle not directly below the aircraft, it gives\nthe appearance of a flying saucer, quite like the \"UFO's\" described by the area\nSIGHTING ACCOUNT NO. 2 (MORE DETAILS FORTHCOMING PENDING\nresidents.\nPERSONAL -INTERVIEW)\nA spokesman for the firm said the sign is 10 feet wide and 40 feet long. \"The\nplane can turn on a dime, and when it turns, it gives the appearance of being\nAt approximately 1 a.m., e.d.t., Norman Muscarello was walking along Route\nstationary,\" the spokesman said.\n150 in Kensington, N.H., about 2 miles from Exeter. He had been visiting in\nEarlier flights of the night-flying billboard south of Boston also prompted a\nAmesbury, Mass., and had been thumbing rides home to Exeter. As he ap-\nflash to UFO reports before the \"secret\" was discovered.\nproached the Clyde Russell residence he was alarmed to see an object carrying\nat least four extremely bright red pulsating lights emerge from nearby woods\nand maneuver over the field adjoining the road which belongs to Carl Dining.\nIt moved over the Clyde Russell home and hovered there. The house was only\nUFO SUMMARY SHEET\n20 to 30 feet from where Muscarello stood and the object appeared to be just a\nmatter of several feet from the roof. Frightened thoroughly he crouched down\nUFO reports-Sept. 3, 1966\nbeside the stonewall which runs along the field. Several times it seemed to move\ncloser to him. Its lights were SO bright that the Russell home was bathed\nNumber\nWitness-Name and address\nAge\nLocation of UFO sighting\nTime e.d.t.\nwith a red glow. The size of the object seemed to be much larger than the\nRussell home and Muscarello later told the police it was 80 to 90 feet long. The\n1\nUnidentified woman motorist\n(1)\nRoute 10L, Epping to Exeter,\n-12:30 a.m.\nobject was completely silent. Then it moved back over the Carl Dining field\nN.H.\nand disappeared over the trees. Muscarello pounded on the door of the Clyde\n2 and 3.\nNorman J. Muscarelle, 2051/2 Front\n18\nRoute 150, Kensington, N.H.\n±1:00 a.m.\nRussell home shouting that he had seen a \"flying saucer.\" The Russells woke\nSt., Exeter, N.H.\nRussell and Dining proper-\n±2:25 a.m.\nties.\nup but refused to answer the door thinking that the boy was drunk or some-\n3\nOfficer Eugene F. Bertrand (Exeter\n32\ndo\nDo.\nthing. Muscarello finally gave up and started down the road toward Exeter.\nPolice Department) Pickpocket\nHe flagged down a passing automobile and received a ride to the Exeter police\nRoad, Exeter, N.H.\n3\nOfficer David R. Hunt, 11 Charles\n26\ndo\n±2:35 a.m.\nstation.\nSt., Exeter, N.H. (Exeter Police\n(The above account is based upon information received from Officers Hunt and\nDepartment)\nBertrand. I hope to receive more detailed information from Norman Muscarello\n4.\nOfficer David R. Hunt\nRoute 85/101 Bypass, Exeter,\n3:30 a.m.\nN.H.\npersonally as soon as he returns from Rhode Island.)\n5.\nUnidentified man\nHampton, N.H\nEarly a.m.\nSIGHTING ACCOUNT NO. 3\nNot available.\nMuscarello reported the incident to Desk Officer Reginald Towland at about\nBACKGROUND\n1:45 a.m., e.d.t. He was white with fear and hardly able to talk. A radio call\nI received news of the sighting through newsclips and from a friend whose\nwas made to Officer Bertrand asking him to return to the station, pick up\nniece is a policewoman for the Exeter, N.H., Police Department. I arrived at\nMuscarello and investigate at the scene of the sighting which he did. Upon\nthe Exeter police station at 6 :40 a.m., on September 11, and interviewed Officer\narriving at the Carl Dining field the object was nowhere to be seen. After wait-\ning and looking from the cruiser for several minutes, Bertrand radioed head-\n*NOTE.-This aircraft flies out of Beverly Airport, Beverly, Mass. Usually the aircraft\nquarters that there was nothing there and that the boy must have been\nflies along the coast to Boston and back. It rarely is airborne after 11 p.m.\nimagining things. It was then suggested that he examine the field before\n6019\n6018\nto west flight pattern in a straight line with an elevation of about 10° above the\nreturning, SO Bertrand and Muscarello advanced into the field. As the police\ntree-line. Both officers had read a little an UFO's. Neither would venture an\nofficer played his flashlight beam back and forth over the field, Muscarello\nopinion as to what the object was but Officer Bertrand stated that it was definitely\nsighted the object rising slowly from behind some nearby trees and shouted.\nBertrand swung around and saw a large dark object carrying a straight row of\nnot an airplane or helicopter and that in his opinion that it was an intelligently\nconstructed and operated vehicle. No sound was heard by the witnesses, even at\nfour extraordinarily bright red pulsating lights coming into the field at tree\ntop level. It swung around toward them just clearing a 60- to 70-foot tree and\nclose range but apparently the animals in the nearby barn of Carl Dining could\nhear or sense something that frightened them as during sighting No. 2 and No. 3\nseemingly only 100 feet away from them. Instinctively Officer Bertrand drew\nhis service revolver. (He stated that Muscarello said that he shouted \"I'll shoot\nthey whinnied and kicked their stalls. The dog which belonged to people acros\"\nit!\") but thinking this unwise replaced it and yelled to Muscarello to take cover\nthe road was barking furiously. No interference was noticed on the police radio\nin the cruiser. He told me that he was afraid that they both would be burned\nnor were the lights and ignition of the cruiser affected. Neither officer would\nby the blinding lights closing in on them. They ran to the cruiser where\nestimate the object's speed but stated it was very slow. No scorched marks or\nindentations were found in the field. Both officers agreed that their signed state-\nBertrand immediately put in a radio call to headquarters for assistance. Officer\nHunt arrived within minutes and the trio observed the object move away over\nments and names could be used by NICAP in connection with the report.\nand below the tree line.\nSIGHTING ACCOUNT NO. 4\nData (sighting No. 3)-Based on signed questionnaires and interviews with\nOfficers Bertrand and Hunt.\nAt 3:30 a.m. e.d.t., Officer Hunt sighted what appeared to be the same object\nThere is confusion concerning the exact times of the sighting. The police\nhovering in the distance while at the Route 85-100 bypass in Exeter. He radioed\nstated that the newspaper account stated that Muscarello arrived at the station\nOfficer Bertrand who told him it was probably a star. Shortly after this he looked\nat 12 a.m. is incorrect and that it was probably close to 2 a.m., e.d.t. I have\nfor it again but it had disappeared. Since there was little detail in this sighting\narbitrarily assigned the time as being 1:45 a.m., e.d.t., after taking every-\nI did not bother to probe for details.\nthing into consideration. Muscarello's mother also thought it was closer to 2\na.m. Perhaps after my interview with Muscarello, I will be able to pinpoint the\nSIGHTING ACCOUNT NO. 5\ntime more exactly. Based upon the 1:45 a.m. time and the fact that when the\nTo add to the excitement the police and others told me that an unidentified\ntrio returned to headquarters and reported the sighting No. 3 to Desk Officer\nhysterical man tried to call the police during these early morning hours to re-\nTowland at exactly 2:55 a.m., I figure that sighting No. 3 took place approxi-\nport a UFO. He dialed the operator from a pay station in Hampton, N.H., and\nmately between 2:25 and 2:40 a.m.\nexcitedly asked the operator to connect him with the police as he had been chased\nSighting No. 3 took place over the field of Carl Dining in Kensington, N.H., on\nby a \"flying saucer.\" Before the call could be put through to the police, the tele-\nRoute 150 about 3 miles south of Exeter, N.H. The duration of the observation\nphone connection went dead. Neither the man or the particular Hampton pay\nwas about 10 minutes by Officer Bertrand and Norman Muscarello and about 5\nstation could be traced.\nminutes by Officer Hunt when he joined the pair at the field. There was no\nMILITARY INVESTIGATION\ntrace of daylight at the sighting time. The weather was dry and cool with a\nslight breeze. Observing conditions were excellent. The moon had set at 11:15\nOfficer Bertrand informed me that soon after they made their report of sight-\np.m., e.d.t., and the sky was studded with stars. The exact shape of the object\ning No. 3 to Desk Officer Towland they notified Pease AFB, Portsmouth, N.H.,\ncould not be seen by either police officer although Bertrand told me that it\nof the sighting by phone. Later Pease AFB phoned back and arranged for\nseemed compressed as if it were round or egg-shaped with definitely no pro-\nthe police officers to be interviewed. At around 9 a.m. that same morning,\ntrusions like wings, rudder or stabilizer. I hope to obtain more details from\na USAF major and lieutenant in uniforms arrived, questioned them and drove\nMuscarello concerning the shape, size, and SO forth of the object.\nboth Bertrand and Hunt out to the Carl Dining field where they had sighted\nThe object carried at least four extremely brilliant pulsating red lights which\nthe UFO. They asked more questions and returned with the police officers\nappeared to flash in a steady sequence. They were arranged in a fixed straight\nto the station. The USAF officers asked the police to try to keep the sighting\nline position. Officer Bertrand said that they were brighter than any light he\nfrom the press SO as to avoid alarming the local people. The police told the\nhad ever seen and at close range he found that he could not look directly at them.\nUSAF officers that it was too late for this as several reporters already had\nHe had the impression that he and Muscarello might have been burned if they did\nthe story. (One had driven from Manchester on a motorcycle complete with\nnot run from the object as it approached then. He compared their brightness to\nblack jacket, helmet, and goggles. I heard privately that he gave the police\nthat of automobile headlights shining directly in one's face at less than several\nquite a start when he came into the station looking like a man from outer\nyards away. The manner in which they pulsated gave Bertrand the distinct im-\nspace.)\npression that this was an intelligently constructed vehicle and definitely not\nBertrand told me that most of the questions asked were the same as I had\nsome natural phenomenon. The lights were definitely seen to be part of a large\nasked. The USAF team were particularly interested in the size and shape\ndark solid object. The reflection off the object's body caused a halo effect around\nof the object. One question that stuck in Bertrand's mind was that they\nit. Both officers had eyeglasses on when viewing the object. Neither officer\nwanted to know if the chickens on the Carl Russell residence next to the field\nwould give an estimate of how large the object itself was although Bertrand was\nwere awakened and alarmed during the sighting. (Apparently they were not\nquoted to have said that it was as \"big as a house.\" Bertrand told me that it was\ndisturbed as they were not heard during the sighting although they may have\nvery large but the lights obscured it preventing him from seeing enough of it to\nand just were not heard as the chicken house is probably 300-400 yards, at\nknow how large. When Officer Hunt arrived the object had moved off SO what he\nleast from where Muscarello and Bertrand were standing in the field.)\nthinks he only saw two of the lights. I was, however, able to obtain a statement\nThree interesting items told to the police were that (1) that a USAF check\nfrom Bertrand concerning the apparent size of the object. He stated that when\nhad revealed no aircraft in the area during the time sighting No. 3 occurred;\nthe object was at its closest that it was almost the apparent size of a \"grapefruit\"\n(2) that Pease AFB had been receiving other UFO reports in the New Hamp-\nheld at arm's length. When he first sighted it the size seemed to be that of a\nshire area almost nightly during the previous week: (3) they mentioned a\n\"baseball\" held at arm's length. He estimated that it was 200 yards away when\nsighting which took place in late July concerning an automobile coming upon\nhe first spotted it after Muscarello shouted. He said that at its closest approach\na UFO hovering over the road in front of them. I have the details and hope\nit just cleared a nearby 60- to 70-foot tree. He said the object was very close and\nto look into it.\nthat it appeared to be about 100 feet away. While viewing it from the cruiser it\nAfter returning Officers Bertrand and Hunt to headquarters, both the major\nmanuvered over the field at about 500 yards away before moving out over the\nand lieutenant returned to the sighting area and questioned residents living\ntree line. As it moved the object seemed to tilt back and forth from side to side.\nnear the field. Mrs. Muscarello told me that two USAF officers had questioned\nThe sighting area was open countryside with farms, fields, and woods. The\nher son at length and that a U.S. Navy officer also came to the house and asked\nobject was first seen in the northeast and last seen in the north moving in an east\nseveral questions about the sighting.\n6020\n6021\nINTERESTING SIDELIGHTS\nexhibited by the object; the other correlated UFO reports and the military's\n1. Mr. and Mrs. Chase of Kensington who live a few miles down Route 150\ninterest and actions concerning the UFO reports, rate these as first-class UFO\ntold me that:\nsightings by this investigator.\n(a) An Air Force officer had gone around to all the stores selling news-\nSighting No. 4: Insufficient information but interesting.\npapers in Exeter and purchased all copies of the Manchester, N.H., Union\nSighting No. 5: Again, the chances are astronomical that several people\nLeader newspaper which carried a detailed account of these sightings and\nentirely independent of one another should report that they were \"chased by\na posed photo of Herman Muscarello and Officers Bertrand, Hunt, and\na flying saucer\" in the same general area. It is possible concerning sighting No. 5\nTowland. The police had not heard of this and I did not check further.\nthat someone could have been monitoring the police radio conversations about\n(a) Mrs. Chase, a nurse, was on duty at the Exeter Hospital during the\nthe UFO reports and decided to play a little joke but this seems unlikely. Not\nsightings and told me that the Hampton, N.H. police phoned the hospital\nmany people, other than responsible law enforcement officers are up tuning the\nto see if a man was brought into the hospital suffering a heart attack or\npolice radio and at these wee hours of the morning. Thus, the report is probably\nshock. This was in relation to the hysterical man who tried to reach the\ngenuine. Why the unidentified man did not or could not complete his call to\npolice by phone about being chased by a UFO. Reference sighting No. 5.\nthe police will have to remain on open question unless he steps forward and\n(0) Mrs. Chase also told me that a friend of hers, a Mrs. Parker Blodgett,\nrelates what happened.\nworks as a correspondent for the \"Haverhill (Mass.) Gazette\" newspaper\nI was able to talk to many people during my investigation. The great majority\nand was asked by the USAF not to publish UFO reports. (However, she\ndid not appear to be frightened about the incident. This is contrary to what the\ndid, as I have a copy of her article dated September 7, 1965.)\nUSAF team thought would occur if the story got in the newspapers. Instead of\n2. A Mrs. St. Laurente of Kingston Road, Kensington, N.H. told a church\nfear, I found a tremendous curiosity on the part of people to know more about\nminister friend of mine that her brother, who usually cuts the hay on the\nUFO's. Strangely enough many openly voiced the interplanetary origin theory\nCarl Dining field, refuses to do SO because he has heard that the hay has been\nwithout any encouragement from me. Several years ago very few people other\ncontaminated by radiation.\nthan those who have read widely about UFO's would talk like this. Slowly but\n3. The police told me that for the past few weeks previous to the sightings\nsurely over the years the public has been becoming UFO-conscious Reports like\nthey have received reports from people, some of them personal friends, of their\nthis one coupled with wide publication will help much in informing the public-\nwhole house suddenly being momentarily illuminated by a bright reddish glow\nat-large of the reality and problem of UFO's.\nafter they had gone to bed. No objects were seen.\n4. Mr. and Mrs. DeMarco, N. Hampton Road (Route 88), Hampton, N.H.,\nobserved a star-like object blinking red which alternately hovered and moved\nin the western sky between 9 and 9:30 p.m. on September 5, 1965. Since Venus\nhad set and Mr. DeMarco was a former USAF control tower operator who\nassured me that it was not an aircraft, I thought the report was worth\nmentioning.\n5. A Mr. Rice, who owns a CB radio told me that he was talking over his\nradio with a Portsmouth, N.H., police cruiser on September 7, 1965, about 8:00\np.m. e.d.t. The officer told him that he was out investigating a UFO report and\nasked Mr. Rice to give him a call if he spotted it. He said the UFO was supposed\nto be over the Hampton Falls area near where Mr. Rice lives on Route 88. No\nUFO was seen by Mr. Rice. The cruiser used call letters KMA-8616 and used\nboth channel No. 2 and No. 6.\n6. Since the UFO sighting at the Carl Dining field, many cars pull up and\nwatch for the object at night. Mr. Dining had to rope off the entrance to his\nfield and post it as people were littering his property.\n7. Mrs. Muscarello thinks the USAF Lieutenant's name was Brant.\n8. On my first two visits to the Carl Dining field on the morning of September\n11, 1965, I saw a low-flying C-119 Flying Boxcar pass over the area on both\noccasions.\n9. Other civilian UFO Investigators were given the brushoff by the police. I\nwas very fortunate to have received such a good response from them.\nEVALUATION\nCharacters of witnesses\nMuscarello: Comes from twice-broken home-has had problems with police\nand is well-known by them-usually a cool, calm boy. Until my personal inter-\nview with him I can say no more.\nBertrand and Hunt: Credible witnesses, good observers with a keen desire to\nrelate only facts—I could not even persuade them to guess at estimates of the\nobject's real size and speed.\nThe sightings\nSighting No. 1: There is enough similarity between the unidentified woman's\nreport and the detailed sightings No. 2 and No. 3 to warrant its probable au-\nthenticity. The chances of a similar report occurring the same morning, unless\nit were authentic, is astronomical. It is possible that the object she pointed out\nto Officer Bertrand was Jupiter and not the object that had chased her.\nSightings No. 2 and No. 3: The credibility of the witnessing police officers\ncoupled with the sightings of Muscarello; the many typical UFO characteristics\n50-066 0-66-No. 55-5\n6022\n6023\nU 0 DATA SHEET\nPage one\nThis questionnaire has been prepared so that you can give as much\ninformation as possible concerning the \"Unidentified Flying Object\"\nNOTE- OFFICER'S RECORDED MOVEMENT OF UFO\nCORALL\nthat you have observed. Please try to answer as many questions as\nyou possibly can. The information that you give will be used for\nresearch purposes. Your name will not be used in connection with\nany statements, conclusions, or publications without your permission.\n150\nTha .k you very much for your cooperation in this matter.\nInvestigator: National Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena\nNOTUALLY $ --W BY THE COMPASS.\nRaymond E. Fowler\n13 Friend Court\nDesk officer. -125AP\nCARL DINING WFO FIELD\nBERTRAND ARILLO !copy 12000g\nSTONE WAL\nChairman: NICAP Mass. Subcennitee\nTime heported sighting\nWenham, Massachusetts\nWAS SIGHTING ME\n1. when did you see the OD ect?\n2. Time of day:\n2\n3\n9\n1965\nHOUR\nMINUTES\nDAY\nMONTH\nYEAR\n(Circle One):\nA.M.\nor P.M.\nTRRE LINE\nCRUISER\nSIGHTING 3\nRespectfully submitted,\n3. Time zone: (Circle One):\nEastern\n(Circle One) :\nDaylight\nRaymond E. Fowler\nb. Central\nSaving Time\nC. Mountain\nb. Standard\nd. Pacific\nUr\nTime\ne. Other\nof my sorvs 099\n4. Where were you when you saw the object?\n0000000000\nKENSINSTON RFD\nKENSIN,TON\nN.H.\nNearest Postal Address\nCity or Town\nState or Country\nAdditional remarks:\n5. Estimate how long you saw the object.\n10\nHOURS\nMINUTES SECONDS\n5.1 Circle one of the following to indicate how certain you are of\n00 00000000\nyour answer to Question 5.\na. Certain\nC. Not very sure\nSTONE WALL\nMUSCARELLO\nb.\nFairly certain\nd. Just a guess\n6. What was the condition of the sky?\n(Circle One): a. Bright daylight\nd. Just a trace of daylight\nb. Dull daylight\ne.\nNo\ntrace of daylight\nC. Bright twilight\nf. Don't remember\nTARE LINE\nADVERING RESIDENCE RUSSELL\nSIGHTING 2\n7. If you saw the object during DAYLIGHT, TWILIGHT, or DAWN, where was the\nSUN located as you looked at the object?\na. In front of you\nC. To your right\ne. Overhead\nLIFO\n150\nN/A\nb. In ba\nou\na. To your\nf. Don't remember\n6024\n6025\nPage 2\nPage 3\n8. If you saw the object at NIGHT, TWILIGHT, or DAWN, what did you notice\n16. Tell in a few words the\nthg things about the object.\nconcerning the STARS and MOON?\na. SOUND\n8.1 STARS (circle one): a. None\n8.2 MOON (circle one):\nNONE\nb. A few\na. Bright moonlight\nb. COLOR\nBED\n: C. Ma.iy\nd. Don't remember\nb. Dull moonlight\nC. No moonlight- dark\nd. Don't remember\n9. was the object brighter tha.: the background of the sky?\n17. Draw a picture that will show the shape of the object or objects. Label\nand include in your sketch any details of the object that you saw such as\n(Circle one):\na\nYES\nb. NO\nC. DON'T REMEMBER\nwings, protrusions, etc., and especially exhaust trails or vapour trails.\nPlace a.. arrow beside the drawing to show the direction the object was\n10.If it was BRIGHTER THAN the sky background, was the brightness like that\nmoving.\nof a.. automobile headlight appearing to be? (CIRCLE ONE BLOW):\nFFAST\n-WEST-\na. A nile or more away? dista..t car)\nFWEST-\n-EAST-\nb. Several blocks away?\nc. A block away?\na. Several yards away?\ne. Other? BRIGHTEN Than HEADLIGHTAT\n11/11/11\n,Oyin\nClose RANGE\n,199\n11. Did the object:\n(Circle One for each question)\na. Appear to stand still at any time?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\nb. Suddemly speed up and rush away at any time?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\nC. Break up into parts or explode?\nYES\nNO\nRED LigHTS\nRED LigHTs\nDON'T KNOW\nd. Give off smoke?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\ne. Change brightness?\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\nFLHSHING\nFLASHING\nf. Change shape?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\ng. Flicker, throb, or pulsate?\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\n18. The edges of the object were:\n12. Did the object move behind something at any time, particularly a cloud?\n(Circle One) : a. Fuzzy or blurred\ne. Other LigHTs WERE\nb. Like a bright star\nso BRigHT ThEY\n(Circle\nOne):\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\nIf you a.\\swered yes, then\nC. Sharply outlined\nCREATED A HALO\ntell what it moved behind:\n19. If there was MORE THAN ONE object, then how many were there?\nDraw a picture of how they were arranged, and put an arrow to show\nthe direction that they were travelling.\n13. Did the object move in fro t of something at any time, particularly\na cloud?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T\nKNOW\n(Circle\nOne)\nIf you answered yes, then tell what it moved in front of:\nN/A\n11. Did the object appear (Circle One): SOLID TRANSPARENT? DON'T KNOW\n15. Did you observe the object\nthrough any of the following?\na. Eyeglasses\nYes\nNO\nd. window glass YES NO g. other\nb. Sun glasses\nYES\nNO\ne. Binoculars\ny\nNO\nC. Windshield\nYES\nNO\nf. Telermone\nNO\n6026\n6027\nPage 5\nPage 4\n20. Draw a picture that will show the motion that the object or\n25. where were you located when you\n26. Were you (Circle One):\nobjects made. Place a.: \"A\" at the beginning of the paths\nsaw the object? (Circle One):\na \"B\" at the end of the path, and, show a y cha .ges in\na. Inside a building\na. In the business section of city?\ndirection during the course.\nb. In a car\nb. In the residential section of\nC Outdoors\na city?\na. In an airplane\nIn open countryside?\ne. At sea\na.\nFlying near a. airfield?\nf. Other\ne. Flying over a city?\nB\n#\nf. Flying over open country?\ng. Other\n27. What were you doing at the time you saw the object, and how did you\nhappen to notice it?\n21. IF POSSIBLE, try to guess or estimate what the real size of the object\nwas in its longest dimension.\nN/A\nWeNT To AssisT 18 year old boy\nFeet.\n22. How large did the object or objects appear as compared with one of the\n28. If you were MOVING IN AN AUTOMOBILE or other vehicle at the time, then\nfollowing objects \"held\" i.: the ha d at about arm's length?\ncomplete the Following questions:\n(Circle One): a. Head of a p1.,\ng. Silver dollar\nD\nsee\nquestion\n41\n28.1 what direction were you moving? (Circle One):\nb. Pea\nBaseball\nC. Dime\nGrapefruit\nN/A\na. North\nC. East\ne. South\ng. West\nd. Nickel\n1. Basketball\nb. Northeast d. Southeast f. Southwest h. Northwest\nQuarter\nk. Other\n£. Half-dollar\n28.2 How fast were you moving?\nmiles per hour\n28.3 Did you stop at any time while observing object?\n22.1 CIRCLE ONE of the followi. g to indicate how certain you are of\n(Circle One):\nYES\nNO\nyour a swer to Question 22.\nfield\nwhen\nist\nseen.\na. Certain\nc.\nNot very sure\n29. what direction were you looking when you FIRST SAW the obj ect? (Circle\nwhile while over field over tree\nOne):\nb. Fairly certain\na. Uncertai\na. North\nC. East\ne. South\ng. West\nbordering\n200yards*\nA\nNortheast d. Southeast f. Southwest h. Northwest\n500 youds **\n30. what direction were you looking whe., you LAST SAW the object? (Circle One)\n23. How did the object or objects disappear from view?\nNorth\nC. dast\ne. South\nDROPPED BELOW TRee LINE\ng. West\nb. Northeast d. Southeast f. Southwest h. Northwest\n31. If you are familiar with bearing terms(a.gular direction), try to\nestimate the number of degrees the object was from true North and\n24. In order that you ca.. give as clear a picture as possible of what you\nalso the the number of degreees it was upward from the horizon (elevation)\nsaw, we would like for you to imagine that you could construct the\nobjects that you saw. Of what type MATERIAL would you make it? How\n31.1 When it first appeared:\nLARGE would it be, a .d what SHAPE would it have? Describe 1.1 your\nown words a common object or objects which when placed up 1.1 the\nN/A\na. From true North\ndegrees\nsky would give the same appearance as the object which you saw.\nb. From horizo.:\ndegrees\n31.2 When it disappeared:\nN/A\na. From true North\ndegrees\nb. From horizon\ndegrees\n6028\n6029\nPage 6\nPage 7\n32. In the following sketch, imagine that you are at the point shown.\n34. What were the weather CO ditio. S at the time you saw the object?\nPlace a \"A\" On the curved line to show how high the object was above\nthe horizon (skyli e) when you FIRST saw it. Place a \"B\" on the same\n34.1 CLOUDS (Circle One)\n34.2 VIND(Circle One)\ncurved line to show how high the object was above the horizo.. (skyline)\nClear sky\na.\nNo wind\nb. Hazy\nb.\nwhe. you LAST saw it.\nSlight breeze\nc.Scattered clouds\nC. Strong wind\nd. Thick or heavy clouds\nd. Don't remember\ne. Do..'t remember\n34.3 WEATHER (Circle One)\n34.4 TEMPERATURE (Circle One)\na\nDry\na. Cold\nb. Fog, mist, or light rain\n3 Cool\nC. Moderate or heavy rain\nc. Warm\nd. Snow\nd. Hot\ne. Don't remember\ne. Don't remember\n35. whe.. did you report to some official that you had seen the object?\nB\nOfficial or Organizatio. Name(s)\nDay\nMonth\nYear\nDESK OFFICER EXETER P.D. 3\n9\n65\nOFFICER TOLAND\n33. In the following larger sketch place a.. \"A\" at the position the object\nwas whe:. you FIRST saw it, and a \"B\" at its position when you LAST\nsaw it. (Refer to smaller sketch as a. exar ple of \"how\" to complete\nthe larger sketch.)\n36. Have you read literature pertai i.g to Unide. tified Flying Objects?\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\nIf YES, how much? (Circle One) A LITTLE?\nMODERATELY? extensively?\n37. Was a yone else with you at the time you saw the object?\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\n37.1 IF you answered YES, did they see the object too?\n(Circle One)\nNO\nB\n37.2 Please list their ames a a addresses if you circled YES:\n(Attach separate sheet for above)\n38. Was this the first time that you had seen an object(s) like this?\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\n38.1 If you a wered NO, the when, where, a di under what circumsta ces\ndid you see the other (s)?\n33.1\nwere there a y KNOWN aircraft in the sky duri g your sighting?\nCircle One):\nYES\nNO\nIf you answered YES, was it following or attempti.. to ..tercept\n39. In your opi do :, what do YOU thi k the object(s) was a d what might\nthe Unidestified Flying Object? (Circle One): YES NO\nhave caused it?\nIf you a.swered YES, please circle TYPE of aircraft:\nDo NOT KNOW?\nRY? COMMERCIAL PRIVATE? JET? PROPELLER\nHow may engines did the aircraft have?\n50-066-66-No. 55-6\n6030\n6031\n40. Do lyou thi k you ca estim the speed of the object?\nPage 8\nUFO DATA SHEET\nPage one\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\nThis questionnaire has been prepared so that you can give as much\nIf you swered YES, the what speed would you estimate?\nMPH\ninformation as possible concerning the \"Unidentified Flying Object\"\nthat you have observed. Please try to answer as many questions as\n41. Do you think you ca estimate how far away from you the object was?\nyou possibly can. The information that you give will be used for\nresearch purposes. Your name will not be used in connection with\n(Circle One)\nYes\nNO\nany statements, conclusions, or publications without your permission.\nIf you a swered YES, the how far away would you say it was? 100 FEET\nThank you very much for your cooperation in this matter.\nInvestigator: National Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena\n42. Did the Object(s) cause any 1 terference with the operation of:\nRaymond E. Fowler\nTime he reported sight\n13 Friend Court\n(Circle where applicable) RADIO? TV? LIGHTS? OTHER? NONE\nWenham, Massachusetts\nto Desk officer- TIME 25AM OFSIGATING OF\nIF you underlined a y of above, explai. the Anterference below:\n1. when did you see the object?\n2. Time of day:\n2\n55\n3\n9\n1965\nHOUR\nMINUTES\nDAY\nMONTH\nYEAR\n(Circle One):\nA.M.\nor\nP.M.\n43. Was a photo takes of the Object (s) (Circle One)\nYES\nNO\n3. Time zone: (Circle One):\na.\nEastern\n(Circle One) a. Daylight\nXNould you be willi g to submit a copy? (Circle One) YES\nNO\nb.\nCentral\nSaving Time\nN/A Xf you circled YES, please send copy indicati. g monetary rei burseme\nc. Mountain\nb. Standard\nd. Pacific\nTime\ne. Other\n44. Do you belowg to a y Organizatio. which i. vestigates Unide:tified\n4. Where were you when you saw the object?\nFlyi..g Objects?\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\nIf YES, list them below:\nKensinaton RFD\nKensington\nN.H.\nNearest Postal Address\nCity or Town\nState or Country\nAdditional remarks:\n45. May we ablish your report if you a e is keit CO fide.tial? YES NO\nMay we publish your report a a use your :ame?\nYES\nNO\n5. Estimate how long you saw the object.\n5-8\n(Circle One)\nHOURS\nMINUTES SECONDS\n17. Please give the followi g informatio about yourself: EUGENE\n5.1 Circle one of the following to indicate how certai. you are of\nBERTRAND\nNAME\n50\nyour answer to Question 5.\nLast Name\nFirst Na: e\nMiddle Name\na. Certain\nC. Not very sure\nPICKPOCKET RP EXETER\nN,H.\nb.\nFairly certai.\nd. Just a guess\nADDRESS\nStreet\nCity\nState\nTELEPHONE NUMBER 772-4973\n6. what was the condition of the sky?\n(Circle One):\na. Bright daylight\nd. Just a trace of daylight\nWhat is your present job? POLICE OFFICER\nb. Dull daylight\ne.\nNo trace of daylight\nAGE\n32\nSEX\nc. Bright twilight\n£. Don't remember\nPlease indicate a y education.al traini. you have had: (Nur ber of years\na. Grade school\n8\ne. Technical school\nb. High school\n4\n7 If you saw the object during DAYLIGHT, TWILIGHT, or DAWN, where was the\nc. College\n(Type of)\nSUN located as you looked at the object?\nd. Post graduate\nf. Other special traini g?\nA\na. In front of you\nC. To your right\ne. Overhead\n)\nback of you\na. To your left\nf. Don't remember\n48. Signature: Engane Date: 9/11/65\n6032\n6033\ntundrefore\nPage 3\n16. Tell in a few words the following things about the object.\nPage 2\na.\nSOUND\nNone\n8. If you saw the object at NIGHT, TWILIGHT, or DAWN, what did you notice\nconcerning the STARS and MOON?\nb.\nCOLOR\nRed\n8.1 STARS (circle one): a. None\n8.2 MOON (circle one):\nA few\na\n:\n0\nMany\nBright moonlight\nD.\nDon't remember\nDull moonlight\nC. No moonlight- dark\n17. Draw a picture that will show the shape of the object or objects. Label\nd. Don't remember\nand include in your sketch any details of the object that you saw such as\n9. was the object brighter tha.. the background of the sky?\nwings, protrusions, etc., and especially exhaust trails or vapour trails.\nPlace a.. arrow beside the drawing to show the direction the object was\n(Circle one):\na.\nYES\nb. NO\nC. DON'T REMEMBER\nmoving.\n-WEST-\n-EAST-\n10.If it was BRIGHTER THAN the sky background, was the brightness like that\nof an automobile headlight appearing to be? (CIRCLE ONE BELOW):\na. A mile or more away?(a dista..t car)\n(Two OR The\nb. Several blocks away?\nC. A block away?\nRed Liahts FLAShing\na. Several yards away?\ne\nIN sequence)\nThee Line\nOther? BRiGhten Than headLights at\nchose RANge\n11. Did the object:\n(Circle One for each question)\na. Appear to stand still at any time?\nYES NO DON'T KNOW\nb. Suddenly speed up and rush away at any time?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\nC. Break up into parts or explode?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\nd. Give off smoke?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\ne. Change brightness?\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\nf. Change shape?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\ng. Flicker, throb, or pulsate?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\n18. The edges of the object were:\n(Circle One) : a. Fuzzy or blurred\ne.\nOther LiGhts were so\nb. Like a bright star\nbright they createda\n12. Did the object move behind something at a.y time, particularly a cloud?\nC. Sharply outlined\nHalo effect .\n(Circle One) :\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW\nIf you answered yes, then\n19. If there was MORE THAN ONE object, then how many were there?\ntell what it moved behind:\nDraw a picture of how they were arranged, and put an arrow to show\nthe direction that they were travelling.\nTwo or three Red FLASHING\n13. Did the object move in front of something at any time, particularly\na cloud?\nYES\nNO\nDON'T KNOW (Circle One)\nLiGhts moving ON Hozizen EAST To west\nIf you answered yes, then tell what it moved in front of:\nAT About 60 ANgLes\n0\nTO eAch other.\n14. Did the object appear (Circle One): SOLID? TRANSPARENT? DON'T KNOW\n15. Did you observe the object\nthrough any of the following?\na. dyeglasses\nYES\nNO\nd. Window glass YES NO g. Other\nb. Sun glasses\nYES\nNO\ne. Binoculars\nYES NO\nc. Windshield\nYES NO\nf. Telescope\nYES NO\n6035\nPage 4\nPage 5\nthat the object or\nof the path,\n25. Where were you located when you\n26. Were you (Circle One):\ny cha ges 1n\nsaw the object? (Circle One):\nrange IN direction\n2. Inside a building\na. In the business section of city?\nb. In a car\nb. In the residential section of\nC Outdoors\na city?\nd. In a.1 airplane\nC\nIn open countryside?\nA\ne. At sea\nd. Flying near a. airfield?\nf. Other\ne. Flying over a city?\nf. Flying over open country?\ng. Other\n27. What were you doing at the time you saw the object, and how did you\nthe real size of the object\nhappen to notice it?\nFeet.\nCAlled to scence to Assist other\nCruiser.\nas compared with one of the\nbout arm's leagth?\n28. If you were MOVING IN AN AUTOMOBILE or other vehicle at the time, then\ng. Silver dollar\nA\ncomplete the following questions:\nh. Baseball\n28.1 what direction were you moving? (Circle One):\nI. Grapefruit\na. North\nC. East\ne. South\n1. Basketball\ng. West\nk. Other\nb. Northeast d. Southeast f. Southwest h. Northwest\n28.2 How fast were you moving?\nmiles per hour\nhow certain you are of\n28.3 Did you stop at any time while observing object?\n(Circle One):\nYES\nNO\nC.\nNot very sure\n29. What direction were you looking when you FIRST SAW the object? (Circle\nd. Uncertai.\nOne):\nstance OF 2½- 2/miles\na. North\nc. East\ne. South\ng. West\nb.\nNortheast d. Southeast £. Southwest h. Northwest\nview? Dropped be-\n30. what direction were you looking when you LAST SAW the object? (Circle One)\nLine\na.\nNorth\nC. cast\ne. South\ng. West\nb. Northeast d. Southeast f. Southwest h. Northwest\n31.\nIf you are familiar with bearing terms (angular direction), try to\nas possible of what you\nestimate the number of degrees the object was from true North and\nyou could construct the\nalso the the number of degreees it was upward from the horizon (elevatio.)\nwould you make it? How\nN/A\nhave? Describe 1.. your\n31.1 When it first appeared:\nwhen placed up in the\na. From true North\ndegrees\nobject which you saw.\nb. From horizo..\ndegrees\n31.2 When it disappeared:\na. From true North\ndegrees\nb. From horizon\ndegrees\n6036\n6037\nPage 6\nPa\nimagine that you are at the point shown.\n34. What were the weather 8 ditio.s at the time you saw the of\nline to show how high the object was above\nyou FIRST saw it. Place a \"B\" on the same\n34.1 CLOUDS (Circle One)\n34.2 WIND (Circle One\nhigh the object was above the horizo, (skyline)\na\nClear sky\na. No wind\n5. Hazy\nb Slight bree:\nc.Scattered clouds\nc. Strong wi d\nd. Thick or heavy clouds\nd. Don't rememi\ne. Do..'t remember\n34.3 WEATHER (Circle One)\n34.4 TEMPERATURE (Ci)\na Dry\na. Cold\nb. Fog, nist, or light rain\nb Cool\nc. Moderate or heavy rain\nC. Warm\nd. Snow\nd. Hot\ne. Don't remember\ne. Don't rememl\n35. whe.. did you report to some official that you had seen the\nA.\nOfficial or Organizatio.. Name(s)\nDay\nMonth\nDesk Officen Exeten P.D\n3\n9\nOfficen TOLANd.\nsketch place a.. \"A\" at the position the object\nit, and a \"B\" at its position when you LAST\nsketch as a., example of \"how\" to complete\n36. Have you read literature pertai 1.g to Unide. tified Flying\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\nIf YES, how much? (Circle One)\nA\nMODERATELY? extensively?\n37. was anyone else with you at the time you saw the object?\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\n37.1 IF you answered YES, did they see the object too?\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\n37.2 Please list their names a a addresses if you circled :\nA\n(Attach separate sheet for above)\n38. Was this the first time that you had seen an object (s) like\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\n38.1 If you a swered NO, the: when, where, add under what <\ndid you see the other o..e(s)?\nrcraft 1. the sky duri.g your sighting?\nNO\nit following or attempti g to 1 tercept\nObject? (Circle One): Yes NO\n39. I.V your opi.io..., what do YOU think the object(s) was a a w)\nhave caused it? Do Not KNOW,\ncircle TYPE of aircraft:\nPRIVATE? JET? PROPELLER\naircraft have?\n6038\n6039\nWENHAM, MASS., October 29, 1\nMASTON M. JACKS,\nMajor, U.S. Air Force, Chief, Pictorial Branch,\nPublic Information Division, Office of Information.\n40. Do /you thi k you ca estimate the speed of the object?\nPage 8\nSAF-OIPB\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\nDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,\nOffice of the Secretary, U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.\nIf you a swered YES, then what speed would you estimate?\nMPH\nDEAR MAJOR JACKS: This is a formal inquiry concerning the official U\n41. Do you thi k you ca. estimate how far away from you the object was?\nForce evaluation of the detailed UFO report submitted to AFSC-FTD/P\n(Circle One)\nYES\nBlue Book last month. My investigation and subsquent report took place S\nNO\nafter the official U.S. Air Force investigating team from Pease AFB made\nIf you a .swered YES, then how far away would you say it was? 9000 FOOT\ninvestigation.\nat chosest, Saw at about 2 inites on Honizen,\nThe UFO sighting took place between the Clyde Russell and Carl Dining\n42. Did the Object(s) cause any 1 terference with the operation of:\n(Circle where applicable) RADIO? TV? LIGHTS? OTHER?\nNONE\nerties along Route 150 in Kensington, N.H., on September 3, 1965, in the\nN/A\nhours of the morning. The witnesses were Norman Muscarello and Officer\nIF you underlined a.y of above, explai.: the interference below:\ntrand and Hunt of the Exeter, N.H., police force.\nIn 1964 I customarily received correspondence from your office in respo\nUFO reports submitted to the U.S. Air Force for evaluation. This was\nciated. I have submitted many reports since but have not received any res\n43. was a photo taken of the Object (s) (Circle One)\nYES\nNO\nThis is understandable due to the many reports received by the U.S. Air\nN/A\nWould you be willi g to submit a copy? (Circle One) YES\nNO\nand I do not expect such a service on your part normally, but, I did spend\ne\ndeal of time and thought on the Kensington, N.H., report and would app\nIf you circled YES, please send copy indicating monetary rei bursement:\nyour sending the official U.S. Air Force evaluation of the same as soon as po\nI understand the evaluation has been made.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to hearin\n44. Do you belowg to a y Organizatio.: which 1. vestigates Unidectified\nyour office soon.\nFlying Objects?\n(Circle One)\nYES\nNO\nIf YES, list them below:\nSincerely,\nRAYMOND E. Fow\n15. May we publish your report if you name is keft fidential?\nNO\nDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,\nMay we publish your report a .d use your .:ame?\nCherged Lis\nYES\nNO\n(Circle\nOne)\nWashington, January 25,\nDEAR MR. FOWLER: This is in reply to your request for information\n47. Please give the following information about yourself:\nExeter, N.H., UFO sightings.\nNAME\nHunt\nDavid\nRussell\nThe initial investigation from Pease Air Force Base was submitted to ou\nLast Name\nFirst Name\nMiddle Name\non September 15, 1965, and contained statements from the principal wit\nADDRESS 11 ChARLes St.\nExeter\nN.H.\nThis data indicated that a refueling operation might have been the cause\nsighting. Refueling area \"Fur Trapper\" and refueling area \"Down Dat\nStreet\nCity\nState\ncontrolled through Loring Air Force Base and located over the area of the\nTELEPHONE NUMBER 712-3615\ning. A call was made to the controller of this refueling area, and we W\nWhat is your present job? Police Officer.\nformed that they were closed from 03/0500Z to 03/600Z for an 8th Air\nAGE-\n26\nSEX MALE\noperation, \"Big Blast.\" A call was placed to the 99th Bomb Wing at W\nAir Force Base for information on this operation.\nPlease indicate a y educational training you have had: (Number of years\nThe initial impression was that aircraft from an 8th Air Force operation\na. Grade school\n8\ne. Technical school\nBlast,\" was the cause of the lights observed during this incident. Inform\nb. High school\n4\nc. College\n(Type of)\nreceived from the 8th Air Force indicates that 10 B-47 aircraft from Pea\nd. Post graduate\nf. Other special training?\nForce Base involved in Operation Big Blast \"Coco\" were in the traffic\nI\nover Exeter, N.H., between 03/444Z and 03/535Z. A copy of this letter is en\n)\nSince this information conflicted with the time of the sighting and elim\nthese aircraft as a possible evaluation of this incident, a letter was forwar\n48. Signature Date: 9/11/65\nMr. Eugene Bertrand and Mr. Dave Hunt of the Exeter Police Departm\nquesting clarification of the time of the sighting. A copy of our letter to\ngentlemen and a copy of their reply is attached.\nThe early sightings by two unnamed women and Mr. Muscarello are attr\nto aircraft from operation Big Blast \"Coco.\" The subsequent observation\n1\ncers Bertrand and Hunt occurring after 2 a.m. are regarded as unidentifie\nSincerely,\nJOHN P. SPAULDING,\nLieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, Chief, Civil Branch, Community 1\ntions Division, Office of Information\nDECEMBER 2,\nI\nHECTOR QUINTANILLA, Jr.,\nMajor, U.S. Air Force,\nChief, Project Blue Book,\nWright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio.\nDEAR SIR: We were very glad to get your letter during the third W\nNovember, because as you might imagine we have been the subject of cons\nble ridicule since the Pentagon released its \"final evaluation\" of our si\n6040\n6041\nof September 3, 1965. In other words, both Patrolman Hunt and myself saw\nMr. EUGENE F. BERTRAND, Jr.,\nthis object at close range, checked it out with each other, confirmed and re-\nMr. DAVID R. HUNT,\nconfirmed the fact that this was not any kind of conventional aircraft, that it\nExeter Police Department, Exeter, N.H.\nwas at an altutude of not more than a couple of hundred feet, and went to con-\nGENTLEMEN The sighting of various unidentified objects by you and Mr. Nor-\nsiderable trouble to confirm that the weather was clear, there was no wind, no\nman Mascarello was investigated by officials from Pease Air Force Base, N.H.,\nchance of weather inversion, and that what we were seeing was no illusion or\nand their report has been forwarded to our office at Wright-Patterson Air Force\nmilitary or civilian craft. We entered this in a complete official police report\nBase. This sighting at Exeter, N.H., on the night of September 2 has been given\nas a supplement to the blotter of the morning of September 3 (not September\nconsiderable publicity through various news releases and in magazine articles\n2, as your letter indicates). Since our job depends on accuracy and an ability\nsimilar to that from the Saturday Review of October 2, 1965. A portion of this\nto tell the difference between fact and fiction, we were naturally disturbed by\narticle is attached for your information. This information was released by the\nthe Pentagon report which attributed the sighting to \"multiple high-altitude\nNational Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, a private organization\nobjects\" in the area and \"weather inversion.\" What is a little difficult to under-\nwhich has no connection with the Government. As a result of these articles, the\nstand is the fact that your letter (undated) arrived considerably after the\nAir Force has received inquiry as to the cause of this report.\nPentagon release. Since your letter says that you are still in the process of\nOur investigation and evaluation of this sighting indicates a possible associa-\nmaking a final evaluation, it seems that there is an inconsistency here. Ordi-\ntion with an 8th Air Force operation, \"Big Blast.\" In addition to aircraft from\nnarily, this wouldn't be too important except for the fact that in a situation\nthis operation, there were five B-47 type aircraft flying in the area during this\nlike this we are naturally very reluctant to be considered irresponsible in our\nperiod. Before a final evaluation of your sighting can be made, it is essential for\nofficial report to the police station.\nus to know if either of you witnessed any aircraft in the area during this time\nSince one of us (Patrolman Bertrand) was in the Air Force for 4 years en-\nperiod either independently or in connection with the objects observed. Since\ngaged in refueling operations with all kinds of military aircraft, it was im-\nthere were many aircraft in the area, at that time, and there were no reports of\npossible to mistake what we saw for any kind of military operation, regardless\nunidentified objects from personnel engaged in this air operation, we might then\nof altitude. It was also definitely not a helicopter or balloon. Immediately after\nassume that the objects observed between midnight and 2 a.m. might be asso-\nthe object disappeared, we did see what probably was a B-47 at high altitude,\nciated with this military air operation. If, however, these aircraft were noted by\nbut it bore no relation at all to the object we saw.\neither of you, then this would tend to eliminate this air operation as a plausible\nAnother fact is that the time of our observation was nearly an hour after\nexplanation for the objects observed.\n2 a.m., which would eliminate the 8th Air Force operation, Big Blast, since\nSincerely,\nas you say this took place between midnight and 2 a.m. Norman Muscarello,\nHECTOR QUINTANILLA, Jr.,\nwho first reported this object before we went to the sight saw it somewhere in\nMajor, USAF, Chief, Project Blue Book.\nthe vicinity of 2 a.m., but nearly an hour had passed before he got into the\npolice station, and we went out to the location with him.\nNOVEMBER 16, 1965.\nWe would both appreciate it very much if you would help us eliminate the\npossible conclusion that some people have made in that we might have (a)\nMemo: TDEW/UFO.\nmade up the story, or (b) were incompetent observers. Anything you could\nSubject: UFO sighting.\ndo along this line would be very much appreciated, and I'm sure you can under-\nTo: Hq 8th Air Force.\nstand the position we're in.\n1. A report of an unidentified flying object was submitted to our office at\nWe appreciate the problems the Air Force must have with a lot of irresponsible\nWright-Patterson Air Force Base by the 817 Combat Support Group, Pease\nreports on this subject, and don't want to cause you any unnecessary trouble.\nAir Force Base. This report was submitted to Wright-Patterson Air Force\nOn the other hand, we think you probably understand our position.\nBase in accordance with AFR 200-2. Evaluation of information submitted\nThanks very much for your interest.\nindicates that the observation may be associated with the military operation,\nSincerely,\nBig Blast. The location of the observation was the New Hampshire area, in\nEUGENE BERTRAND, Patrolman.\nand around the town of Exeter. Time of the reported UFO was the night of\nDAVID HUNT, Patrolman.\nAugust 2-3, 1965, and specifically 03/0500 to 0600 Zebra. This UFO report has\nreceived considerable publicity in newspaper and magazine articles, and the\nDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,\nAir Force has received numerous queries regarding the cause of this sighting.\nHEADQUARTERS, 8TH AIR FORCE (SAC),\n2. We would like to know the specific types of aircraft used in this operation\nWestover Air Force Base, Mass., Novembr 24, 1965.\nand possible location of these aircraft at the time of the report.\nFor the commander.\nMemorondum DOOTO.\nERIC T. DE JONCKMZERE,\nSubject: UFO sighting.\nColonel, U.S. Air Force,\nTo: AFSC (TDEW/UFO.)\nDeputy for Technology and Subsystems.\n1. In reply to your letter, same subject, November 16, 1965, and telephone con-\nversation between Specialist Master Sergeant Heffley, 8th Air Force, and Sergant\nMoody, Headquarters, AFSC, on November 19, 1965, the following information is\nfurnished.\nNICAP MASSACHUSETTS INVESTIGATING SUBCOMMITTEE,\n2. Big Blast \"Coco,\" a SAC/NORAD training mission, was flown on September\nWenham, Mass., February 10, 1966.\n2-3, 1965, By 03/0430Z, the operational portion of the mission was complete, and\nDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,\nparticipating aircraft were en route to their home stations.\nOffice of the Secretary,\n3. Ten B-47 aircraft from Pease AFB were involved in Big Blast \"Coco\" and\nU.S. Air Force,\nwere estimated to arrive at their initial approach fix (Pease TACAN 320° radial,\nWashington, D.C.\n10 DME fix), between 03/0444Z and 03/0535Z. The town of Exeter is within the\n(Attention John P. Spaulding, lieutenant colonel, U.S. Air Force, Chief, Civil\ntraffic pattern utilized by air traffic control in the recovery of these aircraft at\nBranch, Community Relations Division, Office of Information).\nPease AFB, N.H. During their approach the recovering aircraft would have\nDEAR COLONEL SPAULDING: Thank you for your correspondence of January 25,\nbeen displaying standard position lights, anticollision lights, and possibly over\n1966, in response to my letter of November 24, 1965, regarding my inquiry con-\nwing and landing lights.\ncerning the September 3, 1965, UFO sightings in Exeter, N.H. I appreciate\nFor the commander.\nyour letter and the attached backup information concerning which I would make\nWILLIAM A. MCGILPIN, Jr.,\nthe following comments.\nLieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force.,\nDirectorate of Operations.\n6042\n6043\nThe UFO sighted by Norman Muscarello was identical to the UFO sighted\nlater by Muscarello Bertrand, and Hunt. Norman observed the UFO at close\nDr. HYNEK. It is, I believe, to the best of my knowledge, listed as\nrange during his initial sighting. There is no question in my mind that the\nunidentified.\nsame or similar object was involved in both of these particular sightings. The\nMr. BATES. This one is still unidentified?\nnumber of pulsating lights, the yawing motion, the same location, etc., make\nthis SO very apparent. Since I did not interview the \"unnamed women\" I am\nDr. HYNEK. Yes, sir.\nnot certain of the details of their sighting but according to Officer Bertrand, the\nThe CHAIRMAN. In other words, you make no bones about it, you\nobject they described was very similar to the UFO they sighted later. I might\ncannot explain it?\nadd that another witness, a male motorist, also sighted a similar object. He\nDr. HYNEK. That is correct.\ntried to phone the police from a pay station at nearby Hampton, N.H., but was\ncut off. Later he reported the incident to U.S. Air Force authorities at Pease\nThe CHAIRMAN. Yes.\nAFB. The chances are astronomical that six people, entirely independent of\nMr. BATES. I wonder if you would give us some idea of these 20\neach other, should report the identical description of a UFO within the span of\ncases that you have cited, and tell us a little something about the\nseveral hours in the same general area. I am aware of the many UFO sight-\nings in New Hampshire especially in September. It may be more than\nnature of these cases, and what the problems are, generally\ncoincidence that many of these sightings were near powerlines.\nDr. HYNEK. Well, I do not have the case files with me. I should\nAlthough I do not agree completely with the way Washington is handling the\nbe happy to prepare them for submission. But in broad description,\nUFO problem I am sympathetic with the official attitude. I have enough faith\nthey vary quite a bit. They are either daytime sightings or night-\nin the Government to realize that although official releases on UFO's would\nindicate that UFO's present no problem regarding national security and that\ntime sightings. I will describe one, which may not be necessarily\nthe U.S. Air Force treats the subject lightly, the converse is true, that is, that\ntypical. But it is an example of a sighting that puzzled some very\na full-scale military and scientific research program is being carried out on\nsolid citizens. These individuals happened to be-and I will with-\nUFO's because they are a threat to our national security. It is because of this\nhold names, of course-two students of anthropology at the University\nbelief that I will continue to send the better UFO reports our subcommittee in-\nof Wisconsin. They were with two other people in a car, returning\nvestigates to Project Bluebook and will continue to urge the public to report\nall UFO sightings to the nearest Air Force base at my lectures, personal con-\nhome one evening from shopping, about 9 p.m. In the distance they\ntacts, etc. I might add that I encourage reporting such UFO's to NICAP con-\nsaw what they first took to be rotating blinker lights on a police car,\ncurrently with any report to the U.S. Air Force.\nand they thought there had been an accident down the road some\nIt is heartening to see that the U.S. Air Force regards the UFO sighted by\nplace. They then decided that this couldn't be the case because the\nOfficers Bertrand and Hunt as an unknown. I am sure this will help a little in\nreducing the ridicule they experienced because of the U.S. Air Force initial\nlights were a little too high. This illustrates the sort of thing we\nexplanation of their sightings. I feel certain that if it were not for the fact\nrefer to as escalation of explanation.\nthat their sighting is being carried nationally in the pages of Saturday Review,\nWhen someone writes in or calls in that they have seen a space ship\nLook, etc.; and if they had not personally complained publicly and to your\npatrolling the earth, and this is not a fact, this is an interpretation\noffice, that their sighting would have been lumped into the same category as the\nUFO Muscarello and the other sighted. However, my rambling on will not make\nof a fact, usually, what they have actually seen was a light, I am\na bit of difference to present official policy and in a real sense I am wasting\nmuch more interested in the sincere individuals who report some-\nyour time in even replying as I'm sure your office is very busy but I felt that I\nthing, who say \"I thought at first it was this, then I decided it couldn't\nwould express my feelings on the subject at hand just for the record.\nbe that, it had to be something else.\" In this escalation hypothesis,\nThanks SO much again. I look forward to the time that Government policy\nwill become more relaxed on the UFO subject and in the meantime will continue\nthe incident I have described, these people said it could not have been\nmy meager research and efforts in this field for NICAP and the U.S. Air Force.\nblinker lights on a police car because they were too high. The next\nSincerely,\nhypothesis was that it was an aircraft about to crash. As the object\nRAYMOND E. FOWLER,\ncame closer all they could see were four huge red lights and an even\nChairman, NICAP Massachusetts Subcommittee.\nlarger brighter single white light. As it came closer to the car-the\nMr. BATES. In reference to the so-called sighting in New Hampshire,\nlittle 12-year-old girl in the back seat, became SO frightened that she\nDoctor, you are familiar with that case?\njust tumbled over and hid her eyes.\nDr. HYNEK. Yes, sir; I am familiar with the case.\nI questioned these people for some 2 hours. They were very intelli-\nMr. BATES. You have examined it?\ngent people and were truly puzzled. They did not for a moment think\nDr. HYNEK. No, I have not been there to examine it. Much of my\nthey were being visited by a vehicle from outer space. They were\ninformation is based upon the rather excellent account that Mr. John\njust puzzled. They simply wanted an explanation of what they had\nFuller has given of it in Look magazine. I cannot vouch for the\nseen.\nauthenticity of his statements, but I have talked with Mr. Fuller, and\nThe object apparently extended upward at an angle of about 30\nhe apparently has tried to do a very thorough job in talking with\ndegrees, SO that part of it could be seen above the telephone wires and\npeople in New Hampshire.\npart below. It hovered around the car for awhile. The man drove\nMr. BATES. Are you familiar with Mr. Raymond E. Fowler?\ninto a farmer's driveway, turned his lights out and listened, but could\nDr. HYNEK. I have had some correspondence with him, but I have\nhear no noise. He backed out and as the object began to move away,\nnever met him.\nhe gave chase but could not catch up with it.\nMr. BATES. Is this Portsmouth case one of the 5 percent that have\nThis was a case of four intelligent people seeing this strange object\nnot been identified, or within the 95 percent on which you have\nand reporting it. But no one else did. Why not? Was this some\nreached a decision?\nsort of a strange phychic projection, or something these people were\nparticularly prone to? Why did this take place in an area which was\n6044\n6045\nnot overly populated but certainly not completely sparse. Why would\nDr. HYNEK. Well, sir, scientists have a somewhat different way\nthey be the only four people to see this? This is a problem we are\nof working. They gather data quietly without fanfare, without the\nfaced with on many reported sightings. Therefore, I find it most\npress looking over their shoulder. They may work for several years.\ndifficult to ascribe a physical tangibility that there was an actual craft\nThe CHAIRMAN. What would you suggest that I do, Doctor, as\nhere. I would rather seek some other scientific explanation.\nchairman of this committee?\nMr. BATES. With respect to your response on that particular case.\nDr. HYNEK. You are in a totally different category, sir.\nIn the New Hampshire situation, two women apparently saw this\nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you.\nobject which they said was the size of a house. They reported it at\nSince this thing began in Michigan, we have two members of the\nthe police station. And then the officer came out. He saw it when\nMichigan delegation, and I am going to start off with Mr. Nedzi and\nhe got there. So there is someone who did see it in addition to the\nask him if he has any questions.\npeople who reported it originally.\nMr. NEDZI. Mr. Chairman, you are very kind. I don't have any\nDr. HYNEK. Yes.\nquestions directly pertaining to Michigan, although I have recent-\nMr. BATES. You have no decision with respect to the New Hamp-\nly been advised my district is about 150 miles from the sightings.\nshire case?\nThe sightings are moving eastward toward my district. [Laughter.]\nDr. HYNEK. I would not offer or venture any conclusion to some-\nOne question, Doctor, as to these statistics. Are they statistics\nthing I had not personally investigated.\nonly from the United States, the investigations made by you and the\nMr. BATES. This particular case has been referred to a study group,\nAir Force?\nthe New Hampshire case, or has it not, or is it a dead issue?\nDr. HYNEK. Yes, sir. The Air Force would have no jurisdiction\nDr. HYNEK. No case in the Air Force files that is unidentified is a\nover cases in other countries. But there are, I understand, reports\ndead issue.\nfrom other countries, also.\nMr. BATES. Is it just in limbo now, or is somebody still looking\nMr. NEDZI. Is any effort made to coordinate information with\ninto it?\nsome of the sightings that are made abroad?\nDr. HYNEK. I would say at the moment, considering the recent re-\nDr. HYNEK. No, sir. Up to now we have made no concerted effort\nported sightings in Michigan, that it is in limbo.\nto do this.\nMr. BATES. Do you expect to investigate this further? Would this\nMr. NEDZI. Do you think it might be a good idea to do it?\nbe one that you would prefer to the panel\nDr. HYNEK. Well, I think we should attend to the situation here\nDr. HYNEK. Yes, sir. I think this is one they should take a look at.\nin the United States first. Then, if our efforts are successful and if\nThe CHAIRMAN. Do you think they should be examined further?\nwe strike scientific paydirt and find something of value, then perhaps\nDr. HYNEK. I am sorry, sir?\nthe other step you suggest would be advisable.\nThe CHAIRMAN. Do you think this panel, about whom the Secre-\nMr. NEDZI. Do you know whether any studies are going on over-\ntary has spoken, should go into this further and make a report?\nseas, with respect to UFO's?\nDr. HYNEK. Yes, sir; I do.\nDr. HYNEK. I know of no formal studies. Actually, the rest of the\nThe CHAIRMAN. There are five such cases, or four, of some unex-\nworld seems to be guided by, and shows a tremendous respect for, the\nplained phenomena; is this a fact?\nU.S. Air Force, and they feel, I understand, that the Air Force has\nDr. HYNEK. Yes, sir; there are at least that many.\ndone a fine job.\nThe CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, do you plan to have this board look\nMr. NEDZI. Perhaps the question should be directed to the Air Force,\ninto these?\nbut it seemed to me there should be some kind of exchange of ideas\nSecretary BROWN. We will continue our investigations of all of\namong the scientists who might be interested in it in other countries\nthese, Mr. Chairman.\nwhere these sightings have taken place. It might contribute toward\nI have this recommendation to establish a civilian panel from the\nan exposé of the problem.\nScientific Advisory Board, and I believe I may act favorably on\nLet me clarify for the record, I do not believe in flying saucers, but\nit, but I want to explore further the nature of such a panel, and the\nI think it is important to have some kind of evidence that can be pre-\nground rules, before I go ahead with it. I don't want to have a\nsented to the people SO that they don't let the thing get more out of\ngroup of people come in for just 1 day and make a shallow investi-\nhand than I think it already is.\ngation. They have to be prepared to look into a situation thorough-\nSecretary BROWN. That is what we have been trying to do, Mr.\nly if they are to do any good.\nNedzi. I do not think we have any ideas of a scientific nature to\nThe CHAIRMAN. If you cannot explain these things, and you are\nexchange with anyone else yet, nor do they have such information to\nour source of beginnings, how on earth could a subcommittee of this\nexchange with us, and the difficulty in going to an international pro-\ncommittee explain them\ngram is that it won't broaden our knowledge of basic data very much.\nDr. HYNEK. Are you looking to me for an answer?\nOn the other hand, it may degrade the quality of the data, because we\nThe CHAIRMAN. If I conducted a hearing on this it would go on\nhave a hard enough time getting details in this country. A few well-\nand on, and on, if I let it, I would imagine.\nauthenticated but unexplained cases are worth much more than a\n6046\n6047\nnumber of unexplained cases where the data is not sufficiently precise\nto be helpful in an analysis.\nMr. Drummond goes on to state, \"We need to get all the data drawn together\nin one place and examined far more objectively than anyone has done SO far. A\nMr. NEDZI. My final question, Doctor, would be whether-and I\nstable public opinion will come from a trustworthy look at the evidence, not from\nthink you touched upon this-whether there has been ever any evidence\nbelittling it.\nin any of these unexplained sightings that would indicate that there\n\"The time has come for the President or Congress to name an objective and\nis some kind of extraterrestial intelligence involved?\nrespected panel to investigate, appraise, and report on all present and future evi-\ndence about what is going on.\"\nDr. HYNEK. I believe I have covered that. I have not seen any\nI agree fully with Mr. Drummond's statements. I also suggest you scan the\nevidence to confirm this, nor have I know any competent scientist\nenclosed series of six articles by Bulkley Griffin of the Griffin-Larrabee News\nwho has, or who believes that any kind of extraterrestrial intelligence\nBureau here. In the last of his articles, published last January, Mr. Griffin\nis involved. However, the possibility should be kept open as a possible\nsays, \"A main conclusion can be briefly stated. It is that the Air Force is mis-\nleading the public by its continuing campaign to produce and maintain belief\nhypothesis. I don't think we should ever close our minds to it. But\nthat all sightings can be explained away as misidentification of familiar objects,\ncertainly there is no real evidence of intelligent behavior of hardwares.\nsuch as balloons, stars, and aircraft.\"\nIf we had received periodic visits by controlled space vehicles since\nI have just today received a number of telegrams urging a congressional inves-\n1947, or earlier, it is likely they would have had some kind of trouble\ntigation of UFO's. One is from retired Air Force Col. Harold R. Brown, Ard-\nmore, Tenn., who says, \"I have seen UFO. Will be available to testify.\"\nat some time and dropped something off the coast of Spain or some\nAnother, from Mrs. Ethyle M. Davis, Eugene, Oreg., reads, \"9 out of 10 people\nplace, and we have not come across any positive proof like that.\nwant truth of UFO's. Press your investigation to the fullest.\"\nMr. NEDZI. Mr. Chairman, until the sightings get a little closer to\nRonald Colier of Los Angeles, who identifies himself as \"a scientist from MIT,\"\nmy district, I have no further questions.\nurges that you \"do everything in your power to make Air Force Project Blue\nBook (the Air Force name for its study and verdicts on UFO reports) known to\nThe CHAIRMAN. I recognize Mr. Chamberlain, then I go to Governor\nthe people.\" Are we to assume that everyone who says he has seen UFO's is an\nStafford and Mr. Hébert, because I want to get as close to the districts\nunreliable witness?\nas I can.\nA UPI story out of Ann Arbor, Mich., dated March 21, 1966, states that \"at\nI want to put in the record Mr. Ford's letter, and the response by\nleast 40 persons, including 12 policemen, said today that they saw a strange flying\nobject guarded by 4 sister ships land in a swamp near here Sunday night.\"\nSecretary Brown.\nMatt Surrell of Station WJR, Detroit, cites an eye witness account of a recent\nWhat else, Mr. Blandford, ought to go in the record\nUFO sighting by Emile Grenier of Ann Arbor, an aeronautical engineer employed\nMr. BLANDFORD. That is all that ought to be in at this time.\nby Ford Motor Co. He points out that an aeronautical engineer can hardly be\nThe CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we will put all of these in the\nconsidered an untrustworthy witness.\nIn the firm belief that the American public deserves a better explanation than\nrecord. I want to shed as much light on these illuminated objects as\nthat thus far given by the Air Force, I strongly recommend that there be a com-\nwe can.\nmittee investigation of the UFO phenomena.\n(The material above referred to is as follows:)\nI think we owe it to the people to establish credibility regarding UFO's and to\nproduce the greatest possible enlightenment on this subject.\nCONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,\nKindest personal regards\nOFFICE OF THE MINORITY LEADER,\nSincerely,\nHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,\nGERALD R. FORD, Member of Congress.\nWashington, D.C., March 28, 1966.\nEnclosures.\nRepresentative L. MENDEL RIVERS,\n[From the Washington Post, Mar. 27, 1966]\nChairman, Armed Services Committee,\nU.S. House of Representatives,\nDON'T SNEER AT UFO's\nWashington, D.C.\nDEAR CHAIRMAN RIVERS: No doubt you have noted the recent flurry of news-\n(By Roscoe Drummond)\npaper stories about unidentified flying objects (UFO's). I have taken special\nYou can't dismiss the possibility that some of the unidentified flying objects,\ninterest in these accounts because many of the latest reported sightings have been\nwhich SO many people have sighted in SO many places, are real.\nin my home State of Michigan.\nThere are, of course, UFO buffs who seem to want to believe everything and\nThe Air Force sent a consultant, Astrophysicist Dr. J. Allen Hynek of North-\ndiscount logical explanations. But Air Force officials assigned to check up on\nwestern University, to Michigan to investigate the various reports; and he dis-\nthese sightings seem SO bored and skeptical that many people have the impression\nmissed all of them as the product of college student pranks or swamp gas or an\nthat they think the public would panic if all the facts were brought out into the\nimpression created by the rising crescent moon and the planet Venus. I do not\nagree that all of these reports can be or should be SO easily explained away.\nopen.\nLet's not leave the search for more knowledge to those who tend to accept\nBecause I think there may be substance to some of these reports and because I\nbelieve the American people are entitled to a more thorough explanation than has\neverything uncritically or to those who tend to dismiss every UFO as ridiculous.\nThe time has come for the President or Congress to name an objective and\nbeen given them by the Air Force to date, I am proposing that either the Science\nand Astronautics Committee or the Armed Services Committee of the House sched-\nrespected panel to investigate, appraise and report on all present and future\nevidence about what is going on.\nule hearings on the subject of UFO's and invite testimony from both the execu-\nLast week, more than 100 persons (some of them trained observers) reported\ntive branch of the Government and some of the persons who claim to have seen\nUFO's.\nseeing \"flying saucers\" in seven States, from Maine to Texas to Colorado.\nLast year, project Blue Book, the small Air Force unit created to keep tabs\nI enclose material which I think will be helpful to you in assessing the ad-\nvisability of an investigation of UFO's.\non these things, received 886 reports of UFO sightings.\nDuring the last 2 years, the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phe-\nMay I first call to your attention a column by Roscoe Drummond, published\nnomena, a private group headed by a retired Naval Academy Marine Corps pilot,\nlast Sunday in which Mr. Drummond says, \"Maybe all of these reported sightings\nare whimsical, imaginary or unreal; but we need a more credible and detached\nreceived 3,000 such reports.\nDuring the past 10 years, the NICAP received some 8,000 reports and says that\nappraisal of the evidence than we are getting.\"\n1,500 of them \"seem pretty substantial and unexplained.\"\n6049\n6048\nPaul Richwine, 16, who lives in Woodland Beach, 3 miles north of Monroe,\nThe Air Force totals 10,147 UFO reports and states that 646 of them remain\nproduced a piece of film with a blob on it that he says his camera \"saw\" when\nunexplained by provable natural phenomena.\nhe pointed it at a \"flying saucer\" over his home Friday night.\nMaybe all of these reported sightings are whimsical, imaginary or unreal.\nDetroit News photographers say the blob could be due to a wrinkle in the film.\nBut we need a more credible and detached appraisal of the evidence than we are\nBut Paul and his mother, Mrs. Mariannice Richwine, insist that they saw the\ngetting.\nstrange glowing objects cavorting in the sky and that the dark area on the\nMaybe there is no intelligent life on other planets. Many scientists think other\npicture represents one of them.\nplanets could not sustain such life. But we don't really know.\nThe object in the picture doesn't seem to have much material substance.\nOne fact about the UFO's gives me pause. There have been no really solid\nNeither Paul nor his mother can account for the fact that the thing they saw\nreports of creatures being seen getting off landed saucers. To venture from one\nwas bright and shiny with flashing colored lights while the camera recorded a\nplanet to another involves great intellectual curiosity and I would think it almost\ndark smear.\nimpossible for someone from outer space, once here, to stifle that curiosity to the\nPaul said his Argus F-100 was on time exposure at f. 2.8 and was loaded with\nextent of not trying to make personal contact with Earth people.\nfast film when he took the picture at about 11 :30 p.m., Friday.\nConceivably, we have been seeing only preliminary unmanned orbitings of the\nThe News photographers conceded that the darkness in the picture \"might\" be\nEarth precisely controlled at great distances. But we don't know.\nthe indication of something moving quite swiftly on a time exposure, or the blob\nWe need to get all the data drawn together in one place and examined far more\ncould be a water spot on the negative or a wrinkle in the film.\nobjectively than anyone has done SO far. A stable public opinion will come\nMrs. Richwine said the object's appearance was preceded by four glowing\nfrom a trustworthy look at the evidence, not from belittling it.\nshapes about 10:30 p.m., Friday. She saw them from her front window, she said.\n[From the Washington Evening Star, Mar. 25, 1966]\n[From the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press, Mar. 22, 1966]\nDEPUTY SHERIFF \"SHOOTS\" A UFO OVER MICHIGAN\nSTATE FLYING OBJECT REPORTS BRING PLEA FOR FEDERAL SIFT\nANN ARBOR, MICH.-A Michigan deputy sheriff said an unidentified flying\nANN ARBOR.-A Michigan Congressman planned Tuesday to ask the Defense\nobject sighted over southern Michigan last week was trapped-on film-and still\nDepartment to investigate reports of unidentified flying objects sighted near Ann\nanother UFO was reported yesterday.\nDeputy Sheriff David Fitzpatrick of Washtenaw (Ann Arbor) County took\nArbor. U.S. Representative Weston Vivian, Democrat, of Michigan, left for Washing-\nthe photographs with a tiny camera roughly the size of a man's two forefingers\nton, D.C., Monday after conferring with Sheriff Douglas J. Harvey, of Washte-\nheld together.\nnaw County. Harvey said Vivian also planned to talk with the U.S. Air Force.\nPrints were delayed because the tiny film had to be sent to Forest Hills, N.Y.,\nThree times within a week, residents of the nearby community of Dexter have\nfor development.\nreported sighting objects flying in the night sky.\nThe new sighting of an unidentified flying object near Holland, Mich., came\n\"I didn't believe those reports,\" said Harvey. \"But with so many trained\nfrom both Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nichols, who live across Michigan's southern\npolice personnel and reliable citizens having seen them, I must believe some-\nLower Peninsula near Saugatuck. They said it flew across a highway ahead of\nthing is in the Washtenaw County skies.\"\nthem, no more than 150 to 200 feet high.\nAnd Tuesday, the Hillsdale County civil defense director and 87 college coeds\nNichols, 24, said the object appeared about half the size of an automobile and\nsaid they watched an eerie, hovering flying object settle in a swampy hollow near\nwas \"a round circle glowing red on the inside and white on the outside.\"\na school dormitory Monday night.\nNichols' description fits roughly that given by several of more than a score who\nWilliam VanHorn, 41, the county civil defense director for 10 years, said he\nhave reported sightings in the Ann Arbor area in the last 10 days.\nwatched the unidentified object through binoculars for 3 hours.\nFitzpatrick, however, said the two objects he photographed gave off a bril-\nThe Air Force announced it was calling in Dr. H. Allen Hynek, chairman of\nliant yellow-white light in graceful swoops which he and Sheriff's Sgt. N. K.\nthe Dearborn Observatory at Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., and scien-\nSchneider observed from about 4 a.m. to 7 a.m., March 16.\ntific consultant to the Air Force's UFO study program, to investigate the rash\nThe photographs show two distinct streaks of light in the sky high above\nof sightings.\nstreet lights leading into Milan. No details of the objects are visible in the\nHynek will work from Selfridge Air Force Base near Mount Clements, the Air\nphotographs blow up to 8 by 10 inches from the tiny film.\nForce said.\nDr. J. Allen Hynek, a Northwestern University astrophysicist, was sent here by\nIn Hillsdale, VanHorn said he joined the 87 Hillsdale College coeds and their\nthe Air Force to investigate recent reports.\nhousemother to watch the object. He said it emitted wavering orange, red\nHe has scheduled a news conference in Detroit today to discuss his probe.\nMeanwhile, reports of unidentified flying objects moved south into Ohio today.\nA farmer who lives near Upper Sandusky in northwestern Ohio told sheriff's\ndeputies that an object shaped \"like a top\" or a \"Christmas tree upside down\"\n[From the New York Times, Mar. 22, 1966]\nhovered over a wooded area on his property early today.\nDeputies were called to the farm three times, but the farmer said the object,\nFORTY IN MICHIGAN SAY A MYSTERIOUS CRAFT HOVERED IN SWAMP\nwith lights on its outer edges, disappeared each time before they arrived.\nANN ARBOR, MICH., March 21.-At least 40 persons, including 12 policemen,\nsaid today that they saw a strange flying object guarded by four sister ships\nland in a swamp near here Sunday night.\n[From the Detroit News, Mar. 23, 1966]\nDescriptions of the unidentified flying objects tallied closely. A patrolman,\nRobert Hunawill, said he and other residents of the area saw similar craft before\nPHOTO ADDS NEW WRINKLE TO SAUCERS\ndawn last Monday and Wednesday.\nIn Washington, the Air Force said it knew nothing of the reports. The Air\n(By Douglas Bradford)\nForce's Michigan headquarters in Battle Creek would not comment.\nTwo persons who slogged through the 300-acre swamp today and looked for\nWhile Air Force officials prowled through the countryside for some sign of the\ntraces of the craft found nothing but marsh grass, quicksand, and muck.\nstrange night visitors that have been zipping through southeastern Michigan\nskies, a Monroe area boy came up with what he said was a picture of one.\n6050\n6051\nHowever, the two persons who reportedly were closest to the object, Frank\nthat of a football. This was roughly the same description given by a man and\nMannor, 47 years old, and his son, Ronald, 19, said it did not appear to touch the\nhis son who reported that they saw an eerie object land in a swamp Sunday\nground but sat on a base of fog.\nFrederick E. Davids, State police commissioner, who is also head of civil de-\nnight 45 miles northeast of here near Ann Arbor.\nThe Air Force announced it was bringing in Dr. H. Allen Hynek, chairman of\nfense for Michigan, opened an investigation.\n\"I used to discount these reports too, but now I'm not SO sure,\" he said.\nDearborn Observatory at Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., and scientific\nconsultant to the Air Force's Project Blue Book program to track down the\nMr. Mannor and his son said they had run to within 500 yards of the object.\nMr. Mannor said the craft was shaped like a football and was about the length\nreports of unidentified flying objects.\nof a car with a grayish yellow hue and a pitted surface like coral rock.\nDr. Hynek set up his headquarters at Selfridge Air Force Base, Mount\n\"It had a blue light on one end and a white light on the other,\" he said.\nClemens, Mich., near the southern Michigan section where the objects have\n\"They were pulsating and each of them looked like they had a little halo\nbeen reported several times lately.\naround it,\" he said.\n\"It was definitely some kind of vehicle,\" Mr. Van Horn said. \"Through the\nOther witnesses saw only the lights, but their descriptions, including those of\nglasses [binoculars] it was either round or long.\"\npolicemen, agreed closely.\nThe object's shape was briefly outlined by lightning as it veered over and\nnear the dormitory before retreating into the swamp, Miss Kohn said. It stayed\nStanley McFadden, Washtenaw County sheriff's deputy, said he and Deputy\nDavid Fitzpatrick watched the object fly over their car about the same time the\nthere for 4 hours before vanishing, witnesses said.\nMannors reported it had taken off.\nOfficer Hunawill said four other unidentified flying objects had hovered in a\nquarter circle over the object in the swamp.\n[From the Washington Post, Mar. 29, 1966]\nTRUTH ABOUT FLYING OBJECTS HIDDEN BY AIR FORCE, FAITHFUL SAY\n[From the Washington Post, Mar. 23, 1966]\n(By Howard Simons, Washington Post Staff Writer)\nFIRST UFO's OF SEASON ARE SIGHTED\nFirm believers that unidentified flying objects are for real and from a far-off\nSpring's first flying saucers have sprouted right alongside the forsythia.\nsuper-civilization met the press yesterday amid a torrent of reports about new\nScores of people in Michigan have reported strange flying objects since the\nobjects being sighted everywhere in the United States.\nweekend, and a former fighter pilot says he saw several over his Bethesda home\nThe believers repeatedly charged the Air Force with deliberately hiding the\nSaturday night.\ntruth, which if it were known \"would bring forth one of the greatest stories of\nThe Air Force, which has investigated more than 10,000 such reports since\nthe century.\"\n1947, sent Northwestern University's Dr. H. Allen Hynek, its top scientific\nThe believers also \"fully backed\" Representative Gerald Ford, Republican,\nadviser on unidentified flying objects (UFO's), to look into the Michigan\nof Michigan, who wants a congressional investigation of unidentified objects\nreports.\nwhich have lately plagued his home State.\nThe latest was Monday night at Hillsdale College, where a county civil defense\nBut most of all, the believers want to be believed and loved.\ndirector, a former reporter and assistant dean, and 87 coeds say they watched\n\"We want the Air Force merely to end its secrecy on sightings and stop ridi-\na glowing object zipping around campus for 4 hours.\nculing competent witnesses,\" said retired Marine Corps Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe, a\nThis report coincided with one near Ann Arbor, where about 50 persons\nUFO skeptic until his conversion.\nincluding 12 policemen-said they saw an eerie object cruise over a swamp\nKeyhoe now is director of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial\nSunday night while four sister ships hovered overhead.\nPhenomena, an organization whose major aims are to evaluate all UFO sightings;\nIn Bethesda, retired Air Force Col. Howard T. Wright, of 5119 Newport\nget the Air Force to own up to the truth and to expose UFO charlatans who keep\nAvenue, said he and five other persons saw several objects outside his home and\nseeing \"little green men.\"\nthey were \"definitely not in my imagination, nor were they satellites or airplanes.\"\nKeyhoe and his colleagues, including scientists, engineers, military personnel,\nand pilots, scorn the thought of \"little green men.\"\nHad a visitor from afar ever set foot on the earth? the serious students\nof UFO's were asked.\n[From the New York Times, Mar. 23, 1966]\nThere was only one case suggesting so, said committee staff member and\nEIGHTY-SEVEN MICHIGAN COEDS AND OFFICIAL SIGHT MYSTERIOUS OBJECT\nformer Newsman Donald Berliner. It happened in April 1964 near Socorro,\nN. Mex., where police officers saw two small suited occupants get out of a UFO.\nHILLSDALE, MICH., March 22 (UPI) civil defense director, an assistant\n\"They were small and suited,\" noted a reporter. \"How could you be sure\ndean and 87 coeds reported a glowing object fly past a college dormitory and\nthey were not green?\"\nhover in a swamp for hours.\n\"We have no reason to believe they were green,\" wryly quipped Berliner.\nTheir description of the object seen here last night tallied closely with that\nThe committee's case for believing that UFO's are for real was put to the press\nof one seen by more than 50 persons, including 12 policemen, near Ann Arbor,\nby Keyhoe. It amounted to an argument that thousands of competent persons—\nMich., the previous night.\nincluding radar controllers, qualified pilots, and missile trackers-had sighted\nThe Air Force dispatched its top scientific adviser on unidentified flying\nobjects; roughly 100,000 persons in all.\nobjects to begin an investigation.\nThe Air Force, which has been investigating UFO reports since 1948, has\nThe witnesses said they watched from the second floor of a Hillsdale College\nsteadfastly maintained there is no evidence any flying object has come from\ndormitory as the object wobbled, wavered, glowed, and once flew right at a\nsomewhere else in the universe.\ndormitory window before stopping suddenly.\nKeyhoe's view, shared by the committee's board of governors, is radically dif-\nMrs. Kelly Hearn, for 7 years a newspaper reporter before becoming assistant\nferent. The committee concludes, Keyhoe said yesterday, that \"these things are\ndean of women, assistant professor of English and housemother of the dormi-\nreal and must be extraterrestrial because they are SO superior to anything we\ntory, had the coeds take notes as they watched the object for 4 hours.\nThey and William Van Horn, 41, Hillsdale County civil defense director, said\nhave.\" According to Keyhoe, UFO's have been observing the earth for 200 years. He\nthe object dimmed its lights when police cars approached, brightened again when\ngave two reasons, essentially, for why no contact has been made with whoever\nthey went away, and dodged an airport beacon light.\nit is that pilots the UFO's.\nBarbara Kohn, 21, of New Castle, Pa., and Cynthia Poffenberger, 18, of\nOne reason is that the Air Force has orders to scare the UFO's away.\nCleveland were the first to see the object. They described its shape as roughly\nA second reason is that until humans demonstrated the atomic bomb and space\nflight the UFO people regarded earth as too primitive a society to bother with\nother than for surveillance purposes.\n6052\n6053\n[From the Portland (Maine) Evening Express, Jan. 17, 1966]\nan illuminating example of how the Air Force deals with the public in such a\nsituation.\nTHOSE \"FLYING SAUCERS\"-AIR FORCE EXPLAININGS-AWAY OF UFO's DEEPENS\nBy good fortune, one does not have to rely mainly on newspaper reports, some-\nMYSTERY\ntimes meager, or upon the Air Force statements. The Department of Public\n(Editor's note: This is the first of a series about UFO's (unidentified flying\nSafety of the State of Oklahoma has sent to the office of Congressman John Jar-\nobjects by Bulkley S. Griffin, executive editor of the Evening Express Wash-\nman, Democrat, of the Oklahoma City congressional district, and to the National\nington Bureau. He wrote the stories after visiting the UFO office of the U.S.\nInvestigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) in Washington a sum-\nAir Force.)\nmary of the teletype reports sent into the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Communi-\ncations Network Center, July 31-August 5, from the various highway patrol\nWASHINGTON, D.C.-The Air Force handling of the unidentified flying objects\nheadquarters over the State.\n(UPO's) continues to be something of a mystery. Its persistent endeavors to\nThis valuable document, which was not observed in the files of Project Blue\nexplain all the UFO sightings as misidentification of ordinary objects, such as\nBook, will be utilized in one or more following articles dealing with the curious\nstars and balloons, has become SO conspicuous as to raise questionings in the\nbehavior of the Air Force touching the UFO's and the public.\nminds of a growing number of citizens. Some of these explanations seem to run\ncounter to both logic and commonsense. Running along with these explainings-\naway is an apparent Air Force lack of enthusiasm-especially at high levels-to\ndo a thorough job of investigating sightings.\n[From the Portland (Maine) Evening Express, Jan. 18, 1966]\nHeadquarters of the Air Force investigation and conclusions on unidentified\nflying objects-they call the enterprise Project Blue Book-is at Wright-Patter-\nTHOSE FLYING SAUCERS-HIGHWAY PATROL REPORT FIRES CONTROVERSY OVER\nson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. In charge of Project Blue Book is Maj.\nUFO's\nHector Quintanilla.\n(Editor's note: This is the second of a series about UFO's (unidentified flying\nRecently this writer has made two more visits to Wright-Patterson to study\nthe files of Project Blue Book and to talk with Major Quintanilla, the architect\nobjects) by Bulkley S. Griffin, executive editor of the Evening Express Washing-\nton Bureau. He wrote the stories after visiting the UFO office of the U.S. Air\nof the military's final public verdicts on the UFO's.\nA multitude of UFO sightings in the last dozen months has kept the Air Force\nForce.)\nbusy trying to explain-away and has rendered the public more conscious and\n(By Bulkley Griffin)\ncurious than ever about these strange, usually lighted, objects in the sky. The\nWASHINGTON, D.C.-Research into the matter of the unidentified flying ob-\nAir Force and the burdened Project Blue Book have often resorted to the expe-\njects (UFO's), the U.S. Air Force, and the public, receives substantial help from\ndient of lumping a number of sightings together-not naming any particular\na report furnished by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. This sum-\none-and furnishing a generalized catchall explanation.\nmarizes the messages dealing with UFO sightings that passed over the Okla-\nThis is what it did respecting an extraordinary number of sightings in the\nhoma Highway Patrol network in the period July 31-August 5.\nSouthwest around the beginning of last August. The very number of the UFO's\nA survey of this information reveals the large number of sightings and the\nand of the sighters of them shook some public confidence thereabouts in both the\nmuch larger number of witnesses of those sightings, and lists some radar sight-\nAir Force's knowledge of the subject and in the good faith of its explainings-\nings by the Air Force. It compares with a generalized attention to those sight-\naway.\nings by the Air Force and Project Blue Book, the latter the name for the Air\nExtracts from dispatches sent out at that time by the two national wire serv-\nForce investigation of UFO's.\nices will refresh memories and provide a good idea of the magnitude of the UFO\nAt 3:30 p.m. August 2, Project Blue Book issued a statement assuming to ex-\nperformance. On Tuesday, August 3, the New York Times and other newspapers\nplain the avalanche of UFO sightings that had hit the Southwest-but probably\ncarried an Associated Press dispatch from Oklahoma City, dated August 2. It\nhad hit Oklahoma the heaviest-starting July 31.\nbegan:\nTherefore, this article will seek to hit the high points of the sightings reported\n\"Authorities in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas were deluged last\non the Oklahoma Highway Patrol network beginning with July 31, up to the\nnight and early today (August 2) by reports of unidentified objects seen flying\nissuance of the Project Blue Book explanation.\nin the sky.\nThe first report on the teletype came the early morning of July 31. A Wynne-\n\"The Sedgwick County sheriff's office at Wichita, Kans., said the Weather\nwood, Okla., police officer, Louis Sikes, reported a UFO. The radar at Tinker\nBureau had tracked several of them at altitudes of 6,000 to 9,000 feet.\nAir Force Base located the object. A little later, continued the highway patrol\n\"The Oklahoma Highway Patrol said that Tinker Air Force Base here (Okla-\nreport, \"Caswell Air Force Base (Fort Worth, Tex.) aimed their radar at the\nhoma City) had tracked four of the unidentified flying objects on its radar screen\nsame location and came up with the same fix as Tinker.\" Both Tinker and\nat one time, estimating their altitude at about 22,000 feet. A Tinker spokesman\nCaswell followed the object, which once disappeared and then reappeared, for\nrefused to confirm or deny the reports of radar observations.\"\nsome time. Later that day an Associated Press dispatch from Oklahoma City\n\"Reports poured in\" from 21 cities and towns, continued the Associated Press\nstated flatly that Tinker and Caswell both had the UFO on radar.\ndispatch. The 21 are named 7 are listed in Texas, 3 in New Mexico, 5 in Okla-\nThe next night saw the UFO reports crowding the highway patrol teletype.\nhome, and 6 in Kansas.\nSome quotations of messages will be given.\nThe United Press International, in a dispatch in the evening of August 2, named\nAt 9:19 p.m. the highway patrol tower sent out this message: \"Since 8 p.m.\neight States. \"Reports of sightings by eye poured in from Kansas, Texas, Okla-\nthe tower has received in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 visual sightings, many by\nhoma, New Mexico, Colorado, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Okla-\npolice officers and highway patrol troopers of various unidentified flying objects\nhomans probably saw the most.\"\nfrom the Purcell area north through the Norman area to Chandler and back\nIn a dispatch from Oklahoma City dated August 4, the United Press Interna-\nthrough Meeker and Shawnee.\ntional declared that \"thousands of persons across the Nation's midlands and\n\"Three Shawnee officers and their captain have four of the objects in sight\nSouthwest again last night reported seeing mysterious flashing, winking, and\nat this time, also another has cropped up from the south of Tecumseh and is\nsparkling phenomena that sped and sometimes zigzagged across the skies.\napparently going to fly directly over Shawnee.\n\"The Air Force contends most of the sightings were probably stars or planets.\n\"The sightings vary from one to four of the objects at various times starting\nIt was the fourth consecutive night of UFO sightings. A lot of people took\nin a reddish color and varying to a white and blue luster.\nissue with the Air Force's claim that they were stars or planets.\"\n\"Shawnee reports the objects seem to be flying four to a formation in a\nIt can be mentioned in passing that radar does not pick up stars or planets.\ndiamond-type formation. Cushing has reported four of the objects. Oklahoma\nIn one United Press International dispatch it is stated that \"Oklahomans prob-\nHighway Patrol Units 30 and 40 have also made visual sightings. Reports have\nably saw the most\" of these sightings. The Oklahoma sightings therefore provide\n6054\n6055\ncome from (three) individuals.\" Names of two civilians are given; third was\nclose to the ground. Several persons apparently observed it, three of them, in-\npolice officer from Tulsa, not named.\ncluding two policemen, at one time.\n\"Tinker Air Force Base has had from one to four of them on radar at a time,\nThe conclusion of Project Blue Book-the name of the Air Force UFO probe\nand they advise they are flying very high, at approximately 22,000 feet, which\nthat announces the final verdicts on sightings-that the New Hampshire watchers\nseems to coincide with the visual sightings, all of which are 'very high flying\nsaw low-flying airplanes, is of a piece with many other Air Force attempted\nobjects.\"\nexplainings away. It doesn't make sense.\nOther reports came in the night of August 1. The sheriff's office at Chandler\nThe New Hampshire sighting is of significance on another ground. It involves\nreported two UFO's. Two individuals-names given-spotted a UFO between\nthe reported effect of a UFO in disturbing and exciting animals.\nNorman and Purcell. \"Tinker AFB looking at it-or attempting to do SO at\nThe sequence of events near Exeter began at 1 o'clock in the morning of last\nthis time with radar-Wichita Falls, Tex., also notified to look.\" Another UFO\nSeptember 3 when Exeter Police Officer Eugene P. Bertrand, Jr., 30, cruising in\nwas seen near Forgan, and sighter's name and address given.\nhis police car, came upon an auto drawn up by the side of the road and in it an\n\"Although there were numerous other reports from other sources which did\nhysterical woman, who according to the officer's report to the investigative officer\nnot reach the patrol, those above were all of the reports whch moved on the high-\nfrom Pease Air Force Base, N.H., \"stated she was too upset to drive.\" She\nway patrol wire on August 1,\" it is stated in the summary from the depart-\nstated a light had been following her and had stopped over her car.\" The officer\nment of public safety. On August 2, the teletype carried its first UFO report\nstayed with her about 15 minutes, sought to reassure her, saw nothing, and\nof that day at 2 p.m. regarding a sighting at 12:50 p.m. near Cushing. Other\ndeparted for the police station.\nreports followed through the afternoon and night.\nThere he found Norman J. Muscarello, 18, of Exeter who had come to the sta-\nAll this from just one State's highway patrol teletype.\ntion to tell of his experience while a few miles out of Exeter. He said some-\nAt 3:30 p.m. on August 2, Maj. Hector Quintanilla, in charge of Project Blue\nthing big with dazzling, flashing red lights had appeared moving just above the\nBook, issued the following statement:\ntreetops. It had moved rather slowly toward him. He had jumped into the\n\"Initial study of the reports thus far received by the Air Force indicates that\nditch for safety. Then the thing had disappeared.\nthe observations were astronomical in nature. The objects most likely observed\nOfficer Bertrand took Muscarello with him in his patrol car and they returned\nwere the planet Jupiter and the stars Rigal, Capella, Betelgeux, or Al-debaran,\nto the field where Muscarello had had his alarming experience. They both got\nwhich are clearly visible in the eastern sky. The time of reported sightings, the\nout of the car and walked into the field, Bertrand having a flashlight. At this\nazimuth and elevation of the reported sightings supports this conclusion. In\npoint Officer Bertrand's report to an examining officer at Pease AFB can be\naddition, on August 1 and 2 the temperature distribution and varying wind\ntaken up.\nspeeds observed over the Great Plains, from northern Texas to Wyoming\n\"When we had gone about 50 feet a group of five bright red lights came from\nwere favorable for the phenomenon, known as scintillation. Some of the\nbehind a group of trees near us. They were extremely bright and flashed one\nreports were the aquarid meteor showers which occur between July 26 to\nat a time.\nAugust 6. The meteors approach from the southeast and streak swiftly across\n\"At one time they came SO close I fell to the ground and started to draw my\nthe sky trailing sparks. There has been no confirmation that any of the sight-\ngun. The lights were SO bright I was unable to make out any form.\nings reported were tracked on radar.\n\"There was no sound or vibration but the farm animals were upset in the\nThis official statement presents two characteristics typical of Air Force treat-\narea and making a lot of noise. When the lights started coming near us again\nment of UFO reports. First, no specific sighting is mentioned, and just about\nMuscarello and I ran for the car.\nevery conceivable reason for seeking to explain away the multitude of sightings\n\"I radioed Patrolman David Hunt who arrived in a few minutes. He also\nover eight States is included.\nobserved the lights which were still over the field at an estimated altitude of 100\nSecond, no radar sighting is admitted. This is despite the highway patrol's\nfeet and finally disappeared in the distance at the same altitude. The lights\nreport of Tinker and Carswell Air Force Bases having a fix on a July 31 object,\nwere always in line at about 60° angle. When the object moved the lower lights\nand Tinker having a fix on up to four objects the night of August 1-2; and de-\nwere always forward of the others.\"\nspite national wire services reports of these radar sightings and of a Wichita\nIn this case the Air Force, which generally appears to hang back from much\nweather station radar sighting of several UFO's.\ninvestigating of UFO reports, did do some investigating. It interviewed the\nRadar does not pick up stars and planets, as has been stated. Further,\nsighters and neighbors.\ncorroboration of visual sightings by a radar sighting-as the Okla-\nThe Pease AFB officer, who headed this local military probe and who, by the\nhoma Highway Patrol indicated on one occasion the night of August 1-\nway, was a command pilot, made this finding:\nwould strengthen the argument that some UFO's are real and unknown.\n\"At this time have been unable to arrive at a probable cause of this sighting.\nBut that August 2 statement from Project Blue Book was immediately attacked\nThe three observers seem to be stable, reliable persons, especially the two patrol-\nfrom a different angle by Director Robert Risser of the Oklahoma Science and\nmen. I viewed the area of the sighting and found nothing in the area that could\nArt Foundation Planetarium in Oklahoma City. To quote a UPI dispatch :\nbe the probable cause. Pease AFB had five B-47 aircraft flying in the area during\n\"That (Project Blue Book statement) is as far from the truth as you can\nthis period but do not believe they had any connection with this sighting.\"\nget,\" Risser said. 'Somebody has made a mistake. These stars and planets are\nHowever, Project Blue Book lists low-flying airplanes as probably responsible\none the opposite side of the earth from Oklahoma City at this time of year.''\nfor this Exeter sighting. Maj. Hector Quintanilla, in charge of Blue Book, states\nMajor Quintanilla, recently asked about the comment of Director Risser,\nthat the 8th Air Force SAC (Strategic Air Command) group at Westover Air\npointed out the UFO reports were coming in from several States, and said his\nForce Base, Mass., was conducting a low-level operation, called Big Blast, at\nAugust 2 announcement referred to Wyoming where the stars in question were\nthe time. He said he believes the Exeter \"people were looking at low-level\nvisible. He added the statement applied to Oklahoma between 1 and 4 in the\naircraft.\"\nmorning.\nThe effect of a UFO on animals had been reported in a New York State case\nabout 2 weeks before the Exeter event. An investigating officer from the\n[From the Portland (Maine) Evening Express, Jan. 19, 1966]\nNiagara Falls Air Force Base, commenting on the sighting of a low-down UFO\nnear Cherry Creek, N.Y., on August 19, said:\nTHOSE \"FLYING SAUCERS\"-NEW HAMPSHIRE SIGHTING ONE OF MOST FRIGHTENING\n\"Preliminary analysis reveals object not explainable in conventional terms.\nObject caused reduction in farm cows' milk from 2½ cans to 1 can. Disturbed\n(Editor's Note: This is the third of a series about UFO's (unidentified flying\nbull in field. Caused dog to bark.\" This sighting, by the way, is one of the\nobjects) by Bulkley S. Griffin, executive editor of the Evening Express, Washing-\nvery few that Project Blue Book has marked \"Unidentified.\"\nton bureau.)\nThe Exeter UFO produced a fairly familiar charge; namely that the Air\nWASHINGTON, D.C.-One of the more impressive sightings of an unidentified\nForce sought to suppress news of the sighting. In this instance the charge\nflying object (UFO) occurred near Exeter, N.H., last September. As narrated,\ncame from Raymond Fowler, of Wenham, Mass., head of a local area NICAP\nit was an extended closeup observation of a lighted object that was noiseless and\n6056\n6057\ngroup, who went to the scene to investigate for NICAP. The latter stands for\nBut Tinker AFB itself must have received dozens of calls during the heavy\nNational Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, the unofficial but re-\nsighting period of July 31 through August 5. This much is indicated by a\nsponsible Washington organization. The Fowler charges are in the files of Blue\nsentence sent out over the highway patrol network the night of August 2. \"The\nBook and of NICAP.\nsecurity officer at Tinker Field reports he has been swamped with calls the past\nFowler talked with witnesses and others and said he was told that Pease\nhour from people reporting UFO's.\" This report refers to just 1 hour of the\nAFB officers had asked the police and a local newspaper correspondent not\nseveral-day sighting period.\nto mention the sightings. The request was put to the police on the ground\nChances are, it is said, that the Air Force handling of the UFO problem may\npeople would be alarmed if told the facts, it is stated.\nbe allowed to drag along by an apathetic public. Yet one may speculate on\nMajor Quintanilla, informed of this charge, said that \"I would not allow any\nwhat an honest and energetic investigation might do. For one thing, it would\nsuppression of news.\" However, it is an impression in Washington that officers\ninvestigate some of the sightings reported by the Oklahoma highway patrol.\na good deal higher than Major Quintanilla would not exert themselves to prevent\nFor instance, take this report that moved with many others, over the teletype\nnews suppression of UFO sightings.\nAugust 4. \"Twenty-five people at a church in Cushing, Okla., all watched\nThe Haverhill (Mass.) Gazette wrote an editorial on this UFO in the neigh-\nseveral UFO's. Sometimes they would stay stationary, then would move at a\nborhood, in which it said: \"So many have reported seeing it (the Exeter UFO)\nhigh rate of speed. Were moving south for a while, then stopped and stood\nand their descriptions jibe SO closely that, unless they have banded together\nstill for some time, then were joined by two and moved to the west at high\nin one large hoax, their stories must be given credence.\"\nspeeds, then turned and traveled east for a while, then stopped completely and\nstood still, then went east and suddenly disappeared from sight. The first ones\nwere orange lights, the ones that joined them had red and green lights like\nairplanes. PD (police department) Cushing also observed the same things.\"\n[From the Portland (Maine) Evening Express, Jan. 20, 1966]\nOr the \"approximately 30 calls\" to the Shawnee Police Department reporting\nTHOSE \"FLYING SAUCERS\"-AIR FORCE BRUSHES OFF FLOOD OF SIGHTINGS IN\n4 or 5 lighted objects traveling northwest which \"make no conventional noise\nSOUTHWEST\nsuch as an aircraft does but rather make a humming noise.\" Or what did the\nfive citizens of Norman, Okla., see looking at a white globe 30-40 feet in diameter\n(Editor's note: This is the fourth of a series about UFO's (unidentified flying\nthrough a \"tripod-mounted 160-power telescope.\"\nobjects) by Bulkley S. Griffin, executive editor of the Evening Express, Wash-\nThe evidence is convincing that the Air Force-for reasons it doesn't an-\nington bureau.)\nnounce-is not really trying to discover what the UFO's are. Or, if the Air\nWASHINGTON, D.C.-A good 2 weeks after the flood of unidentified flying object\nForce already knows, it is painstakingly keeping its information from the public.\nChief blame for this lack of action must rest on the Government.\n(UFO) sightings last August over Oklaboma and other Southwestern States,\nTinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, produced its formal survey and judg-\nBut another culprit, the scientific community, must bear blame according to\nment. It sent this several-page explanation of sightings in its wide area to\nan August article by Robert C. Cowen, natural science editor of the Christian\nProject Blue Book, the Air Force office in charge of the UFO investigations and\nScience Monitor. He wrote in part:\nconclusions.\n\"The main reason there has been no scientific study of the (UFO) puzzle is\nThis report is a good example of Air Force anti-UFO propaganda. Except\nsocial pressure within the scientific community. It has not been due to lack\nfor mention of one specific sighting-which was decreed to be a weather baloon-\nof opportunity to gather data.\nthe report is generalized, pulling out all the stops on the possibilities of citizens\n\"Many scientists feel the whole subject is 'kooky.' They dismiss it with\nmaking mistakes and including a statement from the official of a planetarium in\nridicule. It can be personally embarrassing, even detrimental to a scientist's\nOklahoma City whose text was that \"the average person is uneducated as to what\ncareer, to try to take the saucer problem seriously.\"\nthe sky normally looks like.\"\nIt is time to investigate; scientific knowledge of some sort resides in the\nInterviews with military experts are given which mention unusually bright\nUFO phenomenon, said the writer.\nstars at this time of year, a haze that reflects things from the ground, the fre-\nquency of weather balloons and SO on.\nAn impressive but superficial case is made for weather balloons as fooling\n[From the Portland (Maine) Evening Express, Jan. 21, 1966]\npeople into thinking they are seeing a UFO. The number released daily in the\nOklahoma area is considerable.\nTHOSE \"FLYING SAUCERS\"-WHAT SHERIFFS SAW WASN'T STAR, UFO PROBER\nBut the fact is that the citizens thereabouts have lived with these balloons day\nADMITS\nafter day and year after year and by now must be fairly well acquainted with\nwhat they look like and how they act. They are also pretty well acquainted\n(Editor's note: This is the fifth of a series about UFO's (unidentified flying\nwith stars, which at the moment may be supplanting balloons as the favorite\nobjects) by Bulkley S. Griffin, executive editor of the Evening Express, Wash-\nexplanation put forth by Project Blue Book.\nington bureau)\nThe Tinker AFB report did not need to avoid mention of particular sightings.\nWASHINGTON, D.C.-The case of the two Texas deputy sheriffs whose patrol\nThe Oklahoma Highway Patrol teletype reported a number of sightings well worth\ncar was allegedly followed by an unidentified flying object (UFO) SO that they\ninvestigation and these teletype UFO reports were relayed to all major news-\nhit 110 miles an hour in rushing away, is worth mentioning for its own sake in\npapers, wire services and TV and radio stations across the State of Oklahoma\nany study of the Air Force-UFO confrontation.\nalso to the weather wire teletype system. They were available to sincere Air\nThe case also illustrates the possibility of a more realistic trend in Project Blue\nForce investigators.\nBook-which is the name of the Air Force's investigation of UFO's.\nThe failure to interview witnesses could be termed negative Air Force prop-\nProject Blue Book first listed the Texas sighting as, \"Refraction of Star\naganda. The highway patrol messages named close to a dozen civilian wit-\nAntares distorted due to inversion.\" This verdict was a highly improbable one\nnesses usually with addresses, and the number of highway patrol officers that had\nfrom the start, as will be seen from the testimony of the two deputy sheriffs.\nsightings must have totaled two dozen and more. Yet the formal August 20 re-\nRecently, Maj. Hector Quintanilla, in command of Project Blue Book, stated he\nport from Tinker shows interviews with but two civilians and two police officers.\nhas withdrawn this conclusion after talking over the phone with Deputy Sheriff\nMaj. Hector Quintanilla, in command of Project Blue Book, says the Air\nMcCoy. The star verdict didn't seem to fit. So Blue Book now records the sight-\nForce seeks interviews with persons who call up and whose names they learn.\ning as one of the very few unexplained ones on its rolls.\n\"We are not interested in persons who go to the newspapers or to radio and TV\nAnother recent case of reconsideration of a verdict occurred in the instance of\nstations,\" he said. The wisdom of this exclusion is of course wide open to ques-\nthe four lighted objects seen together by many observers the night of August 1-2,\ntion-assuming that the Air Force is seeking information.\naccording to the teletype reports of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. The latter\n6058\n6059\nsaid Tinker AFB had picked them up. But Blue Book had this sighting listed\nof investigating the sightings, and the public. The conclusions reached have\nas \"Astro (Antares).\" Radar does not pick up stars, as previously noted.\nbeen assisted by two more examinations of the files of Project Blue Book, the\nRecently, however, as this writer was discussing this sighting at the head-\nAir Force name for its study and its verdicts on UFO reports.\nquarters of Project Blue Book and pointed out that a Tinker AFB radar squadron\nA main conclusion can be briefly stated. It is that the Air Force is misleading\nsergeant had referred to two stationary objects and two moving in the formation,\nthe public by it continuing campaign to produce and maintain belief that all sight-\nProject Blue Book proposed that the two stationary objects were stars-the\nings can be explained away as misidentifications of familiar objects, such as\nbrightest of them Antares-and the two alleged to be moving could be airplanes.\nballoons, stars, and aircraft.\nThe two cases, one in Oklahoma and one in Texas, suggest to some observers\nThe logical assumption, backed by much circumstantial evidence, is that the\nthat Project Blue Book, while vigorously trying to explain away has of late\nAir Force is deliberately misleading the public.\noccasionally sought to throw a little more credibility into its investigations and\nIn this campaign the Air Force, backed by normal public respect for the military\nconclusions.\nand for authoritative statements, and also assisted by the natural human dis-\nBut to get to the two deputy sheriffs, who, as it came about, were fol-\ninclination to think uncommonly or to be laughed at, has been largely successful.\nlowed by a UFO the same night-September 3-on which at least one person in the\nHowever, the Air Force success in having the public believe what it wants it\nExeter, N.H., case reported being followed.\nto believe respecting UFO's is steadily and conspicuously lessening. More and\nChief Deputy Sheriff Billy F. McCoy and Deputy Sheriff Robert W. Goode\nmore skepticism is being voiced in newspapers and by citizens.\nwere on routine patrol near Damon, Tex.-which is around 40 miles south-\nAnother chief conclusion is this: no energetic and thorough effort to investi-\neast of Houston-when they saw a bright purple light, which soon produced a\ngate the unidentified flying object phenomenon is being made by the Air Force or\nsmaller blue light, on the horizon about 5 miles away. One of the officers studied\never has been made by it. And this charge holds true respect any other Gov-\nthe lights through binoculars. They had slowed down off the edge of the high-\nernment agency and respecting what has been termed the Nation's scientific\nway when the lights started rapidly toward them.\ncommunity.\nThe testimony of Chief Deputy Sheriff McCoy, as given to an investigating\nReasons for the persevering Air Force performance are unknown to the public.\nofficer from Ellington AFB, Tex., continues:\nIn the speculation one of the following three reasons is commonly advanced the\n\"The object came up to the pasture next the highway about 150 feet off the\nAir Force fears national panic if the truth about the UFO's were told; the Air\nhighway and about 100 feet high. The bulk of the object was plainly visible\nForce feels it is stuck with its story; or the Air Force is silenced by the Central\nand appeared to be triangular shaped with a bright purple light on the left and\nIntelligence Agency.\nthe smaller, less bright, blue light on the right end. The bulk of the object ap-\nThe first alleged reason, however uncomplimentary to the intelligence of our\npeared to be dark gray in color with no other distinguishing features. It ap-\ncitizens, is one that has been heard at the Capitol off and on for approaching 20\npeared to be about 200 feet wide and 40-50 feet think in the middle tapering off\nyears. Some speculate it may be the reason the Air Force has given to the chair-\ntoward both ends. There was no noise or any trail.\nmen of the two congressional space committees in its understood endeavor to hold\n\"The bright purple light illuminated the ground directly underneath it and\noff a congressional investigation of the UFO subject.\nthe area in front of it, including the highway and the interior of our patrol car.\nWhat is the truth about the UFO's? It is quite possible that no one on this\nThe tall grass under the object did not appear to be disturbed.\nearth knows.\n\"There was a bright moon out and it cast a shadow of the object on the ground\nA veteran New England congressional leader, who was in a position to know,\nimmediately below it in the grass. Deputy Sheriff Goode was in the driver's\ntold this writer that the Air Force didn't know what they are. Officials of the\nseat with his left arm lying in the open window. Although he was wearing a\nCentral Intelligence Agency ought to know if anyone does, yet a former head of\nlong-sleeved shirt and a coat, he later said that he felt the heat apparently\nthe CIA, Adm. R. H. Hillenkootter, affirmed half a dozen years ago that he did\nemanating from the object.\"\nnot believe in the Air Force explainings-away but he did not indicate he thought\nThe officers rushed away toward Damon \"as fast as we could go\" traveling\nhe thought he knows the truth of the matter.\n\"at speeds up to 110 miles an hour,\" said McCoy. Arrived in Damon, they dis-\nAn increasing number of good observers hold that a sizable minority of the\ncussed the matter. \"We were both scared but still wanted to find out what it\nsightings-many sightings presumably are misidentifications-represent some-\nwas.\" So they returned to the scene and saw the UFO on the horizon acting\nthing new and unknown. A large number of these observers, who include\nexactly as it had before. \"We decided to leave the area because we figured that\nveteran pilots, radar operators, air traffic controllers, teachers, astronomers, and\nthe object would start coming toward us again,\" stated McCoy.\nother experts, hold that the unknown UFO's are extraterrestrial.\nThe report to Blue Book of the investigating officer from Ellington Air Force\nTo all this Air Force officials can and do respond that not a single tangible\nBase believes the two deputy sheriffs definitely saw \"some unsual object.\" This\nbit of evidence of any such UFO has been found. This is a mighty strong argu-\nreport reads in part:\nment, the strongest argument of the so-called explainers-away.\n\"After talking with both officers involved in the sighting there is no doubt in\nYet to an augmenting number of competent observers the evidence grows\nmy mind that they definitely saw some unsual object or phenomenon. However,\nstronger that some of the UFO's are real and really unknown. So very many\nmy investigation failed to uncover any facts that permitted me, with my meager\nimpressive sightings can't be explained away, it is said.\nknowledge of such things, to arrive at any explanation for the unusual sighting.\n\"From the United States, from Argentina, Uruguay, Portugal, France, Ant-\n\"Both officers appeared to be intelligent, mature, levelheaded persons capable\narctica, and Australia (from four continents) have come the rash of reports of\nof sound judgment and reasoning. Chief Deputy Sheriff McCoy hold a responsible\nsightings of unidentified flying objects (UFO's). The sightings have been the\nposition in the department requiring the supervision over 42 personnel. Both\nmost numerous since 1957.\" So summarized a United Press International dis-\nofficers have been subjected to considerable friendly ridicule from their con-\npatch last August.\ntemporaries and the local townspeople; but have continued to profess the facts\nFirst and last, few presumably will challenge a conclusion that the mystery\nof their sighting\nand the problem of the unidentified flying object remain with this world.\nAnd as for the Air Force, with its intensive campaign to explain away every\nUFO sighting, it might listen to the recent advice of a veteran astronomer, Dr.\n[From the Portland (Maine) Evening Express, Jan. 22, 1966]\nI. M. Levitt, director of the Fels Planetarium, Franklin Institute, Philadelphia,\nTHOSE \"FLYING SAUCERS-EVIDENCE INDICATES AIR FORCE MISLEADING PUBLIC\nsaid:\nON UFO's\n\"It would be well if our Project Blue Book officials were simply to indicate\nthat sightings in a minority of cases cannot be explained. It would clear the air\n(By Bulkley Griffin (last of six articles)\nof a great deal of misunderstanding and mistrust of this group by the intelligent\nlaymen and observers who have seen objects in the sky.\"\nWASHINGTON, D.C.-This is the final one of half a dozen articles on the uni-\ndentified flying objects (UFO's), the U.S. Air Force, which has the official job\n6060\n6061\nDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,\nAll UFO reports which are submitted to the Air Force are regarded as\nWashington, January 18, 1966.\nearnest reports from people who have seen an aerial object which they could\nHon. L. MENDEL RIVERS,\nnot identify. The purpose of our program is to evaluate such reports and to\nChairman, Committee on Armed Services,\ninform the observer of the cause of his sighting.\nHouse of Representatives.\nThe National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena is a private\nDEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Recently you requested information in behalf of Mr.\norganization which is in no way affiliated with our Government.\nJohn R. Gray about unidentified flying objects (UFO).\nIt is a pleasure to again be of service to you.\nThe Air Force does not withhold or censor information on UFO's. The re-\nSincerely,\nsults of all Air Force investigations are available to bona fide news representa-\nDWIGHT W. COVELL,\ntives and scientific researchers. Press releases are issued as warranted, and\nColonel, USAF,\nan annual report (copy attached) on the project is available to the public. There\nCongressional Inquiry Division, Office of Legislative Liaison.\nhas never been an order issued by the Secretary of the Air Force to suppress or\nwithhold such information.\nThe three conclusions set forth in Mr. Gray's letter are, in fact, the conclu-\nJANUARY 11, 1966.\nsions which were reached as a result of a panel of scientific consultants that met\nHon. L. MENDEL RIVERS,\nat the request of the Government to study the problem in 1953. For your in-\nHouse of Representatives,\nformation, the U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board has been asked to\nWashington, D.C.\nevaluate the UFO program. An ad hoc committee has been appointed and will\nMY DEAR SIR: Thank you for the very prompt reply (Jan. 6, 1966) to my\nconvene sometime in February. The results will be available shortly after the\nletter of December 29, regarding UFO's. You stated that you may check out\nmeeting.\nmy comments with the proper authorities. Knowing in advance essentially\nAs a result of investigating over 10,000 reports since 1947, we cannot associ-\nwhat reactions you will receive from these authorities, be they Air Force,\nate disruption of running engines, radios, and headlights, or malfunction of air-\nDepartment of Defense, or Congressional Inquiry Division officials, I strongly\ncraft instruments, or heat sensations with UFO activity. Nor can we attribute\nand respectfully request you withhold acceptance of their statements until\nthem to aircraft operations. There are many plausible explanations for effects\nyou contact Maj. Donald Keyhoe (USMC, retired) or Mr. Richard Hall. These\nsuch as car radio static when passing powerlines, overheated car engines, drops\ngentlemen, as you are undoubtedly aware, are director and associate director,\nin power and voltage in the electrical system, malfunction of equipment, and\nrespectively, of NICAP and can be reached at NOrth 7-9434.\nimagination or panic of an observer. Weather conditions such as temperature\nThis course of action is most desirable for the ultimate best interest of\ninversions can cause known natural or conventional objects to appear to hover,\nthe American people as it permits both sides of this controversy to be im-\nmove around, and change colors. Satellites and balloons make no noise while in\npartially weighed.\nflight. Balloons can also hover and suddenly accelerate depending on the wind\nNICAP, in the 9 years since its inception, has amassed sufficient factual in-\nconditions.\nformation, documentation, and evidence to refute any or all Air Force claims.\nThe foregoing information also explains our third conclusion. There has never\nThe organization asks only that it be given the opportunity to present this\nbeen a top-secret document, entitled \"Estimate of the Situation,\" which con-\ninformation in open hearings in order to attain its immediate goal of getting\ncluded that UFO's are interplanetary in nature.\nto the people the truth about the UFO's, as can be ascertained and officially\nAs of December 31, 1965, the Air Force has received 10,060 reports since 1947\nconfirmed; and the best hope of achieving this end is through congressional\nof which 645 are unidentified and cannot be explained. It is our opinion that\naction.\nall reports could be explained if more detailed objective data had been avail-\nRespectfully yours,\nable. However, because of the fact that analyses of UFO sightings depend pri-\nJOHN R. GRAY,\nmarily on the personal impressions and interpretations of the observer rather\nHuntington Beach, Calif.\nthan on accurate scientific data or facts obtained under controlled conditions,\npositive identification of all sightings is improbable. Information on any UFO\nDECEMBER 29, 1965.\nreport is available to private citizens upon request.\nHon. L. MENDEL RIVERS,\nPhotographs received in conjunction with UFO reports are evaluated by photo\nU.S. House of Representatives,\nanalysis personnel. The objects in such photographs have been evaluated as\nThe House Office Building,\nknown natural or conventional objects which have been misinterpreted by the\nWashington, D.C.\nobserver. Such photographs are returned to the owner after analysis.\nMY DEAR SIR: As chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, you may\nOur Project Blue Book office is located at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, where\nbe the proper person in the House, to whom I should address this correspondence\nall UFO records are kept. All objects which have been picked up or tracked on\npertaining to a subject, the scientific aspect of which promises far-reaching impli-\nradar have been identified as flocks of birds, weather phenomena, or reflections\ncations. A considerable amount of genuine scientific research by private indi-\nfrom ground targets. Radar scope photography is classified only if it reveals\nviduals in this field is being thwarted, in part, by a policy of an agency of the\nclassified defense information.\nU.S. Government through the employment of ridicule and the withholding of\nThe joint Army-Navy-Air Force publication 146 deals with UFO's only as a\npertinent information. It is a field that has been the subject of suppression since\ncatchall class of sightings that does not fall into a recognized category such as\n1947 and particularly since 1953 by order of the Secretary of the Air Force.\nships, submarines, aircraft, or guided missiles. The purpose of the publication\nThe subject, of which I write, is that of unidentified flying objects (UFO's)\nis to provide uniform instructions for the peacetime reporting of what is judged\nand the Air Force censorship in the handling of legitimate sightings and reports.\nto be vital intelligence sightings. Any person who violates the provisions of\nThe publicized conclusions, in part, of the Air Force's Project Blue Book are:\nthe publication may be liable to prosecution thereunder. The purpose of this\n(1) No unidentified fiying object reported, investigated, and evaluated by\nis to emphasize the necessity for handling of such information within official\nthe Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security\nchannels only.\n(2) There has been no evidence submitted to or disclosed by the Air Force\nThe article appearing in the December 24, 1959, issue of TIG Brief, entitled\nthat sightings categorized as unidentified represent technological develop-\n\"UFO's Serious Business,\" has been misinterpreted. The purpose of this article\nments or principles beyond the range of present day scientific knowledge;\nwas simply to improve the quality of reports and investigative procedures. It\nand\nalso contained guidelines for effective reporting and the equipment necessary\n(3) There has been no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as\nfor investigations. We have no knowledge of any research projects such as\nunidentified are extra terrestrial vehicles.\nthose stated by Mr. Gray, nor do we have any information about the Santiago,\nOther than the close encounters with UFO's reported by airline and military\nChile, incident.\npilots, an element of truth can be conceded in conclusion (1). However, the\nvadility of number (2) must be disputed. Do we possess any aircraft that can\n1. On close proximity to ground vehicles disrupt the running engines,\nheadlights, and radios of those vehicles?\n6062\n6063\n2. On close proximity to conventional aircrafts cause their gyro com-\nstifled; and it matters when the American people are denied the right to know\npasses and direction finders to momentarily malfunction?\nwhat kind of powers they may be up against. Persistence in this dogmatic atti-\n3. On close proximity to conventional aircrafts or ground vehicles cause\ntude will only tend to deteriorate public morale if not the public trust in the Air\nintense heat sensation experienced by their occupants?\nForce when irrefutable proof of the existence of these objects manifests itself.\n4. Hover at any one point at any given time and suddenly accelerate hori.\nThose behind this official \"blackout\" should be displaying real responsibility\nzontally or vertically out of sight in a matter of 5 to 10 seconds?\nto all of us by desisting from the practices of ridiculing sincere witnesses and\n5. Execute an abrupt 90° or 180° change of direction while in flight?\nbelittling sightings that defy explanations and at least extend public acknowl-\n6. Make no discernible sound while in flight?\nedgement of some credence to the evidence that abounds. Instituting a policy of\n7. Glow brilliantly and change colors?\ndealing honestly, for a change, with the people would prepare the way to a mini-\nSuch behavior and characteristics have been witnessed by reliable persons\nmum of possible panic (assuming this to be the basic reason for the censorship)\nand documented enumerable times and are very familiar to the Air Force; in\nupon arrival of that \"moment of proof.\" (Please, excuse the pun.) Consider\naddition to being definitely beyond the scope of our present technology. If con-\nthe contrast of the disrespect shown Americans to the consideration extended the\nclusion (3) had included the word \"proof\" instead of \"evidence,\" the probability\ncitizens of Argentina and Chile. For example, on August 3, 1965, the radio and\nof truth could also be conceded here. As it stands, the statement is likewise\nTV stations of Santiago, Chile, alerted the populous to view the three luminous\nfalse for the same reasons as the arguments listed against conclusion (2). Since\ndiscus hovering over the city for some 25 minutes before moving slowly away.\nour present state of technology does not permit satisfactory explanations to such\nWith the hope that we may yet receive such courtesy instead of treatment as\nbehaviors of these objects, what other assumption can a scientific mind make\nchildren, I respectfully urge that you consider the undertaking of a hearing into\nthan that their origin is extra terrestrial? It may be recalled that the Air Tech-\nthis despicable situation. Until this condition is brought out into the open, much\nnical Intelligence Center (ATIC) at Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio, in\nof the news media will continue to refrain from giving the UFO's serious consider-\nJuly-August of 1948 concluded in their top secret document estimate of the\nation they SO justly deserve.\nsituation that UFO's were interplanetary. While top Air Force officials will\nAll statements made in this letter can be substantiated by the National Investi-\nvehemently deny that such a document ever existed, proof that it does exist and\ngations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) located at 1536 Connecticut\nis accessible for examination by interested Members of Congress-but not from\nAvenue NW., Washington, D.C. Documented evidence and authentication re-\nthe Air Force.\nquired to support the assertion that a censorship does in fact exist will be put at\nWhile the Air Force does not publicly admit to the existence of the wealth of\nthe disposal of your committee by NICAP upon request.\ndocumented evidence that has been accumulated since before the appearance of\nRespectfully yours,\nthe first airplane, it does admit to possessing at least 663 \"unknowns\" on the\nJOHN R. Gray, Huntington Beach, Calif.\nbooks. Sightings classified as \"unknowns\" are those well decumented by official\nand unofficial sources but remain unsolved and \"unexplainable.\" Private\ncitizens inquiring into the nature of these unknowns will be told that such is\nclassified information (AFR 200-2 paragraphs 9 and 19). It should be noted,\n[From Life magazine, Apr. 1, 1966]\nin this respect, that Vice President Humphrey and Senator Birch Bayh were\nmisinformed by the Air Force through the Congressional Inquiry Division to\nA WELL-WITNESSED \"INVASION\"-BY SOMETHING\nthe effect that all of the 663 \"unknown\" cases were solved. The letter to Sena-\ntor Bayh was signed by Col. Frederick H. Fahringer.\nFROM AUSTRALIA TO MICHIGAN, A FLURRY OF EERIE UFO SIGHTINGS\nDealings with the Air Force concerning information of UFO's have proven\nCall them what you will: flying saucers, unidentified flying objects (UFO's),\nto be a one-way proposition-all in and none out. Is it little wonder that only\noptical illusions, or the first symptoms of the silly season. They are back\nabout 10 percent of the citizenry dare risk disparagement for submitting reports\nagain-and seen by more people than ever before. Some are greenish and iri-\nthat are truly unexplainable? The \"lending\" of photographic evidence of a\ndescent, like the mystery thing that swooped down over Perth, Australia, several\nsighting by a witness to the Air Force is tantamount to forfeiture. Infre-\nweeks ago. Others are football shaped and aglow with pulsating lights. Last\nquently, an Air Force \"slip-up\" occurs in his favor.\nweek the manifestations seemed almost to have reached the proportions of an\nThe Air Force maintains that there is no censorship of UFO's. Anyone fol-\ninvasion. Near Ann Arbor, Mich., 52 witnesses, including a dozen policemen,\nlowing this subject knows differently. Strong feelings were expressed by three\nof my acquaintances, all departed in recent years from service in that branch,\nsaw 5 strange objects hovering over a swamp. The next day a glowing thing\nfloated over a small college in Hillsdale, Mich. and was sighted by 87 students,\nin verifying that censorship does indeed exist. Two were radar technicians,\nan assistant dean and the local civil defense director. Whatever the explanation\none of whom was stationed at White Sands in 1949 while the other was assigned\nto the 776th Radar Squadron at Point Arena, Calif. in 1961-62. The third was\nof the peculiar phenomena-seen and described similarly by so many-something\na member of Project Blue Book in Alaska during 1961-62.\nsurely was in the air.\nThe Joint Chiefs of Staff regulation JANAP 146, section III, title 18, United\n\"IT WASN'T No HULLABILLUSION,\" SAID THE FARMER, AND 52 AGREED\nStates Code 793, threatens imposition of penalties of 1 to 10 years imprisonment\nand/or up to $10,000 fine upon any Air Force pilot who reveals an official UFO\n(By Paul O'Neil)\nreport. Such harsh punishment would certainly be indicative of the seriousness\nwith which the Air Force regards the UFO's; and all the while the publicized line\nDEXTER TOWNSHIP, MICH.-Frank Mannor has never believed in flying saucers.\nis \"they don't exist.\" The official position was subsequently revealed when on\nHasn't any need of them. Wishes he'd never seen one. Frank should have been\nDecember 24, 1959, an Air Force Inspector General brief was issued stating that\nborn in the day of Dan'l Boone. Since he wasn't, he's on the unemployment.\n\"UFO's are Serious Business\" and instructing all investigating officers to be\nStill, he's a happy man. Or was.\nequipped with geiger counters. The degree of seriousness can also be realized\nHe is a husky, grizzled fellow of 47 who has 10 children, a well of water with\nwhen one considers the lengths to which six agencies of the Federal Government\nan outside pump, a solidly build privy, a TV set and a battered refrigerator with\nare extending themselves in research to uncover the suspected secret of these ob-\nthe coil on top. Four disembodied automobiles rest beside his white, tumble-\njects-that of gravity control, or antigravity power. Forty-six such projects of\ndown, two-story farmhouse in the open country 12 miles northwest of Ann\nresearch of varying degrees are currently being subsidized including 33 under Air\nArbor. They provide parts for his good car. He has an ancient schoolbus for\nForce supervision.\nhunting expeditions. He also has six dogs. The dogs started it all. When they\nWhile it is understandable that information pertaining to these projects does\nbegan \"barkin' and bellerin' at 8 o'clock that Sunday night, Frank ran outside-\nnot necessarily fall into the sphere of the public's \"right to know,\" there is no\neven though he was wearing his suit pants-and looked east into swampland\napparent reason or justification for the continuation of this \"blackout\" policy\nfrom the rise of ground on which the house is built. He saw lights and a faint\nregarding UFO's. It matters not whether this policy was instigated by the Air\nred glow \"like cigarets being smoked.\"\nForce or its superior, but it does matter when individual research in this field is\n6064\n6065\nFrank called his 19-year-old son, Ronnie. Suit pants or not, they started down\nBack by Frank Mannor's house the road jammed up with the cars of the\ntoward whatever it was. \"I thought a meteor had hit, that maybe we could\nexpectant; one man scraped away at a violin for an hour in the hope of sum-\npick up pieces of it,\" Frank said.\nmoning creatures from outer space and another blinked a light in what he\nIt never for a minute occurred to him that the United States hadn't had a\ndescribed as a \"pi code\"-which he believed to be the key to interplanetary\ngood, mysterious flying saucer manifestation for a coon's age, that it was proba-\nunderstanding. Many came to scoff. Mannor grew more indignant by the hour.\nbly time for a new visitation from the mysterious little men from outer space\n\"People are trying to make a fanatic out of me,\" he complained. \"They was\nand that they had decided to use southern Michigan in general and his swamp\nstill tramping around here at 3 o'clock this morning and look at them now.\nin particular for the dangdest display of flashing lights and whizzing half-seen\nThey say, 'How much money are you going to make off this?' That's crazy. I\nobjects since Frank Perkins fired a .22 rifle at a New York crow-and hit a\ndon't want no money. I didn't want no publicity in the first place. I don't want\nfireworks factory-back in 1951.\nnone now. I'm just a simple fellow. But I seen what I seen and nobody's going\nFrank Mannor soon realized that he and his son were stalking some kind of\nto tell me different. That wasn't no old foxfire or hullabillusion. It was an\nthing. The ground between his house and the swamp is hummocky, rolling, but\nobject. Maybe it'll come back if all these people would stay away and we could\nthe night was clear and moonlit and the glow ahead was plain. \"Just like we\nget a picture and have verication of it. Anybody wants to give me a lie-detector\nwere hunting deer,\" Frank said to Ronnie, \"Don't talk, we'll sneak up on it.\"\ntest I'll take it.\"\nThey jumped a creek, climbed a rise, and there it was, a few hundred yards\nLeona, his wife, was more succinct: \"We ain't Martians-they act like you're\nahead in the marsh. The thing seemed as long as an automobile, and wore a\nnot human or something because you seen it. I'm about to get a gun and shoot\ngreen light on one end and a white light on the other. Its back was humped\nsome of these smart alecks if they don't stay to hell away.\"\nand looked grayish- or bluish-brown and was \"quilted\" or rough \"like coral\nrock,\" It seemed to be sitting perhaps 8 feet off the ground in a patch of mist.\n10,147 FLYING SAUCER SIGHTINGS\n\"Like a man in a boat on a misty lake in the morning-you can see the man\nbut can't quite make out the boat.\"\n(Ever since the Old Testament prophet Ezekiel recorded an encounter with a\nSuddenly it turned blood red. \"Look at that horrible thing, Dad,\" blurted\nfiery flying wheel, people have been seeing saucerlike things in the sky. In the\nRonnie-and the lights instantly went out. Both began running toward it.\nfollowing report Life Correspondent Bill Wise tells of the Air Force's efforts to\n\"I was a-puffin',\" said Mannor. \"But when we got there it was gone. I hunted\nmake sense of all.)\nfor 4 hours but there was no sign or smell of it. I'm glad I didn't have a gun.\nDAYTON, Онто.-Тhеге have been 10,147 reported UFO sightings since a pri-\nI'd a shot it and I might have harmed someone.\"\nvate pilot named Kenneth Arnold claimed he saw a set of rapidly moving\nBack at the house, meantime, Mannor's wife Leona-a woman who wears\n\"things\" in the air near Mount Rainier, Wash., on June 24, 1947. Arnold's widely\nshapeless slacks and a flannel shirt with the tail out-decided to call the nearby\npublicized report set off the first of the modern epidemics of saucer sighting, and\nDexter village police. \"We've got an object out here,\" she said formally. \"that\nthe Air Force has been in the saucer business ever since. Its \"Project Bluebook\"\nlooks like what they call a flying saucer. It's got lights on it down in the swamp.\"\noccupies a single room on the second floor of a windowless red concrete building\nSince the Mannors are on an eight-party line Leona told a great many other\nhere at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Its functions: (1) to try to find an\nother people, too, and the word spread like lightning-or the glow from a flying\nexplanation for all reported sightings of unidentified flying objects, (2) to dis-\nsaucer. Cops and deputy sheriffs were soon tumbling out of cars and thrashing\ncover whether the UFO's pose any security threat, and (3) to determine if UFO's\noff toward the marsh, and the road beyond the house was jammed solid with\nexhibit any advanced technology which the United States could put to use.\nthe cars of gawkers. Most of them were rewarded for their effort. Dexter\nTo assist Project Bluebook, there is an UFO officer stationed at every Air Force\nPolice Chief Robert Taylor and Patrolman Nolan Lee saw the red glow as they\nbase in the country the officer at the base nearest a reported sighting is respon-\nstumbled around in the dark; SO did Washtenaw County Deputy Sheriffs Stan-\nsible for initiating the investigation. According to Maj. Hector Quintanella, Jr.,\nley McFadden and David Fitzpatrick. All reported, like Mannor, that the light\na physicist who heads Project Bluebook, most UFO sightings have a rational and\neventually vanished. But unlike their host, who said, \"I never seen it take off,\"\nusually very simple explanation. The most common reports stem from bright\nthe cops felt it had zipped away over Mannor's house making a sound like \"an\nstars, planets and meteorites, particularly when viewed through broken clouds or\nambulance.\"\nhaze.\n\"I seen it,\" said McFadden, \"but I still don't believe it.\"\nOthers turn out to be satellites-few people realize that there are now more\nDexter Patrolman Robert Hunawill saw a \"strange, lighted object\" appear\nthan 30 of these in orbit that are visible to the naked eye. Thousands of bal-\nover his patrol car as he waited in the road for those who had set out for the\nloons-some as large as 300 feet in diameter, some carrying running lights-are\nswamp. It had red and white lights \"which at times had a bluish tinge\" and\nreleased daily at airports, weather stations and research centers, and these lead\nmade continuing sweeps over the swamp at a height of 1,000 feet and then, on\nto a great many \"saucer\" reports. Conventional aircraft are another major\nbeing joined by three other \"objects,\" flew away. Chief Taylor's 16-year-old son\nsource-reflecting sun by day or providing the glow of running lights or jet\nRobert saw one lighted thing at 10:30. It flashed red and white and hurried off\nafterburners or the flash of photo recon strobe lights at night.\nto the west.\nAll satellites and most weather balloons and aircraft are being carefully\nAnn Arbor, though sharply divided between scoffers and believers the next day,\ntracked and logged by military or civilian agencies, and Project Bluebook rou-\nstill seemed to feel a unanimous civic pride in the fact that the Air Force had\ntinely checks sightings against these records. Unreported local flights by private\ntaken cognizance of its lurid phenomenon by dispatching Astronomer J. Allen\naircraft pose the most frequent problem in this detective work.\nHynek, director of Northwestern University's Dearborn Observatory, to weigh\nStrange blips on radar screens have occasionally unsettled personnel at track-\nthe tales of the elect and, no doubt, send a message of gravity and import to the\ning stations-e.g., two \"objects\" that appeared on the scopes at Patuxent Naval\nPentagon. They were even more heartened to hear that Hynek did not instantly\nAir Station (Md.) last December seemingly approaching the base at an estimated\nannounce that Mannor and his fellow bushwhackers had simply seen the Uni-\n4,800 miles an hour before making a tight turn and disappearing. But these can\nversity of Michigan's dish-shaped Peach Mountain radio telescope, which stands\ngenerally be traced to pulsating \"bugs\" within a receiving set or to interference\nagainst the sky beyond the area in which they saw the glowing thing. Hynek, a\nfrom other neighboring electronic gear. Wright-Patterson experts have been\nbearded man who has investigated a hundred other \"sightings\" for the Air\nable to account for every errant radar blip reported to date.\nForce in the last two decades, was sure Mannor was too accustomed to the tele-\nThere is no question that our Air Force and those of other countries employ\nscope to ever mistake it for anything else.\nassorted airborne hardware as tactical and training devices. Many of these are,\n\"I believe the people who made these sightings are entirely honest and sin-\nof course, seen as flying saucers and it is obvious that for security reasons the\ncere,\" he said. \"But I am not willing to guess what they saw.\" He hedged when\nAir Force is reluctant to talk about them.\nasked if he thought the thing might conceivably have been a new \"test vehicle\"\n\"I have looked at the records of nearly every UFO case back to 1947,\" says\nof some sort. \"I think I know much more of what is going on than * * *'' he\nMajor Quintanella, \"and my feeling is that the vast majority have involved\nbegan, but then halted and said, \"so I don't think I should say anything\nsimple misinterpretation of natural phenomena.\"\nI'm sure there is some natural explanation for all of this.\"\n6066\n6067\nOf the sightings SO far checked out, less than 2 percent of the total are listed\nI am pleased to have your statement.\non Project Blue Book's file as unidentified. The Air Force officially concludes\nAnd, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this hearing, and these\nthat none of these has given any indication of posing a threat to national safety,\npeople in to put some attention on this matter. Thank you.\nor offering new technological data, or of originating from some extraterrestial\nsource. However, some of these files remain officially open and the investigations\nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you.\non them continue.\nGovernor Stafford. Governor Stafford, you are from Vermont, how\nDr. J. Allen Hynek, director of Dearborn Observatory at Northwestern Uni-\nclose is this to your district?\nversity, who is heading up the Ann Arbor investigation for the Air Force, is an\nMr. STAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to com-\nold hand at checking on flying saucers for Blue Book. Dr. Hynek notes that\nment on that.\nsighting reports usually do not originate with persons who believe in outerspace\nvisitations. \"Believers\" don't need sightings to convince them, and are irritated\nMr. Bates has pointed out there have been UFO sightings in New\nby the embarrassment and skepticism with which most UFO spotters, like Frank\nHampshire, Vermont not to be outdone last week has had sightings\nMannor, report what they believe they have seen.\nthere, also, some within 16 miles of my hometown.\n\"It is easy to dismiss the cases of birds, balloons, and the like,\" says Dr. Hynek,\n\"but when good solid citizens report something puzzling, I believe we have an\nThe CHAIRMAN. That is getting awfully close.\nobligation to do as good a job as we can. I regard our 'Unidentifieds' as a sort\nMr. STAFFORD. Yes, sir.\nof blot on the escutcheon. Somehow we scientists should be able to come up\nSince our States of Vermont and New Hampshire are known as the\nwith answers for these things.\"\ntwin States, Mr. Chairman, this may be simply a case of bad naviga-\nMajor Quintanella, although certain that no evidence turned up to date has\ntion on the part of the UFO's, although some of us think it may be if\neven hinted at spacecraft of unearthly origin, agrees that it is impossible to\nprove that flying saucers do not exist. In any event, the Air Force is not about\nthey are extraterrestrial they are simply looking for a warmer climate\nto give up chasing UFO's.\nthan New Hampshire possesses. But in any event, in seriousness, the\n\"We are spending millions to develop our own rocket boosters to get our space-\npeople in Vermont are very much concerned over the sightings that\ncraft to the moon and beyond,\" says the major, smiling. \"Imagine what a great\nhave occurred in our State, and reputable people have seen phenom-\nhelp it would be to get our hands on a ship from another planet and examine its\npowerplant.\"\nenon which they cannot understand.\nI would simply hope that the Secretary of the Air Force and the\nThe CHAIRMAN. What I want to ask you is, why do they always see\ndoctor could assure me that if these sightings have not already been\nthem in the nighttime?\nevaluated, that in the course of investigation and deliberations they\nDr. HYNEK. There are a number of reports from the daytime al-\nwill be.\nthough it is true there are many more night sightings.\nThe CHAIRMAN. I hope if you come in contact with any of them you\nThe CHAIRMAN. Then there is another thing, if anybody wanted to\ndon't have to tell them where South Carolina is.\nspy on this country why would they go to this expense, when you can\nMr. Hébert is next.\ngo to any newsstand and get all the information you want, and if that\nMr. HÉBERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.\ndoesn't help you get a roadmap, and if that doesn't help you, hire\nWhile these objects have not been seen in my district, I just want to\na Hertz car.\nprepare myself, because after next election day I might have seen\nDr. HYNEK. Maybe they don't know this.\nsome of them.\nThe CHAIRMAN. If the Martians don't know this by this time they\nDoctor, have you conferred with Mr. Ray Walston on this subject\nwill never know it.\nmatter?\nSpying on this country is so simple, I cannot understand why the\nDr. HYNEK. No, sir.\nRussians or anybody wants to put something up in the air to spy\nMr. HÉBERT. Does that ring a bell with you, Mr. Ray Walston\non this country, when they have got SO many avenues we don't police.\nDr. HYNEK. No, sir.\nDr. HYNEK. No comment on that, Mr. Chairman.\nMr. HÉBERT. It does not ring a bell? He is the most authoritative\nThe CHAIRMAN. Well, you ought to comment on it.\nman in the country on space. He appears in every home every Sunday\nDr. Chamberlain, we will hear from you.\nnight, he is \"My Favorite Martian.\"\nDr. CHAMBERLAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really have no\nDr. HYNEK. Oh. [Laughter.]\nquestions, but I will say the sightings in Michigan were near my\nMr. HÉBERT. He has an antenna out of his head, too.\narea, but not within it. I am pleased to hear your recommendation and\nDr. HYNEK. I think I have been talking to the wrong people.\nto have the Secretary's statement that he intends to implement it.\nMr. HÉBERT. He can shed a lot of light on the subject. I just\nI am further comforted to know he is giving it further thought and\nwanted to direct your attention to that.\nhe is going to, at such time as your recommendation is implemented,\nThat is all, Mr. Chairman.\nwe are going to have a panel that will consider these things in depth,\nThe CHAIRMAN. Dr. Hall, you are next after Mr. Price.\nnot just in town for a day, with a cursory look, and disposing of it,\nMr. PRICE. Doctor, if in fact they exist and are from outer space,\nbecause I feel we have other scientific achievements and advances, and\ndon't we have have a tracking system that now does a real competent\nthat there is going to be a growing importance of surveillance of this\njob tracking every satellite in outer space so we know every one that is\nphenomena.\nlaunched somewhere else, and as they circle in outer space we have a\nI would say, further, the people in our area are concerned about this.\nrecord of each of these, do we not?\nThere has been considerable responsible editorial comment in our\nDr. HYNEK. It is my understanding that we do. This is the point\nnewspapers. It should not be \"poo-pooed,\" as you say.\nI made earlier.\n6068\n6069\nMr. PRICE. If they did travel in outer space there would be a record\ncan people, I would assume a picture of this kind would be disturbing\nsomewhere of their travels in outer space?\nin just the same way that Life's story of what happened to some dogs\nDr. HYNEK. I would certainly think so, and this, of course, is I\nup in Baltimore has now resulted in legislation being recommended to\nthink one of the most potent arguments against extraterrestial visita-\nthe House.\ntion by intelligences, unless they were SO superintelligent they knew\nYou have no explanation or haven't looked into the series of photo-\nhow to evade completely our surveillances. I think this would be\ngraphs that appear on pages 26 and 27 of Life magazine, and pages\npretty difficult.\n24 and 25?\nMr. PRICE. As they left their normal orbit they could be tracked\nDr. HYNEK. I just learned of the Life article last week.\nand followed?\nMr. STRATTON. Is that correct, Doctor?\nDr. HYNEK. Yes, sir.\nDr. HYNEK. That is correct, I have not examined the photographs\nMr. PRICE. As they left the orbit?\nand information published by Life.\nDr. HYNEK. To the best of my understanding, they certainly could\nMr. STRATTON. Has anybody examined them in the Air Force?\nbe.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. Mr. Stratton, we have asked for the negatives\nThe CHAIRMAN. Dr. Hall.\nof those pictures, but the citizens will not turn the negatives over to the\nMr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the Secretary and\nAir Force. You cannot force them to turn them over to the Air\nhis distinguished guests for this, and say for some time we have even\nForce.\nhad space conventions down in the Ozarks, in the last 13 years, and\nMr. STRATTON. They turned them over to Life magazine, haven't\nit would seem obvious to me in view of the report today those who\nthey\ntake trips by the use of hullucinatory drugs are almost synonymous\nMajor QUINTANILLA. You will have to ask them; I don't know.\nwith the number of space sightings we have had reported here today,\nMr. STRATTON. What has Life got?\nnamely, in the order of 10,000. To me it indicates a decrease in the\nMajor QUINTANILLA. I don't know, sir.\nmores and the fiber of those who would subject themselves to hulluci-\nMr. STRATTON. How can you have examined this without finding out\nnatory influences in the first place.\nwhat Life has?\nThank you.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. What is that, sir ?\nThe CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stratton\nMr. STRATTON. How can you have examined these particular in-\nMr. STRATTON. You mentioned something from Life magazine, Mr.\nstances without finding out what Life has?\nChairman. There were two pictures in Life magazine I think we\nMajor QUINTANILLA. The Air Force has not investigated these in-\nwould like an explanation of. One of them was a red object which\nstances, sir, and the photographs have not been examined because the\nwas clearly visible in the photograph. The other were two lights,\nnegatives have never been turned over to the Air Force.\nI think, taken in Sidney Harbor, one at one position and one at\nMr. STRATTON. You have not been in touch with Life magazine to\nanother, and then there was the third photograph. I wonder if the\nfind out what they have?\nDoctor could give us what the explanation is of these?\nMajor QUINTANILLA. No, sir; we have not.\nDr. HYNEK. Well, sir, unless one has the original negative, there\nMr. STRATTON. Don't you think it might be well to undertake to\nis very little photoanalysis that can be done. It is said a picture is\nmake an effort to find out whether Life has the negatives, for example,\nworth a thousand words, but I think in this case it is the other way\nor whether they have been in touch with the individuals concerned\naround, because generally it has been our experience, and I think\nMajor QUINTANILLA. Yes, sir.\nMajor Quintanilla will bear me out, that when we do have hoaxes\nMr. STRATTON. Well, I think, Mr. Secretary, as I just said, I am very\nthey very frequently are accompanied by photographs.\nmuch impressed with the doctor's statement, and with yours, but this\nMr. STRATTON. I appreciate it is possible to doctor up negatives.\nkind of thing in Life magazine makes it appear that there is some-\nLet me put it the other way around. Have these three incidents\nthing there, and you say that you have examined these things, and\nwhich are reported photographically in Life magazine been examined\nthere is nothing there, and I think that you ought to have examined\nby you, and, if so, what are your findings with regard to them?\nthis SO that we can have an explanation of these particular phenomena.\nDr. HYNEK. No, sir; they have not been examined by me, because\nThe CHAIRMAN. Let me say something.\nI do not have the original negatives.\nWe cannot ask the Secretary to look into every magazine that is pub-\nMr. STRATTON. Are these incidents listed in the list that you have\nlished, or every periodical that comes out of everybody's printing\ncompiled, and which the Secretary has told us 95 percent are explain-\npress. Now, it seems to me like Life magazine is not exempted or ex-\nable?\ncluded, if they are as interested as they appear to be in this magazine,\nDr. HYNEK. No, sir. These particular pictures are not in my list\nthat comes to my office free, and which I seldom look into-that is my\nsince I don't know enough about them.\nresponsibility, I have other things to do-it looks to me like these\nMr. STRATTON. Doctor, I would suggest since these have had very\npeople who give such great dissemination to these things would be\nprominent circulation, in a magazine of some prominence in the coun-\ninterested in seeing what the DOD has, without imposing on the Sec-\ntry, that we ought to examine these particular things and determine\nretary of Defense the responsibility of tracking down everything that\nwhether they are hoaxes or not. If anything is disturbing the Ameri-\ncomes out of everybody's camera. I do not know why we should im-\n6070\n6071\npose on the Secretary the requirement to track down Life magazine\nThe CHAIRMAN. How many, doctor?\nand say give me your negatives, give me your reasons. Is this what\nDr. HYNEK. With about 32 people. I talked with some of these\nyou want?\nbriefly, but spoke with at least 15 persons in considerable detail.\nMr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding we were\nThese two sightings, although separated by some 65 miles, were\nasking this question because many people had been somewhat con-\na localized phenomenon. They were in the swamp area. No individ-\ncerned by these reports in recent days, including the distinguished\nual that I talked to, and no group of persons, could agree that they\nminority leader in the House.\nhas seen anything either enter or leave the swamp. There were\nThe CHAIRMAN. Yes.\nseveral isolated reports by people who said that yes, they saw a bright\nMr. STRATTON. And it does seem to me when a national magazine\nlight come, but they could not get any general support or concurrence\nthat has as much influence as Life has, prints some photographic-\non this, from the others. Witnesses did agree that they saw a glow, and\nwhat purports to be photographic-pieces of evidence of these objects,\nred, yellow, and green lights in the swamp area in both cases. So I said\nwe ought to if we are going to allay the concern of these people who\nto myself, \"What is common in swamps?\" And I researched this ques-\nhave started this investigation by our committee in the first place, that\ntion with the aid of several professors at the University of Michigan.\nwe ought to have an answer to it.\nThey have been very helpful to me in this, since an astronomer doesn't\nThe CHAIRMAN. I think so, too, but I don't think we should criti-\nknow about swamps; he usually has his eyes a little higher than that.\ncize the Secretary for not having done it.\nThey informed me, and I later found in several books, that marsh\nMr. Secretary, here is what I am going to request you do. You get\ngas, resulting from the spontaneous igniting in air of such gases as\nin touch with Life magazine and request them to furnish you with this\nCH4, methane, H2S, PH₃, phosphine, and particularly important,\ninformation that Mr. Stratton has brought to your attention, or any\nP₂H₄, an impurity in phosphine, is a common occurrence and produces\nother magazine, and report back to this committee.\nwhat appears to be glowing lights of different colors. Since then I\nSecretary BROWN. We will be glad to do so.\nhave had several letters from people saying \"What are they getting\nThe CHAIRMAN. I am sure Life magazine would be eager to do this.\nall excited about in Michigan, I have seen these things since I have\nMr. Stratton, I think you are wise in suggesting it, but what I didn't\nbeen a kid on the farm.\" As these gases are ignited, they can pro-\nwant to do is to unwittingly criticize the Secretary for not having done\nduce red, yellow, and green glows. There is nothing mysterious about\nit.\nthese colors.\nNow, Mr. Secretary, will you do it?\nThe lighting goes out here, and goes on here, thus giving the im-\nSecretary BROWN. We will do it, Mr. Chairman, and we will I think\npression of motion. The light was moving smoothly, they said, not\ncontinue to follow our ground rules-\nfollowing the train which was bumpy, and they also rose some dis-\nThe CHAIRMAN. You get those negatives if you can and turn them\ntance and came down. They were reportedly observed for a period of\nover to the doctor, and I want a report on it.\n21/2 to 3 hours.\nMr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. May I\nIn a book, \"Light and Color in the Open Air,\" it is pointed out\nsay I wouldn't dream of criticizing the Secretary, he and I are good\nthat swamp lights, commonly known as will-o'-the-wisp, fox light,\nfriends, and he knows I am only trying to be helpful.\nand so forth, can be observed for several hours, sometimes all night.\nThe CHAIRMAN. Of course, and I know he cherishes your friend-\nAnd the conditions were just right for it in Michigan. In both\nship, and SO do I.\ncases, the winds were reasonably calm. Had there been high winds,\nMr. STRATTON. The other item that has really led to all this concern\nit is unlikely these glows would have taken place.\ntoday are these sightings in Michigan. The Secretary has given us\nFurthermore, Michigan had experienced an unusually mild winter.\na report, but I have only had a chance to skim over it. The doctor\nThey tell me there wasn't much snow. However, the swamp had\nhere a moment ago commented with respect to these people in Wiscon-\nbeen covered by ice.\nsin that only two or three people in the area had seen the phenomenon,\nNow, in a swamp rotting vegetation produces these marsh gases.\nand wasn't it surprising that a lot of people who must have been\nWhen a thaw comes, it seems entirely logical to me, that these gases\naround didn't see it.\nwould bubble up, and be spontaneously ignited, and you would see\nIf I understand the newspaper accounts correctly, the thing that is\nthese things. To me it is a logical explanation. I said in my press\nunique about the Michigan sightings is that a lot of people in the area\nrelease I couldn't prove it in a court of law but it seems to me to be a\nsaw it, and the girls in the dormitory apparently sat around for hours\nvery logical explanation.\nwatching it, and people came and went, and all saw whatever it was.\nThe CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Ichord.\nNow, I wonder if you could give us in a nutshell what the explana-\nThen I will come over to the other side.\ntion of this is? Marsh gas is what I understand is the explanation.\nMr. ICHORD. Let me first differentiate, Mr. Chairman, my position\nCould you tell us, doctor, in a few words the gist of what you dis-\nfrom the chairman, and Mrs. Rivers, and also Mr. Nedzi.\ncovered out there that you have reported here?\nI am neither a believer nor a disbeliever. I am from Missouri, and\nDr. HYNEK. I will be happy to. I conducted a detailed inquiry\nI have got to be shown.\ninto the two reported sightings at Dexter and Hillsdale, Mich. Of\nThe CHAIRMAN. You go right ahead.\nthe 50 to 60 people who reported having seen one or the other of these\nI talked with about 32 persons.\n6072\n6073\nMr. ICHORD. I would like to ask, along the line Mr. Stratton was\nThe CHAIRMAN. We will get an Air Force report on that, too.\ninquiring, how close was the Life magazine article to April Fool's Day ?\nMr. Schweiker. Do I understand that you said none of the unex-\nMr. Chairman, one of the members of the committee staff has handed\nplained objects have been sighted on radar?\nme a question that I think should be in the record.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. No, sir; I said 1.5 percent.\nDoctor, are you familiar with the NICAP, the National Investiga-\nMr. SCHWEIKER. No, the first question he asked you was, have any\ntions Committee on Aerial Phenomenon?\nof the unexplained objects been sighted on radar. I thought you said\nDr. HYNEK. I would think anyone who has been looking into UFO's\n\"No\" to that just a couple of minutes ago.\nfor the past many years as I have couldn't help be acquainted with\nMajor QUINTANILLA. That is correct. We have no radar cases which\ntheir work.\nare unexplained.\nMr. ICHORD. What is the makeup of this committee?\nMr. SCHWEIKER. All right.\nDr. HYNEK. It is called a committee, but it is a rather large group\nLet's go back to the story Mr. Bates was talking about, Exeter, N.H.,\nof civilians over the country, as I underdstand it, who volunteer to\nthe one Mr. Fuller has written about in several magazines.\ninvestigate the cases.\nI understand this is an unexplained sighting on your part, is that\nMr. ICHORD. It has no official standing, then?\ncorrect?\nDr. HYNEK. No official governmental standing; no, sir.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. That is correct, sir.\nMr. ICHORD. This committee does not always agree with your ex-\nMr. SCHWEIKER. He specifically says in his story-and I quote his\nplanation of the various sightings?\nwords now-\nDr. HYNEK. I believe that is correct.\nConfidential comments made to me by the Coast Guardsmen and military in\nMr. ICHORD. How many, Doctor, of the 10,000-plus cases, have there\nthe area support the laymen's testimony and confirm the reports of radar sight-\nbeen photographs allegedly taken of UFO's?\nings and scrambling by jet fighters from Pease Air Force Base.\nDr. HYNEK. In a very few cases. This is another thing which\nMajor QUINTANILLA. No, sir; that is not correct. We have no\nbothers me.\nradar information on that sighting. No jet fighters were scrambled.\nMr. ICHORD. Can you give an idea of how many?\nMr. SCHWEIKER. Let me ask you this: In the Pease Air Force Base,\nDr. HYNEK. How many?\nyou had an investigation by Major Griffin, and a Lieutenant Brant, is\nMajor, would you venture a guess?\nthat correct?\nMajor QUINTANILLA. I don't know.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. Sir?\nDr. HYNEK. I would say only about 1 percent, or less, of the cases\nMr. SCHWEIKER. In the situation at Exeter, N.H., did you have a\nreported have included photographs.\nreport filed to you folks by Major Griffin and Lieutenant Brant?\nMr. ICHORD. Then I take it you can't tell me how many of these\nMajor QUINTANILLA. Yes, sir; we did.\nphotograph cases have not been explained by you, since you can't\nMr. SCHWEIKER. Could we have copies of their raw report?\ntell me how many photographs have been taken?\nMajor QUINTANILLA. Yes, sir; you may.\nDr. HYNEK. This is right. But the point is that you cannot make\nMr. SCHWEIKER. What were their conclusions?\na scientific analysis of a photograph unless you have the negative.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. They couldn't explain it.\nAs the major has pointed out, time and again when we request the\nSecretary BROWN. They sent them over to us.\nnegatives, they are not forthcoming.\nMr. SCHWEIKER. They made no mention of planes scrambling from\nSometimes other groups get them.\nPease Air Force Base?\nMr. ICHORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. There were aircraft in the area on regularly\nThe CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Clancy.\nscheduled missions, but they were not scrambled for the purpose of\nMr. CLANCY. Mr. Chairman, just one short question for the doctor.\nobserving the reported UFO's.\nHave any of the 5 percent of the unexplained cases been observed\nSecretary BROWN. Two of my staff have pointed out to me, Mr.\non radar screens?\nSchweiker, that Pease AFB has no fighters; it is a SAC bomber base,\nSecretary BROWN. I don't know the answer to that one.\nand is not a fighter base.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. No, sir.\nThe CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions, Mr. Schweiker?\nMr. CLANCY. What percentage of the reported incidents have been\nMr. SCHWEIKER. Yes, sir.\nreported on radar screens?\nI would like to ask the doctor:\nMajor QUINTANILLA. About 1.5 percent, sir.\nYou said to have some bona fide sightings we need a lot of people\nMr. CLANCY. That is all.\nand a point-to-point situation and some other things. Doesn't the\nThe CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schweiker, we are finishing up now.\nExeter, N.H. sighting, at least as reported-I want to point out that\nMr. SCHWEIKER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.\nin this sighting there were several policemen, including the chief of\nFirst I would like to request the Beaver County photograph be\npolice and several news people who all reported the same phenomena,\nincluded in the Air Force investigation, the one that appeared in\n60 people. Doesn't that meet your criteria; a lot of people saw it, it\nLook magazine, and was verified by the Beaver County Times. I\nwas a point-to-point situation, at least this observer says there were\nhope that will be included.\n6074\n6075\nradar sights. This apparently seems to be in disagreement at the\nand you, Dr. Brown, are going to tell us-here is what I meant to tell\npresent time.\nyou-and this is far from the truth.\nWouldn't that be a classification of what you said we don't have\nI know of nothing else to ask him. I think we have explored every-\nDr. HYNEK. No, sir. I said there were several cases where we had\nthing.\na lot of witnesses. It does not have to be a point-to-point situation.\nMr. Stratton, have you had any afterthoughts?\nWhen an airliner leaves New York for San Francisco, it is seen over\nMr. STRATTON. Just one question.\nOhio, Nebraska, and so forth. These sightings were confined to a\nWas there not a sighting, back it seems to me in 1947, when an object\nrelatively narrow area. I want to know what happened to these\nwas observed on radar, either at National Airport or Bolling, both\nobjects. Why weren't they seen over Fort Wayne, Ind.\ncoming in and going out? It seems to me there was also a visual\nMr. SCHWEIKER. The fact one officer reports he went to the scene\nsighting that went along with that.\nafter someone else sighted it, and returned back to the same point, there\nDo you-Major Quintanilla, I don't know how long you have been\nit was, according to the police officer's testimony.\nfollowing this, but is this in your records at all?\nDr. HYNEK. Yes, sir, but it was in the same area. We don't know\nMajor QUINTANILLA. I am sure that if the sighting was reported to\nwhat it was. I would like to know what it was.\nthe Air Force it is on record, but I am not aware of this particular\nMr. Schweiker. One of the other witnesses in this story-and all I\none, sir.\nhave to go on is what the reporter's writing says, they did, in fact see\nMr. STRATTON. It seems to me both the radar and the reported visual\nit go from point to point, while they were watching it.\nsighting were relatively in agreement. I just wondered if you were\nDr. HYNEK. Within a relatively narrow area. But I don't recollect\nfamiliar with it?\nwhether they saw it leave for distant points. One of the things that\nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stratton.\nseems to be so odd about this particular case is that we did not find\nAre there any other questions from any other member of the com-\nhorizontal trajectories over any length, as you would expect from a\nmittee?\ncraft.\nMr. ICHORD. We will be back here at 2 :30?\nMr. Schweiker. Is the Beaver County sighting unexplained or is\nThe CHAIRMAN. The committee will reconvene at 2:30 for the pur-\nthat explainable, this photograph I referred to?\npose of taking up 412.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. Is this Mr. Lucci's photo?\nDr. Brown, we have no more requirement for the major and Dr.\nMr. SCHWEIKER. Yes, sir.\nHynek, and the resumption of the hearing this afternoon will be in\nMajor QUINTANILLA. We have asked Mr. Lucci to submit the nega-\nexecutive session.\ntive for photo analysis, but he has refused to do so.\nIt will have to do with 412. We will take up where we left off.\nDr. HYNEK. It needs a double exposure, as we can judge from the\nDr. Brown, if you and General McConnell will be back at 2:30, we\nprint.\nwill meet. We don't plan to have a meeting Thursday, because I think\nMajor QUINTANILLA. We asked the gentleman to submit the nega-\na lot of members will have gone, if we finish on Wednesday. But we\ntive for analysis and he refuses to do so.\ndo want to meet this afternoon, and tomorrow, and maybe tomorrow\nMr. Schweiker. On what basis?\nafternoon.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. I don't know, sir. We requested the negative.\nThen I think we may be able to finish with Dr. Brown before the\nMr. Schweiker. He submitted it to the Beaver Times. They pub-\nrecess.\nlished it. Maybe these people are a little skeptical about turning over\nAt 2:30, Dr. Brown. And I want to thank you, Dr. Brown, for\nnegatives without some assurance.\nproducing this information.\nI think we ought to look into that a little bit, because the newspaper\n(Whereupon, at 11 :55 a.m. the committee was adjourned to recon-\nclaims they saw the negatives, examined by their photographic experts,\nvene at 2:30 p.m. of the same day.)\nand they are authentic.\nMajor QUINTANILLA. I have a copy of our letter in my files asking\nMr. Lucci to submit the negative for analysis, and he declined to do\nso. That is all I can say.\nMr. Schweiker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.\nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Schweiker.\nWe will go to Mr. Leggett.\nMr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wilson and I want to go on record\nat this time that we do not believe; we are intelligent people.\nMr. BATES. Which Wilson\nThe CHAIRMAN. We are going to adjourn, and we are going to meet\nagain at 2:30. If there is no reason to hold Dr. Hynek and Major\nQuintanilla, we will let them be excused. Some people say whenever\nyou all have gone we are going to get down here in executive session\nGENALD R. FORD\nMICHIGAN OFFICE:\nFIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN\n425 CHERRY STREET SE.\nGRAND RAPIDS\nCongress of the United States\nOffice of the Minority Leader\nhouse of Representatives\nWashington, D.C.\nMarch 28, 1966\nRep. George P. Miller, Chairman\nScience and Astronautics Committee\nU. S. House of Representatives\nWashington, D. c.\nDear Chairman Miller:\nNo doubt you have noted the recent flurry of newspaper stories about\nunidentified flying objects (UFO's). I have taken special interest\nin these accounts because many of the latest reported sightings have\nbeen in my home state of Michigan.\nThe Air Force sent a consultant, astrophysicist Dr. J. Allen Hynek\nof Northwestern University, to Michigan to investigate the various\nreports; and he dismissed all of them as the product of college\nstudent pranks or swamp gas or an impression created by the rising\ncrescent moon and the planet Venus. I do not agree that all of\nthese reports can be or should be so easily explained away.\nBecause I think there may be substance to some of these reports and\nbecause I believe the American people are entitled to a more thorough\nexplanation than has been given them by the Air Force to date, I am\nproposing that either the Science and Astronautics Committee or the\nArmed Services Committee of the House schedule hearings on the sub-\nject of UFO's and invite testimony from both the executive branch of\nthe government and some of the persons who claim to have seen UFO's.\nI enclose material which I think will be helpful to you in assessing\nthe advisability of an investigation of UFO's.\nMay I first call to your attention a column by Roscoe Drummond,\npublished last Sunday in which Mr. Drummond says, \"Maybe all of these\nreported sightings are whimsical, imaginary or unreal; but we need\na more credible and detached appraisal of the evidence than we are\ngetting.\"\nRep. George P. Miller, Chairman\nPage Two\nMarch 28, 1966\nMr. Drummond goes on to state, \"We need to get all the data drawn\ntogether to one place and examined far more objectively than anyone\nhas done so far. A stable public opinion will come from a trust-\nworthy look at the evidence, not from belittling it.\n\"The time has come for the President or Congress to name an objective\nand respected panel to investigate, appraise, and report on all\npresent and future evidence about what is going on.\"\nI agree fully with Mr. Drummond's statements. I also suggest you\nscan the enclosed series of six articles by Bulkley Griffin of the\nGriffin-Larrabee News Bureau here. In the last of his articles,\npublished last January, Mr. Griffin says, \"A main conclusion can be\nbriefly stated. It is that the Air Force is misleading the public by\nits continuing campaign to produce and maintain belief thatall\nsightings can be explained away as misidentification of familiar\nobjects, such as balloons, stars and aircraft.\"\nI have just today received a number of telegrams urging a congressional\ninvestigation of UFO's. One is from retired Air Force Col. Harold R.\nBrown, Ardmore, Tennassee, who says, \"I have seen UFO, Will be\navailable to testify.\"\nAnother, from Mrs. Ethyle M. Davis, Eugene, Oregon, reads, \"Nine out\nof ten people want truth of UFO's. Press your investigation to the\nfullest.\"\nRonald Colier of Los Angeles, who identifies himself as - \"a scientist\nfrom M.I.T.,\" urges that you \"do everything in your power to make\nAir Force Project Blue Book (the AF name for its study and verdicts\non UFO reports) known to the people.\" Are we to assume that everyone\nwho says he has seen UFO's is an unreliable witness?\nA UPI story out of Ann Arbor, Michigan, dated March 21, 1966, states\nthat \"at least 40 persons, including 12 policemen, said today that\nthey saw a strange flying object guarded by four sister ships land\nin a swamp near here Sunday night.\"\nMatt Surrell of Station WJR, Detroit, cites an eye witness account of\na recent UFO sighting by Emile Grenier of Ann Arbor, an aeronautical\nengineer employed by Ford Motor Company. He points out that an\naeronautical engineer can hardly be considered an untrustworthy witness.\nRep. George P. Miller, Chairman\nPage Three\nMarch 28, 1966\nIn the firm belief that the American public deserves a better\nexplanation than that thus far given by the Air Force, I strongly\nrecommend that there be a committee investigation of the UFO\nphenomena.\nI think we owe it to the people to establish credibility regarding\nUFO's and to produce the greatest possible enlightenment on this\nsubject.\nKindest personal regards.\nSincerely,\nGerald R. Ford, M.C.\nGRF:plr\nEnclosures\nbcc: Rep. William H. Bates, R-Mass.\nArmed Services Committee\nRep. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., R-Mass.\nScience and Astronautics Committee\nRep. James G. Fulton, R-Pennsylvania\nScience and Astronautics Committee\nMICHIGAN OFFICE:\nGENALD R. FORD\n425 CHERRY STREET SE.\nFIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN\nGRAND RAPIDS\nCongress of the United States\nOffice of the Minority Leader\nhouse of Representatives\nWashington, D.C.\nMarch 28, 1966\nRep. George P. Miller, Chairman\nScience and Astronautics Committee\nU. S. House of Representatives\nWashington, D. c.\nDear Chairman Miller:\nNo doubt you have noted the recent flurry of newspaper stories about\nunidentified flying objects (UFO's). I have taken special interest\nin these accounts because many of the latest reported sightings have\nbeen in my home state of Michigan.\nThe Air Force sent a consultant, astrophysicist Dr. J. Allen Hynek\nof Northwestern University, to Michigan to investigate the various\nreports; and he dismissed all of them as the product of college\nstudent pranks or swamp gas or an impression created by the rising\ncrescent moon and the planet Venus. I do not agree that all of\nthese reports can be or should be so easily explained away.\nBecause I think there may be substance to some of these reports and\nbecause I believe the American people are entitled to a more thorough\nexplanation than has been given them by the Air Force to date, I am\nproposing that either the Science and Astronautics Committee or the\nArmed Services Committee of the House schedule hearings on the sub-\nject of UFO's and invite testimony from both the executive branch of\nthe government and some of the persons who claim to have seen UFO's.\nI enclose material which I think will be helpful to you in assessing\nthe advisability of an investigation of UFO's.\nMay I first call to your attention a column by Roscoe Drummond,\npublished last Sunday in which Mr. Drummond says, \"Maybe all of these\nreported sightings are whimsical, imaginary or unreal; but we need\na more credible and detached appraisal of the evidence than we are\ngetting.\"\nRep. George P. Miller, Chairman\nPage Two\nMarch 28, 1966\nMr. Drummond goes on to state, \"We need to get all the data drawn\ntogether to one place and examined far more objectively than anyone\nhas done so far. A stable public opinion will come from a trust-\nworthy look at the evidence, not from belittling it.\n\"The time has come for the President or Congress to name an objective\nand respected panel to investigate, appraise, and report on all\npresent and future evidence about what is going on.\"\nI agree fully with Mr. Drummond's statements. I also suggest you\nscan the enclosed series of six articles by Bulkley Griffin of the\nGriffin-Larrabee News Bureau here. In the last of his articles,\npublished last January, Mr. Griffin says, \"A main conclusion can be\nbriefly stated. It is that the Air Force is misleading the public by\nits continuing campaign to produce and maintain belief thatall\nsightings can be explained away as misidentification of familiar\nobjects, such as balloons, stars and aircraft.\"\nI have just today received a number of telegrams urging a congressional\ninvestigation of UFO's. One is from retired Air Force Col. Harold R.\nBrown, Ardmore, Tennessee, who says, \"I have seen UFO, Will be\navailable to testify.\"\nAnother, from Mrs. Ethyle M. Davis, Eugene, Oregon, reads, \"Nine out\nof ten people want truth of UFO's. Press your investigation to the\nfullest.\"\nRonald Colier of Los Angeles, who identifies himself as - \"a scientist\nfrom M.I.T.,\" urges that you \"do everything in your power to make\nAir Force Project Blue Book (the AF name for its study and verdicts\non UFO reports) known to the people.\" Are we to assume that everyone\nwho says he has seen UFO's is an unreliable witness?\nA UPI story out of Ann Arbor, Michigan, dated March 21, 1966, states\nthat \"at least 40 persons, including 12 policemen, said today that\nthey saw a strange flying object guarded by four sister ships land\nin a swamp near here Sunday night.\"\nMatt Surrell of Station WJR, Detroit, cites an eye witness account of\na recent UFO sighting by Emile Grenier of Ann Arbor, an aeronautical\nengineer employed by Ford Motor Company. He points out that an\naeronautical engineer can hardly be considered an untrustworthy witness.\nRep. George P. Miller, Chairman\nPage Three\nMarch 28, 1966\nIn the firm belief that the American public deserves a better\nexplanation than that thus far given by the Air Force, I strongly\nrecommend that there be a committee investigation of the UFO\nphenomena.\nI think we owe it to the people to establish credibility regarding\nUFO's and to produce the greatest possible enlightenment on this\nsubject.\nKindest personal regards.\nSincerely,\nGerald R. Ford, M.C.\nGRF:plr\nEnclosures\nbcc: Rep. William H. Bates, R-Mass.\nArmed Services Committee\nRep. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., R-Mass.\nScience and Astronautics Committee\nRep. James G. Fulton, R-Pennsylvania\nScience and Astronautics Committee\nDoralhy\nARE UFOs EXTRATERRESTRIAL SURVEILLANCE CRAFT?\nJames E. McDonald, University of Arizona*\nAbstract of a talk given March 26, 1968 before the American Institute\nof Aeronautics and Astronautics, International Hotel, Los Angeles.\n(fle\nIf it were insisted that I limit my entire talk to a one-word\nanswer to the question posed in that title, I should find it hard to\nchoose between the safer answer, \"possibly\", and the riskier answer\nthat actually comes closer to my present opinion, \"probably\". The\never-increasing weight of the evidence I have been examining would\ndrive me to the latter answer, if I had to compress an hour's remarks\ninto a single word.\nSurely AIAA members would wholeheartedly agree that if there were\neven a slim possibility that the earth were under extraterrestrial sur-\nveillance in any form, that would be a matter of the greatest scientific\nimportance, warranting the most vigorous investigation. In fact, the\nevidence that seems to point to the conclusion that UFOs could be such\ndevices is far from negligible; yet because of the history of official\nand scientific response to the earlier UFO reports, we continue to see\nmainly neglect or ridicule of this intriguing question.\nAfter nearly two years of intensive study of many facets of the\nlong-standing UFO problem, after examining around a thousand UFO\nreports and directly interviewing several hundred witnesses in\nselected UFO cases of outstanding interest, and after weighing alter-\nnative hypotheses, I find myself driven steadily further towards the\nposition that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the most probable\nhypothesis to account for the UFO.\nThat hypothesis is, of course, not original with me; it has been\nurged for many years by persons knowledgeable with respect to the UFO\nproblem, who spoke from outside scientific circles. Our collective\nfailure to examine scientific aspects of the UFO problem will, I fear,\nbe held against the scientific community when the full dimensions of\nthe UFO evidence come to be recognized. And the latter date may not be\nfar off.\nThe principal points which I wish to emphasize include the follow-\ning:\n1) For the past half-dozen years, our American space program has\nbeen keyed to \"the search for life in space\", yet the now impressive\nUFO evidence that \"life\" may, in some sense, already have found us is\neither scoffed at or wholly ignored, even within such space-oriented\nagencies as NASA. I speak from first-hand experience in making that\nobservation.\n2) Twenty years of USAF responsibility in handling UFO reports\nappear to me to constitute about that same number of years of super-\nficial and scientifically incompetent response to the UFO problem.\nAside from brief periods in 1948 and again in 1952-3, USAF investiga-\ntions of UFO reports have been perfunctory, aimed generally at finding\nany \"explanation\", however inadequately it might match the reported\nfacts.\n*Dr. McDonald is Senior Physicist in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics\nand Professor in the Dept. of Meteorology at the University of Arizona.\n3\n2\n3) The principal reason that no other adequate scientific inves-\nUFOs aren't some still poorly understood natural phenomenon? How can\ntigation has ever been initiated has been that, despite almost complete\nwe be sure UFOs aren't secret test vehicles (ours or theirs)? If extra-\nlack of any scientific expertise in the USAF program (Project Bluebook),\nterrestrial, why no contact? Why no crashed UFOs? Why aren't there lots\npublic pronouncements have repeatedly given strong assurance that the\nof good photos if UFOs are real? Why aren't UFOs seen in cities rather\ninvestigations were drawing upon the best scientific talent available to\nthan in remote deserts and swamps? How can we be sure UFO sightings\nthe Air Force. Nothing could be further from fact. Examples will be\naren't hallucinations? How about hoaxes? Why no sonic booms? How can\ncited to back up this point.\none account for non-inertial turns and maneuvers? Why don't optical-\ntracking programs, such as meteor-survey programs, photograph UFOs? Why\n4) The present Air Force-sponsored study at the University of\ndon't our radar-fences and high-altitude radar-search systems see UFOs?\nColorado offered promise initially. However, repeated indications of\nIf not of intra-solar-system origin, how could UFOs accomplish inter-\nnegative bias in public statements by the Project Director, combined\nstellar transits in reasonable times? Where could they be coming from?\nwith lack of vigorous investigation of the most provocative types of\nHow is it possible that other military radar systems throughout the\nUFO cases reported over the past 20 years, suggest that the Colorado\nworld have failed to detect UFOs if they are real? Why aren't they seen\nprogram will fall far short of the required level of investigation.\nby airline pilots and military pilots? Why aren't they seen by astro-\nIt is very desirable that some program be set up entirely divorced from\nnauts in orbit? Why aren't UFOs seen occasionally by large crowds of\nAir Force affiliation, a conclusion underscored by recent developments\npeople rather than by single witnesses? To these and related questions\nat Colorado.\nthere exist some quite good answers and some possibly relevant specula-\n5) I have just returned from a visit to Canada where I discussed\ntive answers; to others of those questions, there exist no satisfactory\ninternational scientific aspects of the UFO problem before the Canadian\nanswers, to date.\nAeronautics and Space Institute at their March 11-12 Montreal meetings.\n9) The first need in accelerating UFO research is for many more\nI emphasized the likelihood that UFO investigatory programs in countries\nscientists and engineers to review carefully and critically the existing\nother than the U.S. may have distinctly better chances of making rapid\nevidence in order to design new sensors. [Electromagnetic effects\nscientific progress towards clarification of the UFO question by virtue\naccompanying UFO sightings offer real promise herein. Also, it is\nof the fact that they' not be fighting uphill against the kind of think-\nurgently important to exploit already existing radar networks. Data\ning that USAF handling of the problem has engendered here. An encourag-\nfrom the latter networks should be brought under scientific scrutiny to\ning new UFO investigation is, in fact, now being organized within the\nsearch for systematic patterns of UFO appearances and movements.\nInstitute for Aerospace Studies of the University of Toronto. I had an\nPresent anecdotal data, plus fortuitously revealed radar data, are\nopportunity to confer with scientists beginning that study, on March 13.\ninadequate to define such patterns accurately (due to the ridicule-lid\nQuite recently, indications of a similar study being developed in France\neffect acting as a non-random filter). Following design of sensor-\nhave appeared. The Russian position remains unclear. There are indica-\nnetworks specifically planned for UFO detection, a host of other inves-\ntions that a new level of official attention to UFO reports is appearing\ntigations would naturally follow, as I have remarked in other contexts.\nin other countries, but hard information thereon is still scant.\nA few specific examples of the latter will be cited.\n6) The types of UFO reports that are most intriguing, and point\n10) As a low-cost, minimal-level precursor to such efforts to\nmost directly to an extraterrestrial hypothesis, are close-range sight-\nattain instrumental monitoring of UFOs, it is urged that various\nings of machine-like objects of unconventional nature and unconventional\norganizations and agencies take steps to establish exploratory UFO\nperformance characteristics, seen at low altitudes, and sometimes even\nstudy programs, even if these involve only two or three scientists\non the ground. The general public is entirely unaware of the large\nper organization. Any aerospace organization or agency that is\nnumber of such reports that are coming from credible witnesses, because\ninterested in organizing such a small internal study can secure initial\nridicule and scoffing have made most witnesses reluctant to report\nbibliography-assistance, etc., by getting in touch with me. The imme-\nopenly such unusual incidents. When one starts searching for such cases,\ndiate need is to establish a broader base of scientific recognition of\ntheir numbers are quite astonishing. Also, such sightings appear to be\nthe astonishing nature of the existing UFO evidence. Scientific scoff-\noccurring all over the globe, possibly with increasing frequency in the\ning at UFOs has gone on long enough. Serious attention is long overdue.\npast year (an inference based on uncertain data because the \"ridicule\nAIAA could perform a very useful role in stimulating new and vigorous\nlid\" seems to be lifting of late, and this may simply be bringing a\nexamination of this intriguing, yet neglected scientific problem.\nlarger fraction of such incidents to light). Examples will be presented.\n(I am encouraged to learn that AIAA has, in fact, recently formed a\n7) Suggestions that such observations can be explained away in\nUFO Subcommittee and am in touch with it.) Although only a percentually\nterms of meteorological optics (Menzel's principal thesis) or in terms\nsmall number of scientists yet realize it, the past 20 years of yawning\nof atmospheric plasmas (Klass' principal thesis) cannot be supported with\nneglect of the UFO problem has become a scientific scandal, albeit still\ncogent scientific arguments. The recently-published book by Klass (\"UFOs\nwell-hidden. The sooner we take a serious new stance and confront the\n- Identified\") is filled with erroneous conceptions and with qualitative\nUFO question with adequate scientific talent and manpower, the less\narguments that fall apart on assessing them in quantitative terms.\nembarrassing will be the ultimate admission that we have, for two\nExamples will be presented.\ndecades, been overlooking a problem of potentially enormous scientific\nimportance to all mankind.\n8) Many obvious questions and challenges can be, and must be,\nraised against the extraterrestrial hypothesis: How sure can we be that\nSEE OVER\nSOME UFO REFERENCES\nBecause persons seeking to familiarize themselves with some of the\nbasic aspects of the UFO problem often ask for a list of UFO references,\nthe following list has been assembled. It is certainly not exhaustive;\nbut it cites a number of the more useful and some of the more contro-\nversial references. Inclusion here does not at all imply endorsement\nalso there are good sources not here listed, for space reasons. -\nJ. E. McDonald\n1. THE UFO EVIDENCE, Richard H. Hall, editor. Published by NICAP\n(National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, 1536\nConnecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036, 184 pp., 1964.\nCurrent price, $5.00. (Available only from NICAP, not via book-\nstores.) Still the most useful and significant of all references\non the subject.\n2. THE REFERENCE FOR OUTSTANDING UFO REPORTS, edited by Thomas M. Olsen.\nUFO Information Retrieval Center, Inc., P.O. Box 57, Riderwood,\nMaryland, 21139. Current price, $5.95 (obtainable only from UFOIRC).\n3. REPORT ON THE UFO WAVE OF 1947 by Ted Bloecher. Obtainable from\nNICAP, $5.00.\n4. REPORT ON THE UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS by Edward J. Ruppelt.\nAce Books, New York, 318 p., 1956. Paperback, $0.50.\n5. FLYING SAUCERS: TOP SECRET by Donald E. Keyhoe. Putnams, New York,\n283 pp., 1960. Current price, $3.50.\n6. FLYING SAUCERS AND THE U.S. AIR FORCE by Lt. Col. L. J. Tacker.\nVan Nostrand, Princeton, N. J., 164 pp., 1960. Current price, $3.95.\n7. FLYING SAUCERS by Coral E. Lorenzen. Signet Books, 278 pp., 1966.\nPaperback, $0.75.\n8. THE WORLD OF FLYING SAUCERS by Donald H. Menzel and Lyle G. Boyd.\nDoubleday, Garden City, N.Y., 302 pp., 1963. Current price, $4.50.\n9. ANATOMY OF A PHENOMENON by Jacques Vallee. Henry Regnery, Chicago,\n210 pp., 1965. Current price, $4.95. Ace paperback, $0.60.\n10. INCIDENT AT EXETER by John G. Fuller, Putnams, N.Y., 251 pp., 1965.\nPutnam paperback, $0.75.\n11. FLYING SAUCERS AND THE STRAIGHT-LINE MYSTERY by Aime Michel.\nCriterion Books, N.Y., 285 pp., 1958. Current price, $4.50.\n12. UFOs IDENTIFIED by Philip J. Klass. Random House, N.Y., 290 pp.,\n1968. Current price, $6.95.\n13. FLYING SAUCERS: HOAX OR REALITY? by L. Jerome Stanton. Belmont\nBooks, N.Y., 157 pp., 1966. Paperback, $0.50.\n14. UFO: TOP SECRET by Mort Young. Simon and Schuster, N.Y., 156 pp.,\n1967. Paperback, $1.00.\n15. FLYING SAUCER READER edited by Jay David. Signet Book, N.Y., 252 pp.,\n1967. Paperback, $0.75.\n16. FLYING SAUCERS OVER AUSTRALIA by Stephen Holledge. Horwitz Publica-\ntions, Sydney, Australia, 130 pp., 1965. Paperback, about $0.75.\n17. FLYING SAUCERS FROM OUTER SPACE by Donald E. Keyhoe. Henry Holt,\nNew York, 276 pp., 1953. Out of print.\n18. UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM OF OUR TIMES\nby J. E. McDonald. UFO Research Institute, Suite 311, 508 Grant St.,\nPittsburgh, Pa., 15219. A reprint of 3 discussions. Paperback, $1.00.\nm Ford:\nyour 1966 efforts to get the UFO problem\nclarified appear to have led to only very\nslight propress. USAF continues to - d yours E medicals\nNote on attached CASI paper:\nOn March 11-12, the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Insti-\ntute (CASI) held an Astronautics Symposium in Montreal. The\nafternoon session on March 12 was devoted to the UFO problem.\nThe attached paper, \"UFOs - An International Scientific\nProblem\", is the final version of one of the four presenta-\ntions made at the latter session. Another one of the four\nwas \"UFOs - An Atmospheric Electrical Mystery\", by Philip J.\nKlass of Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine.\nI have used this opportunity to offer an extended critique\nof Mr. Klass's position, especially as developed in his recently\npublished book, \"UFOs - Identified\".\nSome press comments and book reviews convey the impression\nthat Klass has perhaps now solved the UFO problem. As Time\nMagazine puts it in a March 29, 1968, review of Klass' book,\n\"In this intelligently written and rational\nbook (a rare phenomenon in UFO literature),\nKlass describes the scientific detective\nwork that led him to decide on the probable\ncause of most previously unexplained UFO\nsightings. The enigmatic, incandescent\nobjects, he concludes, are really a family\nof atmospheric phenomena that include not\nonly coronas but ball lightning, St. Elmo's\nfire and 'Foo Fighters,' the same luminous\nglobe that tailed World War II military\naircraft...\"\nOn pp. 18-37 of the attached CASI paper, I present some of\nmy own quite different views on the soundness of Klass' argu-\nments. I call your attention to that section because it seems\nimportant to have it known that at least one person familiar\nwith atmospheric physics has examined the Klass book rather\ncarefully and finds his arguments characterized chiefly by\nerror, confusion, and unjustified inference.\nJ. E. McDonald\nInstitute of Atmospheric Physics\nThe University of Arizona\nUFOs - An International Scientific Problem\nJames E. McDonald, Institute of Atmospheric Physics,\nUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona\n(Presented March 12, 1968, at the Canadian Aeronautics and\nSpace Institute Astronautics Symposium, Montreal, Canada)\nIntroduction\nAt the outset, let me try to summarize concisely the main points of my\nposition:\n1) From my studies of the UFO problem, I conclude that, quite apart from\nbeing the \"nonsense problem\" it is so often labelled, it appears to be\na matter of extraordinarily great scientific interest.\n2) Over twenty years of evidence (admittedly largely, though not solely,\nanecdotal in nature) suggests that machine-like objects, products of\nsome technology rather than atmospheric optical or electrical anoma-\nlies, have been repeatedly seen - often by observers of very high\ncredibility. I favor an extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs.\n3)\nA search for patterns in these observations discloses one major feature\n- the seemingly global scale on which the observations are coming in.\nHence we appear to be confronting here an international scientific\nproblem.\n4) There has never been a scientific investigation of the UFOs that can\nbe termed thorough-going. Repeated assurances that U. S. Air Force\nProject Bluebook has been doing a careful study utilizing the best\nscientific talent available to the U. S. Air Force are found, on care-\nful checking, to be without basis in fact. No other country of the\nworld appears to have undertaken even as much investigation as the\nU. S. has done via Project Bluebook. Thus the UFO problem has not\nreceived anything that can be called scientifically adequate study.\n5) I do not see convincing evidence of any U.S. cover-up conspiracy oper-\nating to conceal the true nature of the UFO problem; rather I see sub-\nstantial and dismaying evidence pointing to failure to do more than\nsuperficial investigation, employing only very limited scientific\ntalent, and exhibiting (especially since 1953) strong negative bias\ntowards \"explaining away\" the UFO problem on the part of the U. S.\nAir Force. It is my strong impression that Air Force officials and\npublic information officers sincerely believe that the UFO problem is\na nonsense problem, one involving nothing more than misidentified\nnatural phenomena.\n6) The present Condon Committee at the University of Colorado, sponsored\nby the U. S. Air Force, is charged with trying to clarify the nature\nof the UFOs. I must state that I have become quite disappointed with\nthe lack of scientific vigor with which that group has prosecuted its\nstudy, and I am disturbed by the frequency with which its Director has\npublicly indicated that he had already taken a position (negative in\ntone) long before the working staff had assembled adequate data to\njustify taking any position. I must also express my inability to\nunderstand the Director's evident preoccupation with the cultist and\ncrackpot type of UFO accounts which, in my own experience, are quite\neasily filtered out and ignored. I have elaborated these criticisms\nin communications to Dr. Condon quite recently.\n7)\nI would urge that scientific groups in countries other than the United\nStates immediately undertake careful reviews of UFO reports from their\n2\nown areas and systematic appraisals of a spectrum of conceivable\nhypotheses to account for the UFO phenomena. It seems quite pos-\nsible that a group outside the United States, entirely free of the\nobstacles one encounters within the U.S. as a result of twenty years'\nofficially negative attitude towards the UFO problem, might rapidly\nmake very real progress towards clarifying the scientific issues at\nstake, given adequate scientific personnel and support. The UFO\nstudy program now developing at the University of Toronto's Institute\nfor Aerospace Studies, here in Canada, is a laudable step towards\nsolution of the UFO problem. More such groups in other parts of the\nworld are needed.\nMatters of Definition\nIt would seem logically necessary to frame, early in any discussion of\nthe \"UFO problem\" a working definition of what shall be understood by \"an\nUnidentified Flying Object.\" The effort quickly entangles one in semantic\ndifficulties of a more or less obvious nature. Clearly, untrained observers\ncan report as a UFO a wide range of things seen in the sky or moving near the\nearth's surface or even resting on the surface in un-flying manner. Fireballs\n(meteors brighter than -5 magnitude by present astronomical definition) consti-\ntute a good example; many persons are quite unfamiliar with the phenomenology\nof fireballs and bolides, and will turn in sincere and often rather accurate\ndescriptions of fireballs under the claimed heading of UFOs. Aircraft running\nlights, aircraft landing lights, aerial reconnaissance strobe lights, re-enter-\ning satellite debris, bright planets, and a wide miscellany of other sources\nof night-luminous objects are reported from time to time as \"UFOs\". The U.S.\nAir Force, and various persons who scoff at the notion that there exists a\nscientifically significant UFO problem, are entirely correct in suggesting\nthat many UFO reports fall into this category. Only a little experience in\nquerying observers makes clear that, of all reports that temporarily bear the\nlabel \"UFO\", a substantial fraction are, indeed, misidentified natural or\ntechnological phenomena of such types. There is plenty of noise mixed in with\nwhatever real signal may exist; that this is so need not surprise any scien-\ntist. Noise-filtering is a standard problem in many areas of research.\nThe \"UFO problem\" which I have come to regard as SO extremely important,\ncenters around that portion of all reports of initially unidentified objects\nwhich is left as a residuum after the bulk of inadequately reported or\nobviously misidentified phenomena is filtered out. Only a little reflection\non the foregoing remarks reveals that it is scarcely a clear-cut definition.\nNevertheless, it may afford an initial basis to begin discussion.\nA curiously similar definitional problem arises in dealing with the class\nof \"ball lightning\" reports. In the literature one can find reports of lumi-\nnous masses, tagged as \"ball lightning\", that span so broad a range of phenom-\nena that one must be quite careful that he is not subsuming many diverse phe-\nnomena under that single heading. The situation with respect to \"ball light-\nning\" turns out to be similar to that for \"UFOs\" in the further significant\nsense that the basic nature of each phenomenon is not yet clearly understood,\nso that clear-cut working definitions are simply not yet possible. Such a\nsituation is really not new in science; think of the semantic ambiguity, in\nearlier days of science, centering around such terms as atom, compound, force,\nspecies, ether, disease, meteor, etc.\nIn point of fact, the above definitional problems cause rather less\ntrouble in scientific discourse on the UFO problem than a philosopher might\npredict. So let's proceed.\nMatters of UFO History\nAlthough I would probably be incorrect to assume that all CASI members\nare thoroughly familiar with the history of the past twenty years of the UFO\nproblem, I do not choose to elaborate that history here in great detail. Much\n3\nof my own view of that history has been summarized in a form now available\nelsewhere¹. It appears to me that, following an initial flurry of official\nUSAF concern that American UFO observations of 1947 might be hostile aero-\nnautical devices², an era of puzzled investigation (generally devoid of solid\nscientific talent) ensued in the period 1948-52, the era of USAF Project Sign\nand Project Grudge. I have studied many of the 243 cases finally analyzed by\nand reported by Project Grudge and can only say that, even in that earliest\nphase of official investigation, it is startling to see how little scientific\ninsight was brought to bear on reports of a frequently very intriguing nature.\nIn 1952, a brief year's energetic investigation (still not characterized\nby strong scientific expertise, but definitely characterized by vigorous Air\nForce checking and data-gathering in many striking cases) was the high-water\nmark of the official American UFO studies. The year 1952 saw about 1500\nreports turned into Project Bluebook, some 300 of which were conceded to be\nUnidentifieds. When I visited Bluebook in 1966 for the first time, I was\nquite astonished at the number of feet of files on 1952 cases - and much more\nastonished to scan the contents of randomly sampled file-folders within that\nyear's shelfful. Case after case of, to me, entirely inexplicable cases, many\ncoming from within Air Force channels (pilots, controllers, ground crewmen,\netc.) told the story of the outstanding year in American UFO history.\nThe wave of 1952 reports drew strong press attention, above all after\nWashington, D. C., became the site of two successive nights (July 19 and 26)\nof radar-visual sightings of Unknowns. (These were explained away in a big\npress conference on July 29 as due to anomalous radar propagation and optical\nrefraction anomalies. (See below.) By late 1952, intelligence organizations\nbecame concerned over the UFO problem, evidently because of overloading of\nreporting and investigative channels with the large numbers of reports being\nfed to the Air Force by all sources. In January of 1953, the Robertson Panel,\nassembled by the CIA, met and ruled that there was neither evidence of hostil-\nity nor evidence of scientific significance in all those reports (of which\nthat Panel reviewed, in its few days of activity, only about two dozen, and\neven those not by any means the most startling or significant then in USAF\nfiles). All of this I have discussed in enough detail previously¹ that I\nmust gloss over many further points of great historical interest.\nI have studied the final report of the Robertson Panel (in briefly\ndeclassified status prior to the CIA's reclassifying it in the summer of 1966).\nFrom repeated reexamination of the details of the UFO history and from personal\ndiscussions with four of the persons present during the Robertson Panel's acti-\nvities, I form the impression of a brief but futile attempt to look for some-\nthing of interest, followed by CIA's request that the Air Force adopt a policy\nof \"debunking flying saucers\" to \"decrease public interest\". After 1953, no\nfurther vigorous Bluebook UFO investigation program ever reappeared. The UFO\nproblem went steadily downhill, its priority status at WPAFB steadily declined,\nand in 1966, when I visited Bluebook three times, its staff consisted of a\nmajor, a sergeant, and a secretary, plus a lieutenant then being broken in for\nfuture investigative duty. The total amount of scientific talent visibly\nfocussed on UFOs via the staff and its consulting pool appeared to me to be\ngrossly out of proportion to the embarrassment being created for the Air Force\nby a continuing series of absurd and scientifically outrageous \"explanations\"\nof individual UFO reports.\nFor further insights and facts concerning the past twenty years' history\nof UFO matters see Hall³, Stanton⁴, Young⁵. For information on many cases in\nthe Air Force files prior to about 1953, and for what appears to me (on the\nbasis of many independent checks) to be generally rather reliable history of\nAir Force handling of the problem prior to 1953, see Ruppelt⁶. For the view-\npoints of a UFO investigator operating through those years, but outside of\n4\nofficial channels, see the several books of Keyhoe⁷. When the full history of\nthe UFO problem is written, Keyhoe's efforts, from 1949 to the present, to get\nthe UFO problem out into the light of open scientific investigation, will, I\nbelieve, be acknowledged as having been of great significance, despite the\nslowness with which his efforts (and similar efforts of others) have borne\nfruit. His role as Director of NICAP (National Investigations Committee on\nAerial Phenomena) has been seriously misunderstood by USAF personnel who,\nfailing to recognize the utter inadequacies of their own UFO investigations,\nmistook his criticisms and his efforts to press for Congressional investiga-\ntions as ill-conceived. I believe they were all too soundly conceived; but\nthey pressed against massive resistance based on what seem to be generally\nhonest misconceptions on the part of misinformed officials. Or so I see it at\npresent.\nI elaborate these viewpoints here because I have devoted a good deal of\nstudy in arriving at those viewpoints and because I believe that the misinfor-\nmation generated within American information channels by the illusion that\nProject Bluebook was a scientific operation has diffused outside our national\nboundaries and has misled officials, scientists, and members of the public\nthroughout the world. International scientific progress on the UFO problem\nwill not begin until that misinformation is clearly recognized.\nThe alternative historical interpretation which holds that there has\nexisted a conspiracy to conceal the truth about the UFO problem, a conspiracy\nsometimes painted-in on a canvas of international scale, does not square with\nsuch facts as I have been able to glean. I am, to be sure, puzzled by the\nsometimes startling similarity between \"explanations\" for UFOs emanating from\nforeign official channels (often foreign air forces) and \"explanations\" of the\ntype so painfully familiar in USAF press releases following widely-publicized\nUFO cases. But I ascribe this similarity to factors other than a highly\neffective international conspiracy to which the USSR, the US, the UK, France,\nAustralia, Canada, and many other countries would have to be party! Stanton\nhas some pithy remarks on the conspiracy theory. Young⁵, by contrast, does\nfeel there exists some American coverup at high levels; I would be prepared to\ndefend my alternative of the \"grand foulup\" hypothesis against every instance\nhe cites in defense of his \"grand coverup\" hypothesis. But I do not wish to\nhave that assurance equated to categorical rejection of the \"grand coverup\"\nhypothesis. New facts or new interpretations of the many old facts I have\npondered could still change my views on this issue. I would reiterate a point\nmade earlier¹: I suspect that some of those who have so long insisted the\nconspiracy theory have not been in a position to recognize clearly how scien-\ntifically inadequate the Bluebook work has been since 1953; they may have con-\nfused incompetence with inscrutability.\nScientifically, what's sorely needed is a number of entirely fresh starts,\nfree from all pressures of governmental bodies that have taken an established\nposition. This may be better achieved in countries other than the United\nStates because of twenty years of Air Force assurances that there's really\nnothing to all the talk about UFOs, nothing of any scientific or technological\nsignificance. That view is dominant in Washington, in higher scientific\ncircles, and among most of the elder statesmen of science in the U. S. I can\nspeak with a good deal of authority on that point! Months of effort on my own\npart to generate some new scientific UFO research on an adequate national\nscale, with adequate science-agency support, seem to have generated only very\nslight response. In Washington \"everybody knows the UFOs are a lot of non-\nsense\"; and if they do admit to marginal doubt, they then insist on the pro-\npriety of waiting for Condon's report from Colorado, due at the end of 1968\nif plans go forward as now set. My own doubts about the propriety of \"waiting\nfor Colorado\" have recently been expressed elsewhere⁸, so need not be\nreiterated here.\n5\nSome Illustrative UFO Reports\nOne of the conclusions one must draw from studying UFO reports from all\nparts of the world is that there is an essential similarity in the types of\nunexplained phenomena reported from all parts of the globe. Discs and cigar-\nshaped objects dominate; nighttime observations are most common; and highly\nunconventional performance characteristics are described by observers in\nwidely varying geographical areas, and by observers of quite diverse cultural\nbackgrounds (primitive groups as well as more advanced groups). To bring out\ncertain of these points, a small number of specific cases will be briefly\nsummarized next.\nCase 1. BOAC Stratocruiser, Seven Islands, Quebec, June 29, 1954\nA famous case in UFO annals that has an appropriately international\nflavor occurred near sunset on June 29, 1954, over eastern Canada, when crew\nand passengers of a British Overseas Airways Corp. Stratocruiser, outbound\nfrom New York to London, observed, for a total period of 18 minutes (about\n90 miles of flight path) one large object and five or six smaller objects\nsomewhat north of Seven Islands. The UFOs were sighted just aft of the port\nwing, at a very roughly estimated distance of 5-6 miles, maneuvering in uncon-\nventional manner. Capt. James Howard, the pilot, stated, after landing in\nLondon⁹,\n\"\nthey were obviously not aircraft as we know them. All appeared\nblack and I will swear they were solid There was a big central object that\nappeared to keep changing shape The six smaller objects dodged about either\nin front or behind.' When interviewed by USAF intelligence personnel at\nGoose Bay, Labrador, it was established that all of the crew had participated\nin the sighting, as did a number of passengers, a total of over 20 witnesses.\nA fighter plane scrambled from Goose Bay at Howard's request. Just before it\nreached their area, the UFOs rapidly moved out of sight towards the northwest.\nThe group of UFOs maintained relatively constant position, relative to\nthe airliner, until their departure, and lay approximately five degrees to\nleft of the just-setting sun. No meteorological-optical phenomenon (assuredly\nnot a sundog) could reasonably account for the reported phenomena. The Strato-\ncruiser was cruising at about 240 knots at 19,000 ft on the southwest edge of\na high-pressure center over Labrador, scarcely meteorological conditions\nfavorable to ball lightning or any other electrical disturbances; and visi-\nbility was described by Capt. Howard as \"perfect.\" \" To suggest that a natural\nplasmoid of any sort could keep pace with an aircraft at 240 kts for 18 minutes\nand 90 miles seems entirely unreasonable on a number of grounds. The speed and\nmotions categorically rule out meteors. The peculiar maneuvering of the\nsmaller objects and the curious shape-changes of the larger object suggest no\nconventional explanation. It was First Officer Lee Boyd's impression that the\nsmaller ones merged into the larger prior to departure, again defying obvious\nexplanation.\nAt that time, Howard had 7500 flying hours; he is still flying with BOAC.\nIn a recent interview, he corroborated details of the 1954 press accounts and\neven added interesting additional points. The distance of the objects pre-\ncluded seeing any structural details, if any had been present; it is the per-\nformance characteristics and the pronounced shape-changes that mark this well-\nauthenticated sighting as a puzzling UFO case for which no adequate explanation\nhas ever been proposed, to my knowledge.\nCase 2. Cressy, Tasmania, October 4, 1960\nA half-dozen years after Case 1, and halfway around the globe from Quebec,\na well-documented sighting bearing a certain resemblance to it (a number of\n6\nsmall objects around a larger one), was made by two reliable witnesses.\nRev. Lionel B. Browning, an Anglican clergyman, was admiring a rainbow as\nhe and his wife looked out a window of the Cressy, Tasmania, rectory. It\nwas 6:10 p.m., the sun was just setting in the west. A curtain of rain con-\ncealed Ben Lomond ridge off to their east and extended through the southeast\nand to their south. Mrs. Browning suddenly called Rev. Browning's attention\nto what they both first interpreted as a large aircraft emerging from a rain-\ncurtain nearly due east. Although the Brownings never felt entirely sure of\nthe range of this object, they estimated it at perhaps 3 miles, since the\nobject seemed to be over an estate known to be at that distance. Their first\nguess that it was an aircraft was next modified to an aircraft stalling, since\nthe speed of the object, crudely scaled from the subjective size-and-distance\nestimates, seemed to be not much over 50-60 mph.\nI had an opportunity to interview Rev. Browning last summer and verified\ncontemporary press accounts¹⁰. He and Mrs. Browning quickly noted that the\ncigar-shaped object seemed to lack wings, had several vertical bands or\nridges on its gray-colored surface, and some odd protuberance on its \"forward\"\nend. They watched it glide northward for about a minute before it suddenly\nstopped in mid-air and hovered over the ground at an altitude they very roughly\nguessed at 400-500 feet. Then, from out of the rainclouds farther east, there\ncame about a half-dozen much smaller objects, of perceptibly discoid form, the\nBrownings stated. These smaller discs moved much faster than the larger cigar-\nshaped object, at speeds that Rev. Browning stated to me might have approached\njet-aircraft speed. He stressed that these smaller objects \"skipped like\nstones on water\", a phraseology that I learned from associates of Rev. Browning\ndid not originate from any previous study of UFO reports, since, prior to that\nOctober, 1960 sighting, Rev. Browning not only ignored UFO reports but took a\nvery negative view of the authenticity of most such reports.\nThe Brownings next saw the discs seem to take up a \"formation\" around the\ncigar-shaped object, which had been hovering motionless during the approach\nand formation of the smaller objects (whose diameter the Brownings guessed at\nperhaps some tens of feet, in contrast to the perhaps tenfold larger length\nof the cigar-shaped object). Then, the entire assemblage started moving\ntowards the south, back into the rainshower out of which the large object had\nfirst been seen emerging, whence the group was lost from sight, terminating\nthe observation after a total elapsed time estimated by the witnesses as about\ntwo minutes, perhaps as long as three minutes.\nThese objects were illuminated by the setting sun, and Rev. Browning\nemphasized to me that there was a distinct difference in tone between the dull\ngray of the larger object and the shiny, metallic luster of the smaller disc-\nlike objects.\nThe Brownings, after a brief discussion of this event (which by then they\nconstrued as \"some Russian devices\"), called the nearby airdrome to report it,\nwhich ultimately brought it to the attention of the RAAF. I have recently had\na letter from the RAAF officer who did the interrogation of the Brownings.\nWg. Cmdr. G. L. Waller states in his communication that the Brownings \"im-\npressed me as being mature, stable, and mentally alert individuals who had no\ncause or desire to see objects in the sky other than objects of definite form\nand substance.\" That impression is attested to by many others who know the\nBrownings personally, as I established by direct queries in Hobart and\nMelbourne last year.\nMy questions as to the ultimate public explanation which the RAAF put on\nthe sighting elicited somewhat bitter comment from Rev. Browning, comment that\nI later found elaborated in press clippings made available to me by the\n7\nofficers of a very creditable private UFO group in Melbourne (Victorian\nFlying Saucer Research Society). The Directorate of Air Force Intelligence,\nRAAF, made official explanation early in 1961: \"The phenomena was the result\nof the moonrise associated with meteorological conditions at the time of the\nsighting. On 4th October, 1960, moonrise (full quarter) at Cressy would have\nbeen visible shortly after 1800 hours and in an ESE direction. The objects\napparently seen were near the sky-line in an easterly direction. The presence\nof \"scud\" type clouds, moving in varying directions due to turbulence in and\naround the rain squall near which the objects were sighted, and the position\nof the moon or its reflections, produced the impression of flying objects.'\nSuch an \"explanation\" has a curiously familiar ring to anyone who has\nstudied large numbers of USAF \"explanations\" of UFO sightings. One can\nquickly establish that the moon was full on the date of the Cressy sighting\nand that it would have risen not in the ESE but a few degrees north of east.\nAnd, still worse for the official explanation, there was not only a dense\nrain storm obscuring all the eastern sky as seen from the Cressy rectory,\nbut the highest mountain range of Tasmania lay behind those dense clouds to\nfurther obscure the just-rising full moon. (Ben Lomond, summit 6160 ft,\nlies to ENE of Cressy, and the ridges extend off to south and north from that\nsummit point.) From my own viewpoint, as one interested in atmospheric\noptics and in unusual refractive and reflective anomalies, the official sug-\ngestion that \"scud\" subject to turbulent motions could (had the moon not been\nwholly obscured by rain and mountain) be optically distorted into anything\nremotely resembling the phenomena reported by the Brownings seems entirely\nout of question. (Because USAF explanations have many times asserted, as\nhas also Dr. D. H. Menzel in his writings on UFOs¹¹, that the sun and the moon\ncan be \"reflected\" off sides or tops of clouds, it may be well to state that\nnothing in decades of meteorological optical observations supports such a\nnotion, save for the phenomenon of the \"undersun\", which involves specular\nreflection off tabular ice crystals falling in completely non-turbulent air,\nand visible only from an aircraft or elevated vantage point. Sun and moon\ndo not yield anything like distinct images by reflection off the walls of\nclouds; all UFO explanations invoking such optical absurdities are unreason-\nable. It might be added that Menzel has repeatedly erred in referring to\nsundogs, i.e., parhelia, as resulting from \"reflection\", since that familiar\noptical effect is caused by ice-crystal refraction.) In asserting such a\nmeteorological explanation as was issued by the RAAF intelligence office,\nlittle evidence of scientific knowledge was exhibited, unless that office\nfelt that the essential features of the Brownings' account had to be simply\ndisregarded as unreliable. Yet the interrogating RAAF officer, Wg. Cdr.\nWaller, evidently had no such inclination to disregard these witnesses'\ndescription of their observations, nor do I.\nCase 3. Fukuoka, Japan, October 15, 1948\nFrom Air Force Project Bluebook files comes the material summarized here\nfor this officially UNIDENTIFIED case involving airborne-radar and air-visual\nobservation of an unconventional \"bullet-shaped\" object. At 11:05 p.m. LST,\na USAF F-61 Black Widow fighter, with crew of pilot and radar observer, fly-\ning near Fukuoka, obtained a radar pickup on an unknown target at an altitude\nof around 6000 ft, and an initial range of about 10 miles. The total encounter,\noccupying a period of about ten minutes, is too complex to describe in full\ndetail here. The Bluebook file on it, about a quarter-inch thick, contains a\nnumber of different intelligence reports that are not mutually compatible on\ncertain quantitative details (closure distances, etc.). Briefly, a total of\nsix radar passes were made, and each time the F-61 closed to about 4000 yards,\nwhereupon the unknown accelerated suddenly from about 200 mph to an estimated\n1200 mph. The original report from Far East Air Forces intelligence sources\n8\nstates that the unknown \"had a high rate of acceleration and could go almost\nstraight up or down out of radar elevation limits There was sufficient moon-\nlight to permit a silhouette to be discerned although no details were\nobserved. The F-61 crew thought it possible that the six passes might have\nbeen made on two separate unknowns, but this was inferential.\nAnother portion of the official file includes a FEAF followup report,\ndescribing some other points: \"When the F-61 approached within 12,000 ft the\ntarget executed a 180° turn and dived under the F-61. The F-61 attempted to\ndive with the target but was unable to keep pace\nIt\nis\nbelieved\nthat\nthe\nobject was not lost from the scope due to normal skip null-zones common to\nall radar equipment. The pilot and observer feel that it was the high rate\nof speed of the object which enabled it to disappear so rapidly.' And still\nanother document in the Bluebook file on this UNIDENTIFIED describes the\nvisual sighting made at one juncture: \"At time of only visual sighting tar-\nget was on a level with observing aircraft. Under night visibility all that\nwas visible was a silhouette. Type of tail stabilizers is unknown. General\nclassification - very short body giving a stubby appearance. Canopy, if\npresent, was formed into aircraft body to give the object cleancut lines and\nwas not discernible.\" The estimated size was 20-30 feet, and an accompanying\nsketch shows it as having a sharply cut-off tail (\"bullet-shaped\"). No\nexhaust was seen. The moon was nearly full on that night, and the airmen saw\nthe outline against a moonlit cloud, they stated in their report. USAF ground-\nradar stations at Shigamo-Shima and Fukae-Shima had the F-61 on their scopes\nintermittently as it moved in and out of ground clutter, but at no times\nobtained a radar-return from the unknown.\nRuppelt⁶ states that the Fukuoka sighting was one of the first UFO cases\nwhere an UNIDENTIFIED was seen on a radarscope; but many have since attained\nthat distinction. Indeed, when one reads the full text of the 1953 Robertson\nPanel, one of the arresting points is the evident concern with the large\nnumber of \"radar fast-tracks\" already on record by that date. Despite the\nexistence in USAF records of a number of UNIDENTIFIEDS seen on radar (often\nwith both airborne and ground radar and sometimes also with ground- and air-\nvisual sightings in accord), members of a Congressional Armed Services Com-\nmittee investigation, inquiring into the UFO problem after the 1966 Michigan\n\"swamp gas\" episode, were told on April 5, 1966, by the USAF Bluebook officer,\n\"We have no radar cases which are unexplained\", when Congressman Schweiker\nraised that pertinent question. Dr. J. A. Hynek, Air Force scientific con-\nsultant for then 18 years, present in the hearing-room, did not correct this\nmisinformation given to concerned Congressional inquirers.\nCase 4. Gulf of Mexico, December 6, 1952\nJust to cite briefly another example of a radar-visual sighting in the\nofficial UNIDENTIFIED category, one might mention the December 6, 1952 air-\nborne sighting by the crew of an Air Force B-29 flying over the Gulf of\nMexico at 18000 ft in bright moonlight. (See 7 for further details.) A\ntotal of over a half-dozen separate unknowns, seen on the B-29 radarscopes\nand by crewmen watching out side-blisters, passed at high speed (some speeds\nroughly estimated at 5000 mph from blip displacements). Some of them were\nseen below the flight altitude, and others maneuvered in most unconventional\npatterns (sudden course-reversals). No meteor explanation would fit the\nvisual sightings, and ground-return effects are essentially out of the ques-\ntion by virtue of the high altitude and by the features of the atmospheric\nlapse rate at the time and area of the unusual sighting. It remains an\nUNIDENTIFIED in USAF files.\n9\nCase 5. Washington National Airport, July 19 and 26, 1952\nMany more Bluebook file reports that are in the \"explained\" category\nalso involve radar-tracking of intriguing nature, but have been tagged with\na variety of other identifications. One of the msot famous is the 1952 epi-\nsode near Washington National Airport (July 19 and 26, 1952). I shall not\ngive an account of it here (see for example Hall or Ruppelt or Ref. 1), but\nonly remark that my own analysis of the radiosonde data for those two nights\nleads me to diametrically opposite conclusions from those that have remained\nthe official views for fifteen years. There were only very weak inversions\nand moisture gradients present on those nights, incapable of causing the\nstriking radar and visual effects reliably reported. I have recently inter-\nviewed five of the CAA controllers and four pilots involved in that sighting\nand can only say that it is a case of extremely great interest - fully deserv-\ning the national-headline treatment it got in 1952.\nFurther measure of the limited knowledge of the actual history of UFO\ninvestigations held by the USAF personnel charged with UFO responsibilities\ncan be found in the same April 5, 1966 testimony previously cited. (See\nH.D. 55, Hearing by Committee on Armed Services, HR, 89th Congress, 2d\nSession, 4/5/66, p. 6075). Congressman Stratton asked Bluebook Officer\nQuintanilla: \"Was there not a sighting, back it seems to me in 1947, when\nan object was observed on radar, either at National Airport or Bolling, both\ncoming in and going out? It seems to me there was also a visual sighting\nthat went along with that Is this in your records at all?\" Now, almost\nanyone who had attempted a serious study of UFO history would immediately\nrecognize that Mr. Stratton, albeit confused about his recollected details,\nwas asking of the famous Washington National sightings of July, 1952. Yet\nthe incumbent Bluebook officer replied, \"I am sure that if the sighting was\nreported to the Air Force it is on record, but I am not aware of this parti-\ncular one, sir.\" Dr. Hynek did not offer correction, if he was aware that\ncorrection was needed.\nSome months later, after I had been at Project Bluebook, studied their\nfile on this important case, recomputed the refractive-index gradients to\nassess the Air Force claims that anomalous propagation effects caused the\nradar returns (numerous objects moving with variable speeds, high acceler-\nations) and weighed official claims that optical refraction anomalies caused\nthe visual reports (mainly from pilots flying well above the weak ground-\ninversion and sighting some of the objects maneuvering even above their\nflight altitudes), I asked Air Force consultant Hynek how he could have per-\nmitted those incorrect radar \"explanations\" to be passed on to press, public,\nand Congress for all these years. His reply was in the form of a question:\n\"How could I set myself up against all those radar experts from Washington?\"\nThis led me to comment that it should have taken him only about one or two\nweeks of study of standard radar-propagation references to become fully con-\nversant with all relevant radar details, and that homework ought to have been\ndone by him twenty years ago, in view of his UFO consulting obligations. It\nis, I fear, such casual failure to really close with the puzzling nature of\nthe UFO problem that has left it in limbo for twenty years. And all of that\ntime, Pentagon press statements gave repeated assurances that real expertise\nwas at work proving the correctness of the Air Force position as to misiden-\ntified natural phenomena. It is a very distressing and a very unbelievable\nstory, which is only faintly hinted by the brief remarks that can be made\nhere. But from the point of view of deserved international scientific atten-\ntion to the UFO problem, candid criticisms of the USAF handling of this\nproblem seems necessary to make clear that there has never been any in-depth\nUFO study within the U. S. Hence, I now wish to put myself on record once\nagain as characterizing most of the past 15 years of Bluebook work as\n1C\nscientifically incompetent and superficial. Yet it has done the trick: it\nhas kept all of us unconcerned about the UFO problem.\nConspiracy? No, not as I see it. Foulup.\nCase 6. Near Barcelona, Spain, September 10, 1967\nOver the past twenty years, airline pilots and flight crews have been\na continuing source of scientifically puzzling UFO reports. One of the\nearliest, still carried by Bluebook as one of its UNIDENTIFIEDS, is a\nJuly 4, 1947 UAL sighting near Boise². When some months ago I interviewed\nCapt. E. J. Smith, pilot of the DC-3 from which the sighting was made at\nsunset, shortly after takeoff, his opinion that the two formations of disc-\nlike objects that he, his co-pilot, and a stewardess had seen 20 years\nearlier were no conventional aircraft seemed as strong as it had been when\nhe was interviewed by reporters in 1947. From Capt. Smith's sighting down\nto the present, the class of airline-pilot reports has remained a most impor-\ntant class because of obvious observer-credibility factors. Let me recapitu-\nlate a much more recent one.\nJust before sunset on September 10, 1967, four crew members of an Air\nFerry Ltd. DC-6, bound for England from Majorca, sighted an unconventional\nairborne object about 60 miles NW of Barcelona, at 16,000 ft. A brief report\nappeared in the Sept. 11 edition of the London Daily Express, independent\nBritish investigators assembled further information, and one of the crew,\nF/L Brian Dunlop, submitted a summary account to VFON headquarters (Volunteer\nFlight Officers Network, a clearing-house in Denver for meteor, vehicle-\nreentry, and other aerial-sighting reports).\nWhen first sighted, according to Dunlop, the unknown was about 30° to\nthe left of their northbound flight path, heading towards the west at an\naltitude slightly above theirs. Its initial estimated distance was put at\na number of tens of miles as it crossed to their right, turned towards them,\nand then approached after an apparent deceleration and a descending motion.\nThe shape of the metallic-appearing object resembled an inverted ice cream\ncone, with a rounded base and pointed top. Dunlop stated, \"There was a\ndefinite solid object the like of which none of the four crew that saw it had\never seen before, and we had been quick enough we could have got a good photo\nof it.\" Capt. F. E. C. Underhill stated in another interview that the UFO\n\"must\nhave\nbeen\nunder\ncontrol\nit definitely altered course substantially.\"\nThe course alteration brought it on a head-on approach, but it passed under\nthe DC-6's starboard wing and disappeared to their south. The crew did not\nalert any of the 96 passengers aboard in the total viewing time of about\n2-3 minutes, not wishing to alarm them. Estimated speed of the object was\n600-700 knots, whereas the ambient wind at flight level was only 10 knots\nfrom the north. A check with Barcelona flight controllers indicated there\nwere no known aircraft in the area, but reports do not indicate if radar cover-\nage was available.\nThe shape, the veering path, the passage under the aircraft's flight level\nall rule out meteoric phenomena. That it was not a balloon was indicated not\nonly by the shape, but its reported motions do not match balloon behavior in\nany obvious way. It would seem to be one more airline-reported unidentified\nflying object.\nCase 7. Peruvian coast, December 30, 1966\nSouth America has been a source of extremely large numbers of UFO reports.\nI have never been in a good position to evaluate the credibility and creden-\ntials of witnesses in these reports and hence pass no present judgment on most\nof them, but stress that they warrant searching study. One rather interesting\n11\ncase that has been cross-checked sufficiently to appear well authenticated\ninvolves observations by the 6-man flight-crew of a Canadian-Pacific Airlines\nDC-8, who sighted an unconventionally behaving airborne object over the Peru-\nvian coast as they headed northwest at 35,000 ft altitude on the indicated\ndate early in the morning (0300 LST). A report to VFON, and other reports in\nthe press and elsewhere, give salient features of the event.\nCapt. Robert Millbank's report stated that the unknown was first spotted\n70° to the left of their flight path, at an estimated elevation angle of about\n10°. There was a clear sky, with stars visible. At first detection, the\nunknown seemed to consist of a pair of lights of high luminosity, hovering for\nperhaps a minute, and pulsating. It next moved down towards the plane, and\nassumed a position off their left wing, seeming to pace the DC-8 for another\nminute or two.\nAll six crewmen took turns looking at the unknown through various windows\nto be positive that window-reflection effects were not involved. As the\nunknown paced the aircraft, it appeared to be a pair of bright lights, sepa-\nrated by 3-4°, and with some vaguely perceptible structure joining the lights,\naccording to some of the crew's accounts. Others felt that no interconnecting\nstructure was discernible, in the estimated 1-2 minutes that the object lay\noff the port wing (at a distance that could not be reliably estimated, but was\nfelt to be of the order of perhaps a mile). A V-shaped pair of thin light\nbeams emanated from the object, pointing upwards initially, but downwards\nlater, according to Millbank's account. All passengers were asleep, and no\nphotographs were made.\nMillbank stated that \"in 26 years of flying I have never seen anything\nlike this before.\" Second Officer J. D. Dahl said, \" in my opinion, the\nonly answer to this sighting is a craft with speed and controllability unknown\nto us.\" Other sighting details will be omitted here. After a few minutes of\npacing to the DC-8's port side, the object was seen to accelerate, pull away,\nand climb rapidly out over the Pacific to the west, where it was lost in the\ndistance.\nHere, as in such a disturbingly large number of commercial airline UFO\nreports that have been ignored or explained away during the past two decades,\none is hard put to give any conventional explanation. Clearly, unless one\nthrows out most of the sighting details provided by the six crewmen, it will\nbe quite unreasonable to call this unknown an aircraft, a balloon, a meteor,\na plasmoid, an hallucination, or any of the other frequently-invoked mis-\nidentifieds.\nCase 8. Corning, California, July 4, 1967\nAt about 5:15 a.m., PDT, on the morning of July 4, 1967, at least five\nwitnesses (and reportedly others not yet locatable) saw an object of uncon-\nventional nature moving over Highway 5 on the edge of Corning, California.\nHearing of the event from NICAP, I began searching for the witnesses and\neventually telephone-interviewed four. Press accounts from the Corning Daily\nObserver and Oakland Tribune afforded further corroboration.\nJay Munger, operator of an all-night bowling alley, was drinking coffee\nwith two police officers, James Overton of the Corning force and Frank Rakes\nof the Orland force, when Munger suddenly spotted the object out the front\nwindows of his bowling alley. In a moment all three were outside observing\nwhat they each described as a dark gray oval or disc-shaped object with a\nbright light shining upwards on its top and a dimmer light shining downward\nfrom the underside. A dark gray or black band encircled the mid-section of\nthe object. When first sighted, it lay almost due west, at a distance that\n12\nthey estimated at a quarter of a mile (later substantiated by independent\nwitnesses viewing it at right angles to the line of sight of the trio at\nthe bowling alley). It was barely moving, and seemed to be only a few\nhundred feet above terrain. The dawn light illuminated the object, but not\nso brightly as to obscure the two lights on top and bottom, they stated.\nMunger, thinking to get an independent observation from a different part\nof Corning, returned almost immediately to telephone his wife; but she never\nsaw it for reasons of tree-obscuration. At my request, Munger re-enacted the\ntelephoning process to form a rough estimate of elapsed time. He obtained a\ntime of 1-1.5 minutes. This time is of interest because, when he completed\nthe call and rejoined Overton and Rakes, the object had still moved only a\nshort distance south on Highway 5 (about a quarter of a mile perhaps), but\nthen quickly accelerated and passed off to the south, going out of their\nsight in only about 10 seconds, far to their south.\nMany skeptics reasonably enough ask why there are not many good photo-\ngraphs of UFOs. This is a difficult question to answer; certainly it is true\nthat when hoax photos or dubious photos are excluded, one seems to have left\na dismayingly small number of good UFO photos after 20 years of UFO sightings.\nA factor that may often be involved is that even those witnesses who do have\nloaded cameras nearby may not recover from their surprise before the object is\ngone. Officer Overton stated to me in my telephone interview that he had\nbinoculars and a loaded camera in his patrol car, only a few tens of feet from\nthe parking-lot spot where he stood gazing at the object, yet he was so\nstunned by the unprecedented nature of what he was seeing that it never occur-\nred to him to run for his camera. Munger's phoning-time check suggests that\nthis failure to think of his camera lasted over an interval of about a minute\nand a half.\nPaul Heideman, of Fremont, California, was driving south on Highway 5 at\nthe time of the above sighting, along with a friend, Robert King. I located\nHeideman and obtained from him an account of his observation made from a point\non the highway north of Corning. He saw the light from the object, and had\nit in sight for an estimated three minutes, as it headed south, and then\nveered east (a turn not seen from the more restricted viewing point of the\nbowling-alley parking lot). Heideman said that, when first seen, it lay almost\nstraight down Highway 5, serving to check the estimate of the other observers\nthat the object lay only a few city blocks to their west.\nThe weather was clear, no haze, no wind, according to the witnesses.\nMunger's concise comment was, \"I've never seen anything like it before.\" He\nestimated its \"diameter\" at perhaps 50-100 ft, and its vertical thickness as\nperhaps 15-20 ft, with some kind of edge (band) perhaps 5-10 ft thick. No\nsound was ever heard. Overton stated to me that he had no idea what it was,\nbut that \"there was no doubt it was a craft of some sort.\"\nHere one has a daylight sighting by at least five witnesses from two\nviewing points, lasting for many tens of seconds. The object exhibits opacity\nplus light-sources. Its motion varies from near-hovering to high speed. It\nis seen over an azimuthal range of almost 90° by the three observers who got\nthe closest look, yet no wings or empennage is seen. What is it? Lack of\nsound at as close a range as a quarter-mile and in the quiet of the early\nmorning in a small town rules out a helicopter; lack of wings rules out a\nconventional aircraft. Balloons, meteors, meteorological-optical effects, and\nthe rest of the constellation of frequently-invoked explanations do not appear\nto fit such a sighting. It appears necessary to describe the object as an\nunconventional machine-like doject - or reject the witness' testimony. The\nscientifically embarrassing point here is that many other such hard-to-explain\nobservations of machine-like objects are now on record - and being ignored.\n13\nCase 9. Kansas City, Kansas, August 12, 1961\nAnother such case, involving very much closer-range observation of a\ncraft-like object, is to be found in Bluebook files as an UNIDENTIFIED.\n(USAF has repeatedly asserted, for 15 years, that in their unidentified\ncases lies nothing that defies explanation \"in terms of present-day science\nand technology.\" Not so, I am obliged to say. I am making a special study\nof Air Force UNIDENTIFIEDS, and would stress that there is a very large body\nof phenomenology in those UNIDENTIFIEDS that most certainly defies explana-\ntion in terms of today's science or today's technology! Indeed, this is the\nprincipal conclusion of the studies of all serious students of the UFO\nproblem.)\nAt about 9:00 p.m. on August 12, 1961, two college-age boys living in\nKansas City, Kansas, became involved in a close-range sighting of considerable\ninterest¹². I have recently interviewed both of these witnesses, T. A. Phipps\nand J. B. Furkenhoff. They were driving towards Furkenhoff's home in Phipps'\nopen-top convertible near Old Mission High School on 50th Street. Furkenhoff\nsighted the object first and had been watching it for some time before he\ncalled it to Phipps' attention. It seemed to be hovering, by that time, at\nperhaps 50-100 ft altitude over a point only a few city blocks away. It\nappeared to have lights all around its lower edge, and made no sound then or\nlater.\nThey drove almost directly under it and looked up at its base, where it\nhovered over houses whose residents were evidently unaware of the presence of\nthe object, since no other persons were seen out of doors by the two boys.\nNo wings, tail or propellers were visible, and no exhaust or noise was per-\nceptible. The lights around its underside were yellowish and had a neon-glow\ncharacter, according to Phipps. It was the complete lack of sound that even-\ntually made them uneasy after a total viewing-time that they estimated at\nseveral minutes. They did not get out of the convertible, from which they had\na quite adequate view. Phipps could not recall whether he stopped his engine.\nThe size was estimated at that of \"a football field\" when they were\ninterrogated by USAF personnel in 1961 (Bluebook file account), but when I\ninterviewed them in early 1968, they put it at more like 100 ft across. It\nwas opaque, solid, and obscured the sky above, which was cloudless according\nto the Bluebook data. The Bluebook file report indicated that its shape was\ncompared to that of a \"sled with running boards\", yet neither witness, when\nI questioned them, had the slightest idea how such a description was filed by\nthe interrogating personnel. Their recollections differed as to shape:\nPhipps recalled it as disc-shaped, while Furkenhoff recalled it as a rounded\ncylinder.\nAfter about 3-4 minutes of observing the silently hovering object, their\nuneasiness was broken by the sudden departure of the object. It accelerated\nfrom a stationary position and climbed away out of sight in a time of only a\nfew seconds, each witness agreed. The precise climb-out path was recalled\nsomewhat differently by the two witnesses. The 1961 Air Force interview\nrecorded the climb-out as beginning with a directly vertical ascent followed\nby an inclined departure path to the east.\nThey each told their parents, and Phipps' mother asked a friend who was on\nactive Air Force duty, a Maj. John Yancer, to phone the Richards-Gebaur AFB\nnear Kansas City. He was told that an unidentified had been seen on radar,\nand so he urged that the boys be interviewed by USAF personnel. Telephone\ninterviews were accomplished the next day, but no further USAF interrogation\nin the ensuing half-dozen years was ever carried out. This, despite the fact\nthat it was put in the UNIDENTIFIED category at Bluebook. Such lack of\n14\nfollowup of even the most intriguing UNIDENTIFIED cases is almost the rule,\nnot the exception; this systematic failure to pursue UFO reports is only one\nof many disturbing facets of the USAF investigations since 1953.\nThe August 1961 sighting is not readily explained. Economy of expression\nsuggests calling the object an unconventional machine-like object exhibiting\nperformance characteristics well beyond the state of the art. I must say it\nalso seems to defy explanation in terms of present-day science and technology,\nto use the Air Force's threadbare phraseology.\nCase 10. Moe, Australia, February 15, 1963\nTo maintain a certain international tone, in keeping with the title of my\nremarks, I close with another interesting sighting made in a distant area.\nWith the aid of the Melbourne VFSRS group, I was able to interview Australian\nfarmer Charles Brew and his son Trevor last summer. They operate a small dairy\nfarm east of Melbourne, near Moe, Vic. My interview was carried out in the\nmilking shed where Brew and his son were working at about 7:00 a.m. on Feb. 15,\n1963, when an unusual object swooped down nearby.\nIt was already light on this summer morning, although rainclouds lay over-\nhead. Trevor was working in a part of the milking shed where his view of the\neastern sky was obscured and he did not see the object during its short-dura-\ntion passage nearby. Charles Brew, however, was standing in an opening, with\na full view to the eastern sky when the object descended towards his shed and\ncattle-pens at an angle that he put at about 45°. The object might be loosely\ndescribed as a domed disc, estimated by Brew at 25 ft in diameter, gray in\ncolor except for a transparent dome on top. Around the circumference of the\nobject he saw an array of scoop-like or bucket-like vanes or protuberances.\nAs the object swooped down, almost as if to land on the hillside nearby,\nthe cattle and horses reacted in violent panic which Brew described (in his\nown terms) as unprecedented. It descended to an altitude that he judged to\nbe 75-100 feet, as estimated by the height of a tree near its point of minimal\naltitude. Then, after seeming to hover near the tree for a few seconds, it\nbegan a climb at roughly 45°, continuing on its westward course and passing up\ninto the cloud deck again.\nThe dome was not rotating, but the central section and bottom portion\nappeared to be rotating, at about once per second, Brew judged. The spinning\nmotion caused the protuberances (Brew thought) to generate the swishing noise,\nsomewhat like a turbine noise, that was clearly audible not only to Brew but\nalso to Trevor, located inside the shed and not far from a Diesel unit power-\ning the milking machines. The sound was even audible over the latter local\nnoise-sources, Trevor stated.\nIt took some time to recover the animals that had bolted, and those\nalready inside the fenced area were strongly disturbed for some time. Brew\nstated to me that it was many days before any of his cattle would walk over\nthe part of the hillside pasture over which the object had momentarily\nhovered. Brew himself reported an uncommon headache persisting for a number\nof hours after the incident, but whether this was fortuitous cannot be con-\ncluded.\nBrew has been interviewed many times by Australian UFO investigators\nwithout any reasons being found to discount his unusual sighting. My reaction\nto Brew was similar. It is unfortunate that the son was not in position to\nconfirm the sighting, but he confirms the unusual sound (\"like a diggerydoo\",\nas Brew put it). The object is similar in its general features and size to\nthat seen by a witness I interviewed in New Zealand, Mrs. Eileen Moreland.\nHer July 13, 1959 observation, like Brew's, and like that of many other UFO\n15\nwitnesses, is extremely difficult to explain in present-day scientific\nor technological terms.\nThe foregoing constitute ten UFO cases from fairly widely ranging geo-\ngraphical areas, and spanning almost two decades of time. They are intended\nto be illustrative but not \"representative\", since one of the baffling\nfeatures of UFO reports (easily scoffed out of court by the skeptic) is the\nremarkable variety of shapes, sizes, and maneuvers reported. No mere sample\nof ten cases can give any feeling for that puzzling range of UFO phenomenology.\nNor can a mere ten cases out of the thousands that now are on record in offi-\ncial or unofficial files convince a properly skeptical scientist that we are\ndealing here with extraterrestrial surveillance (the hypothesis that my\nstudies suggest as most likely). One must carefully examine not tens but\nhundreds of such reports before the weight of evidence is seen in some per-\nspective. The difficulty has been that very few scientists have carried out\nsuch examination to date, and hence the low a priori probability of extra-\nterrestrial surveillance leads most scientists to discount such a possibility.\nHence, the above ten illustrative cases are only intended to convey a\ngeneral impression of the puzzlement that inheres in so many UFO reports, to\nsuggest that possibly we do have here a problem of considerable scientific\ninterest. In my own opinion, the UFO problem may be the greatest scientific\nproblem of our times; but I do not expect ten cases to convince doubters. I\nwas most certainly not convinced by the first ten good cases I had checked.\nBut I was quite intrigued, and hence kept checking. Many more scientists must\ndo the same and add the weight of their opinion pro and con the extraterres-\ntrial hypothesis.\nAlternatives to the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis\nThe UFO problem is one for which prudence dictates a studied application\nof Chamberlain's \"method of multiple hypotheses\". Since I have in previous\ndiscussions cataloged the eight alternative hypotheses under which I like\nto scrutinize UFO data, I shall not recapitulate them here. When I say to\nyou that my present position, based on months of study of UFO cases and UFO\ninvestigations, is one of favoring the hypothesis that UFOs are some form of\nextraterrestrial surveillance devices, I am saying that I feel that all of\nthe obviously competing alternative hypotheses seem inadequate; by a process\nof elimination I come to the extraterrestrial hypothesis, as have others.\nAlthough argument by elimination is logically sound, it is not the type\nof argumentation that scientists like to see used in a difficult problem.\nThey much prefer positive arguments. The reason for this preference is\nsimple enough: Success of argument by elimination demands that you have in\nyour initial set of considered hypotheses all possible hypotheses, and one\nmay not be so clever or so unbiased as to start from that point. With respect\nto UFOs, to put it in simple terms, one would prefer \"solid evidence\" - in\nthe form of a tail fin, a jettisoned \"motor\", a crashed UFO, a lot of good\nphotos, etc. Such positive evidence does not seem to exist, despite stories\nto the contrary. That there seem to be no crashed UFOs can be whimsically\nexplained away by asserting that \"they\" seem to have attained Zero Defects.\nDroll, but scarcely overwhelming argumentation (even if it might prove\nessentially correct).\nHoaxes, illusions, hallucinations, frauds and fabrications must con-\ntinually be considered, with frauds and fabrications by far the most trouble-\nsome from the viewpoint of report-evaluation. Suggestions that UFOs are\nadvanced vehicles of a secret terrestrial technology seem absurd when one\nscrutinizes UFO reports and then examines the nature and state of advancement\n16\nof global technologies. I omit further comment here because I feel sure\nthat CASI members need no long arguments on that hypothesis.\nThe leading alternative to the extraterrestrial hypothesis seems to be\nthat of \"misidentified natural phenomena\", viewed in terms broad enough to\ninclude misidentified conventional aircraft, satellites, balloons, etc. The\nBluebook position has for years been that UFOs are almost entirely such\n\"misidentifieds\", and Bluebook has repeatedly asserted that their small per-\ncentage of UNIDENTIFIEDS would fall into that category if more adequate data\nwere at hand. I do not agree, after studying hundreds of their cases. Rather,\nI say that adequate and open-minded scientific scrutiny of the roughly 12,000\nUFO cases now on file at Air Force Bluebook Project would probably raise the\npercentage of UNIDENTIFIEDS from the acknowledged few per cent (figure varies\nfrom year to year) to perhaps 30-40 per cent. An extremely important point\nto recognize is that intelligence personnel at the airbase levels from which\nthe bulk of Bluebook's reports originate simply do not bother to go through\nthe quintuplicate-filing process on any UFO report that they feel involves\nsomebody seeing Venus, or seeing a strobe-light, or an aerial reconnaissance\nplane, etc. They operate with a degree of airbase-level flexibility on UFO\nreporting that serves effectively to filter out the obvious misidentifieds\n(as well as a lot more, I fear). Few persons sense this important point. The\nsystem is so loosely organized and depends so much on the interest and zeal of\nthe individual base intelligence personnel that some obvious misidentifieds do\nget up to Bluebook, but by no means the large numbers that one might guess.\nThe net result is that the Bluebook files are fascinating - not boring as I\nsuspect many USAF officials with little scientific training think to be the\ncase.\nIn addition to being fascinating, I found the Bluebook files to be\nextremely irritating, because after looking at the reported observational\nmaterial one next looks at the official \"explanation\", and from a scientific\nviewpoint there is usually an unbelievable gap between the report-content and\nthe official categorization. When one then tries to query, on scientific\ngrounds, the USAF personnel responsible for those categorizations, one finds\nhe cannot engage in anything like a scientific discussion because scientif-\nically skilled personnel are not involved in the Bluebook operation. It is\nentirely clear that this has been true for the past fifteen years; and still\nearlier cases unfortunately point in the same direction, even back in the\n1952 period of temporarily energetic investigatory work.\nSo, when one hears that the USAF position is that the bulk of the UFO\nreports they get are misidentifieds, it is necessary to probe much further\nto get at the truth.\nReflections and Mirages - Menzel's Views\nHowever, it is not only Bluebook that stresses misidentifieds. For about\n15 years, Dr. D. H. Menzel, former Director of Harvard College Observatory,\nhas been saying that UFO reports fall almost entirely in that category. His\ntwo books 13, other writings, and many television and lecture discussions\nhave invariably emphasized that position. It has been of particular scien-\ntific interest to me that a majority of his alternative explanations fall\nwithin my own area of interest, atmospheric physics. Consequently I have\nexamined his arguments rather carefully and must say that they do not at all\nconvince me. Since I have cited specific examples and discussed specific\nobjects elsewherel, I shall not give numerous examples here.\nBut one category of Menzel's explanations that has evidently influenced\nBluebook thinking of recent years (since similar explaining shows up in\n17\nofficial files) deals with \"reflection\" of light from atmospheric inversions\nand \"haze layers.\" Menzel's explanation of the August 20, 1949, Las Cruces\nN.M., sighting by Dr. Clyde Tombaugh is a case in point (11, p. 266). Menzel\nargues that lights from windows on some house, reflected off an elevated\ninversion layer produced the appearance of six yellowish rectangles that\nTombaugh, along with two members of his family, saw shooting across the sky\nin that famous sighting. Tombaugh first spotted the geometric array of six\npale-yellow rectangles almost directly overhead. Menzel suggests that they\nwere reflections of window lights on an inversion layer at which haze had\ncollected (despite Tombaugh's strong emphasis on the unprecedented transpar-\nency of the air that night!). Since only collimated beams like searchlight\nbeams can yield distinct spots on haze layers, one seems left only with the\nnotion that when Menzel says \"reflection\" he means just that. Letus examine\nthe possibility that atmospheric inversion layers could yield perceptible\nreflectivity at near-normal incidence such as would have to be involved if\nMenzel's suggestion is to be acceptable.\nFor ideally sharp refractive index discontinuities, the Young-Fresnel\nequation (see, for example, 14, p. 420) gives the reflectivity R across a\ndiscontinuity between two media of relative refractive index n as\nR = (n 1)/ (n + 1)\nfor normal incidence. Even for off-normal incidence angles out to several\ntens of degrees, the order of magnitude of R is well-estimated by that famil-\niar optical relation. Menzel's qualitative discussions about how UFO appari-\ntions stem from reflection off atmospheric discontinuities frequently involve\nsuch near-normal incidence. Hence the question becomes that of asking about\nhow large n can become. For visible light in air at NTP, the refractive index\nrelative to a vacuum is about 1.0003, and temperature effects across an inver-\nsion boundary (even if idealized as mathematically sharp) make changes only\nin about the fifth or sixth decimal place of that parameter. Clearly, then,\none will make a gross overestimate of R to go the extreme case of an \"inver-\nsion\" separating standard air from a perfect vacuum, i.e., by inserting into\nthe Young-Fresnel relation the magnitude n = 1.0003. The result is seen to\nbe roughly\nR = 10-7\nThis negligibly small reflectivity could not conceivably yield window-reflec-\ntions of the type adduced by Menzel to account for sightings such as Tombaugh's,\ndespite its grossly overestimating the actual \"inversion-layer\" reflectivity\nthat might be encountered in the real atmosphere. Such quantitative consider-\nations are what are not found in Menzel's defense of his discussions of UFO\nmisidentifications, even in areas where his particular professional background\nought to have made him sense the orders of magnitude likely to be involved.\nIn the February issue of Air Force/Space Digest15 will be found a Letter\ndiscussing an observation of an odd aerial apparition seen by Lt. Col. R. G.\nHill, and treated by AF/SD as an example of UFO reports that are explainable\nif only one looks far enough. I have spoken with Col. Hill to get a few\nfurther details and can only wonder if Menzel's \"inversion-reflection\" ideas\nand Bluebook's misuse of the same have not misled Hill and the editors of\nAF/SD. The four luminous discs which Hill saw on a November evening a half\ndozen years ago are tentatively explained in Hill's communication as \"Possibly\nthe result of some atmospheric phenomenon that caused two interfacing layers\nof air to reflect the light from a nearby source such as the mercury vapor\nlamps illuminating the parking lot at the shopping center where these objects\nappeared.\" As I have stated to Col. Hill and to AF/SD, this is quantitatively\nquite out of question, Menzel's and Bluebook's arguments notwithstanding.\nIndeed, everyday experience with window-glass, whose refractive index\nrelative to air is about 1.5, ought to have served to prevent the widespread\nmisimpression concerning UFOs caused by \"inversion-reflections.\" Window-glass\ngives an unimpressive normal-incidence reflectivity of about 4 per cent; yet\n18\nit is obvious that it must be orders of magnitude more reflective than adjoin-\ning air layers could ever be.\nThat type of UFO explanation is being so seriously misapplied, by Blue-\nbook staff and consultants, that I believe it may be well to carry the counter-\narguments one step closer to the real atmosphere, for deserved emphasis. One\nnever actually deals with mathematically sharp index-discontinuities in the\nearth's atmosphere, only with layers across which density may vary in some\nsmooth, even if locally steep manner. For such \"transition layers\" in the\nindex distribution, one cannot apply the Young-Fresnel equation. The mathe-\nmatical problem is generally quite difficult, but Rayleigh¹⁶ has found one\nmodel that permits useful mathematical analysis of wave-propagation at the\nkind of inversions that can occur in our atmosphere.\nTo give great benefit of doubt to inversion-reflection, one might imagine\nan inversion layer of such meteorologically improbable intensity that the air\nabove the layer was 20°C hotter than that below, and in which all of this\nabsurdly large temperature jump was concentrated within a transition layer of\nthe unreasonably small thickness of a mere 1 centimeter. I emphasize that such\nintense inversions are not known in the atmosphere, so I shall still be seri-\nously overestimating reflectivities by applying the Rayleigh theory to such a\ncase. The computed reflectivity, again treating normal incidence, is found to\nbe\nR = 10⁻¹⁹\nI repeat; even this is an overestimate by a very large margin of what to expect\nin the real atmosphere.\nMirage phenomena are very real; but involve angles of incidence so far\nfrom near-normal that the small, but significant, gradients across real inver-\nsions do give refractive anomalies of readily perceptible magnitude. But\none's line of sight must strike the inversion layers at almost grazing angle\n(order of only tens of minutes departure from the horizontal in most in-\nstances), whereas Menzel has treated miraging in his UFO discussions as if it\ncould occur with lines of sight that often depart by many degrees from the\nhorizontal, which is quantitatively absurd.\nI could discuss other aspects of atmospheric physics that seem to me to\nbe mishandled in Menzel's treatment of UFOs, but wish to turn to another,\nnewer effort to account for many UFO reports in terms of another alleged type\nof atmospheric-physical phenomena - \"plasma-UFOs\", as recently discussed by\nKlass.\nCorona, Ball Lightning, and Plasma-UFOs - Klass's Views\nIn working from the method of multiple hypotheses, one needs to look in\nall directions for possible alternatives. Quite early in my own examination\nof the UFO problem, I was confronted by colleagues at the University of\nArizona with challenges on the ground that UFOs could be some unrecognized\nform of plasmoid. For example, scientists at our Lunar and Planetary Labora-\ntory proposed that, since the wake of an entering meteoroid is a plasma and\nsince a meteoroid sets up a highly turbulent wake-flow, perhaps vortical\nmotions on the meteor-wake boundary could spin off masses of incandescent\nplasma that descend into the lower atmosphere and are reported as a UFO. I\npointed out seemingly insuperable difficulties centering around rapid ion-\nrecombination and buoyancy of hot plasmoids that would have made it most\nimprobable that any such plasmoids could penetrate from entry-levels to the\nnear-surface levels where innumerable \"UFOs\" have been reported. But mainly\nI stressed the more basic point that the type of UFO reports that are provoc-\native are not mere balls of luminosity but structured objects described by\nseemingly quite credible witnesses as resembling machines of some type.\n19\nKlass' Plasma-UFO Theory. I reiterate that latter strong objection to\nthe \"plasma-UFO\" concept when I turn next to the recent writings of Aviation\nWeek Senior Avionics Editor, Philip J. Klass. My most basic objection to the\nposition he is now defending concerning plasma-UFOs is that I feel he does\nnot confront the fact that the interesting UFO reports do not involve hazy,\nglowing amorphous masses, but involve reportedly sharp-edged objects often\nexhibiting discernible structural details, carry discrete lights or port-\nlike apertures, and maneuver for time-periods and in kinematical patterns that\nare extremely difficult to square with his plasma-UFO hypothesis. And to that\nobjection I add the same one I raise against so much of Menzel's UFO argumen-\ntation - it fails to deal quantitatively with parts of the argument that are,\nin terms of existing scientific knowledge, amenable to quantitative analysis.\n(May I interject here that my just-cited objection can and should be\nturned against my own position as to the extraterrestrial hypothesis on the\ngrounds that we do now know something about prospects of interstellar travel\nand certain quantitative objections about propulsion difficulties can be\nraised against such travel. Indeed - and many have already cited these quan-\ntitative difficulties, including Purcell, von Hoerner, and Markowitz. I\nreiterate (see 1, 8) that my lame yet not necessarily invalid defense is that\nwe may not yet know all there is to know about the technology of interstellar\ntravel and hence our attempts at quantitative assessment of the extraterres-\ntrial surveillance hypothesis may be inconclusive. Beyond that I cannot go.)\nKlass has developed his position in two magazine articles 17 and a just-\npublished book¹⁸. He does not assert that all UFOs are plasma-UFOs; other\nmisidentifications contribute, he feels. But he does argue that most students\nof the UFO problem (and he specifically cites me as an example) seem to have\nmissed the \"plasma fingerprint\" which he sees in so much of the UFO evidence.\nHe disclaims any view that the UFO problem is a \"nonsense problem\"; rather he\nsuggests that it is one of keen scientific interest because it comprises a\nbody of phenomena from which careful study of the plasma-hypothesis will\ngenerate valuable new knowledge of atmospheric physics and atmospheric elec-\ntricity.\nNow one puzzling and far from understood phenomenon of atmospheric elec-\ntricity that does seem to lie in the plasma category is \"ball lightning\",\nwhich, for brevity, will be identified here as BL. Only within about the past\ndecade has BL been admitted as a real phenomenon rather than some kind of\nillusion. In this sense, the history of BL studies is amusingly parallel to\nthat of UFOs. It can be stated unequivocally that, in 1968, students of\natmospheric electricity have not yet succeeded in developing an adequate\ntheoretical understanding of the baffling phenomena reported under this head-\ning. The fact that BL reports, like UFO reports, come largely from untrained\nobservers who happen suddenly to become witnesses to the phenomenon hampers\ndata-gathering. Also, it is sufficiently uncommon that it has been discourag-\ning to try to set up special recording systems to gather instrumental data on\nthe phenomenon (as is true also for UFOs). And the range of BL behavior\ncharacteristics is so wide that no single mathematical model has fit very\nsatisfactorily the reported effects as well as the known atmospheric electri-\ncal facts. As I noted earlier above, there even exist parallels to the UFO\nproblem in the sense that a semantic difficulty arises: One is not at all\nsure, in looking at published summaries of BL reports, that one is dealing\nwith a single phenomenon. One suspects that, mixed into the alleged BL\nsample, are some other quite different phenomena, so that one may be trying\nto explain more than necessary.\nSummaries of BL reports have been given by Brand¹⁹, Dewan²⁰, Rayle2 and\nMcNally²²; and others have published accounts of smaller numbers of individual\nreports. BL models have been discussed by so many workers that no catalog of\n20\nindividual papers is in order here. Dewan²³ has presented a brief summary\nof models developed up to about 1963, and other notions are to be found in\na volume edited by Coroniti²⁴. None of these models, or those subsequently\noffered by others such as Uman and Helstrom 25 can be viewed as entirely\nsatisfactory.\nHowever, one major feature of reports and mathematical models is that\nthe majority of the former and all of the latter suggest that BL is a phenom-\nenon closely related to ordinary thunderstorm lightning.\nFair-Weather Ball Lightning. The notion that \"ball lightning\" can be\ngenerated in fair weather free of all thunderstorm activity has been\ndeveloped by Klass, and defended on the ground that, in the literature of\natmospheric electricity, one can find a half-dozen or so reports of lightning\ndischarges in clear air. He also defends it on the ground that, in some of\nthe above-cited summaries of BL reports, are luminous masses that were called\n\"ball lightning\" by the witness or the data-collector, yet occurred in the\nabsence of thunderstorms. This is a confusing situation. We do not yet know\nprecisely what we shall mean by \"ball lightning\", do not know how Nature pro-\nduces it, and have to concede that we may lump under that one heading phe-\nnomena of diverse nature. To illustrate that, consider Klass' citing (18,\np. 121) an observation made from a USAF F-100 flying over the British Isles\nat 11,000 ft near midday, where a luminous orange ball with a tail streaming\nbehind it \"somewhat like a flaming meteorite\" was sighted by the pilot under\nclear-weather condition. Klass uses that observation to support his asser-\ntions that BL can not only occur under clear-air conditions, but can move\nthrough the atmosphere at relatively high speeds. But, one must emphatically\nobject, it is by no means obvious that it is correct to call this a BL report.\nFar more reasonable would be to call it an observation of a bright daylight\nmeteor, many of which are on record in the annals of meteoritics. The very\nfact that the original account compares the tail to that of a meteorite ought\nto prompt this identification in preference to the BL identification. I urge\nyou to read Klass' book in full to see if you do not agree that just such easy\nslipping of a wide range of odd observations into his plasma category has led\nhis arguments seriously astray. At no place in his book does he defend his\nassumption that plasmoids can move through the atmosphere at speeds of hun-\ndreds of meters per second, except in one special and quite interesting case -\nwhen they are electrically attracted to aircraft bearing tribo-electrically\ninduced charges. Let us examine that notion, therefore.\nAttraction of Plasma-UFOs to Aircraft. Klass takes note of the fact that\nUFOs have been seen following aircraft in flight, and proposes a theory to\nexplain this. Remarking that aircraft often develop strong net charges due to\ncontact with snow, rain, or dust particles, he suggests (18, p. 124) that \"an\nairplane having, say a strong positive charge comes within reaction distance\n* The suggestion which Klass makes that BL can form under fair-weather condi-\ntions is, like many of his other suggestions, shown to be quantitatively\nabsurd by some elementary computations. The fair-weather earth-air current\nis known (28, p. 150) to average about 10⁻¹² amp/m², and the fair-weather\npotential gradient averages about 100 V/m. If, then, we ask for the area of\nthe earth's surface over which we would have to collect current to have Joule-\nheating within a slab, say, 100 meters deep in amount equal to a modest esti-\nmate of 100 watts (cf. 25, where 1000 watts is taken as perhaps more repre-\nsentative), we obtain an area of 10,000 km² as our answer! Obviously the\nassumption of a slab 100 m deep was quite arbitrary, but it would seem to give\nbenefit of doubt to Klass' argument, so the figures suffice to make the notion\nof fair-weather ball lightning seem rather far-fetched.\n21\nof a plasma whose surface has a negative charge\" with the result that \"the\ntwo will be attracted to each other, like two magnets He remarks that,\nsince the aircraft has far greater mass than the plasma, the latter \"will be\ndrawn towards the aircraft rather than the reverse.\"\nIs this subjected to any quantitative assay? No.\nLet's examine that idea quantitatively here, then.\nFor simplicity, assume a spherical plasmoid, with the greatest allowable\nsurface charge density, namely, that which brings the surface electric field\nintensity to the dielectric breakdown strength of air, E, of the order of\n20,000 V/cm at typical aircraft altitudes. Similarly, let the aircraft be\nroughly modelled as a sphere, also charged (with assumed opposite sign) to\nthat same breakdown limit (this will actually overestimate net aircraft\ncharge by something like an order of magnitude, giving more benefit to Klass'\nassumed model). Since the surface charge density 0 will satisfy E = 4πo,\neach object will then hold a charge Q = r²E (esu), where r is the object-\nradius and E is taken as 20,000 V/cm = 65 esu/cm. If d is the separation of\nthe centers of aircraft and plasmoid, then the force F (cgs) acting between\nthe two entities is\nF = P =\nwhere subscripts a and P correspond, respectively, to aircraft and plasmoid.\nFor present rough purposes, we may generously set both radii equal to ten\nmeters, and we may let the plasmoid tag along behind the aircraft that is\ndragging it, on Klass' hypothesis, through the air at a lag-distance d =\n100 meters. We get, then, F ÷ 4x107 dynes.\nTo fulfill Klass' assumed requirements, this Coulomb attraction F must\nequal the effective aerodynamic drag force D, to which the fast-moving plas-\nmoid is subjected (if it is not to be torn apart or brought to rest). Call-\ning the drag coefficient C, the air density P, and the speed of aircraft and\nthe trailing plasmoid V, we have,\nD = 1/2 P p 2\nand setting D = F to determine the allowed airspeed V,\nV² =\nThus the radius of the UFO plasmoid disappears from the V-relation. Using\nP ÷ 7x10-4g/cm3, C ÷ 0.2 for the high Reynolds number regime here involved,\nand the previously suggested values for the other parameters, we get\nV ÷ 4x10² cm/sec 11 9 mph\nThus, even upon assuming a large maximally-charged aircraft and plas-\nmoid, and limiting the trailing-distance to no more than 100 meters, we\nobtain so low a value for the allowed V that it is absurd.\nBut the conclusions are even more negative for Klass' hypothesis than is\nsuggested by the limit V ÷ 9 mph, since it is known from experience with air-\ncraft charging 26,27 that steady leakage of autogenous charges keep surface\nfield strengths down to values generally under 10³v/cm (a factor of twenty\nlower than assumed above for the aircraft), and even that value would not be\nfound in flying through clear air free of snow or dust. And neither Klass\nnor I have proposed any basis for assuming that his airborne plasmoids will\nbe so decidedly non-neutral as to have surface charge densities anywhere near\nthe breakdown limit, as assumed in the above calculation to give Klass full\nbenefit of doubt on that socre. When some allowance is made for those\nfactors, it is seen that a plasmoid could not be drawn through the atmosphere\nat the pace of even a very slow walk by the Coulomb interactions which Klass\n22\ninvokes to fit his hypothesis of plasma-UFOs, hence his ideas on plasma-\nUFOs pacing aircraft are quantitatively untenable. He states that they do\nnot come very close to the charged aircraft because the aircraft's \"wind-\nstream serves as a protective sheath\", another qualitatively ad hoc assump-\ntion that can now be seen to be irrelevant.\nIn one of his articles¹⁷, Klass explains inability of jet interceptors\nto close on UFOs as resulting from the circumstance that aircraft and plasma\nhave the same charge, so that the interceptor repels the plasma-UFO and can\nnever catch up with it. This is equally absurd.\nOther objections could be raised: Klass fails to confront his hypoth-\nesis with cases where UFOs were neither attracted to nor repelled by air-\ncraft, yet UFOs have made close passes coming from all relative directions\nand exhibited many unusual maneuvers not fitting his model. For example, a\nvery famous UFO sighting, the July 24, 1948, Chiles-Whitted sighting over\nMontgomery, Alabama, is briefly alluded to on p. 118 of his book, so Klass\nmust know that Chiles and Whitted saw the object (which they said had a\ndouble row of windows, a length comparable to a B-29, a cherry-red wake, and\na blue glow from nose to tail along its undersurface) come almost directly\nat their DC-3 on a near-collision course before it passed them and then did\nan abrupt pullup before it disappeared. Coulomb attractions at work? Innu-\nmerable other aircraft-observed UFOs could be cited that would not fit Klass'\nCoulomb-attraction model, even if it did make quantitative sense for trailing\nUFOs. It can only be concluded that Klass has not provided an explanation\nfor why UFOs sometimes come near aircraft.\nNot only does Klass suggest that \"highly charged aircraft\" can attract\nhis plasma-UFOs, but also (18, p. 125-6) suggests that charged automobiles\nattract \"low-altitude UFOs\". Then, carrying the idea to its full absurdity,\nhe proposes that a charged pedestrian \"who encounters a very low-altitude\nUFO may find it is drawn slowly toward him or that it backs off as he\napproaches it.\" The question of whether it shall be attracted or repelled\ndepends, Klass adds, on the sign of the charge of the UFO and that \"of the\nvery slight charge on the person\". To make such assertions without any\nattempt at inserting numbers into the elementary calculations that disclose\ntheir low plausibility is quite typical of Klass' book.\n[It might be added, in this final version of the draft presented at the\nMontreal CASI meeting, that my use of the figure 20,000 V/cm in my rough\ncheck of Klass' aircraft-pacing model was challenged from the floor by\nKlass. He stated that this figure must obviously be incorrect, for he had\ninformation that helicopters flying over dusty terrain can be charged up to\n500,000 volts (see 18, p. 171). As I pointed out by way of clarification,\nKlass was confusing \"volts\" with \"volts per centimeter\"; and to reconcile\nhis figure with mine we need only be sure that the helicopter had a clear-\nance above ground of at least 25 cm (since 25 cm multiplied by 20,000 V/cm\nequals 500,000 volts). Here again, one is startled to encounter confusion\nover such elementary electrical concepts. That the dielectric breakdown\nstrength of air is of order of 10,000 to 30,000 V/cm, depending on electrode\ngeometry and air pressure is certainly not open to question.]\nFormation of Plasma-UFOs in Wingtip Vortices. For the most part, Klass\noffers his readers no hint of the origin of the plasmoids to which he wishes\nto equate UFOs. But one case on which he appears to offer an idea of origin\nis in connection with aircraft. Klass (see below) has the idea that pollu-\ntion products exert a helpful influence in plasma-formation. Aircraft\nengines emit pollution products. Therefore Klass suggests that pollutants,\nalong with the charges which he believes are collected in the tip vortices\n(18, p. 168), somehow form a plasma-UFO.\n23\nLet's go over that in more detail. First, to repeat, impact charging\nof aircraft in clear, particle-free air is negligible. One must have rain,\nsnow, or dust impacting on the aircraft surfaces to generate strong auto-\ngenous charges 26,27, so Klass is in serious initial trouble on this score\nalone. Furthermore, when an aircraft is undergoing such impact-charging,\nwhat actually occurs is that the surface charge densities build up to an\nequilibrium value such that the leakage-rate just equals the charging rate.\n(One great value of charge-dissipating whips on wing trailing edges is that\nthey boost the effective discharge rate to so high a value that the steady-\nstate values of total aircraft charge are low.) Under the steady state that\nis quickly attained on entering a dust or snow cloud, the air passing off the\nwing has zero net charge, since the leakage charge just balances the residue\nleft over from the impact charging. Thus, Klass will not get plasmoids bear-\ning any significant net charge by such a process, so his aircraft-chasing\nUFOs are not accounted for by the only model that he offers his reader to\nget his plasmoids airborne.\nBut the difficulties are much more serious than absence of significant\nnet charge. To have a plasmoid in the usual sense of the term requires high\nconcentrations of free electrons, whereas all that will be sweeping off the\ntrailing edge of an aircraft wing when flown under conditions favoring charg-\ning (dust, snow, rain) will be \"ions\" in the sense employed in atmospheric\nelectricity. All free electrons will attach to oxygens in microseconds; and\nexhaust pollutants will further demobilize the small ions that are thus\nformed. Between this and ordinary ion-recombination processes, nothing\nremotely resembling a luminous plasmoid can possibly be expected to appear\nwithin the trailing vortices of an aircraft. When Klass states (18, p. 168)\nthat \"an aircraft could accumulate electrical energy and focus it into peri-\nodic discharges which could create a plasma-UFO in its wake when conditions\nwere right,\" and then adds that these plasmoids would be left behind so that\n\"another pilot flying along the same airway a few minutes later might encoun-\nter a glowing plasma,\" he is using arguments that would collapse if he were\nto try to put numbers into them. The temporal and spatial instability of\nplasmoids is one of their most outstanding characteristics. Klass accounts\nneither for their formation nor for their survival in this context of air-\ncraft-related plasmas.\nDiurnal Variations of UFOs. Klass suggests that UFOs are a mystery of\natmospheric electricity. Students of that subject will certainly find some\nsurprising mysteries of an atmospheric-electrical nature on pp. 164-167 18.\nKlass cites Vallee's evidence for an evening maximum of low-altitude UFO\nsightings, between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m., roughly. Klass notes that Brand\nfinds a diurnal peak frequency of BL sightings at 5 p.m. Klass feels that\nthis rough temporal correlation indicates a genetic relation between BLs and\nUFOs. Meteorologists could suggest to him that a 5 p.m. peak in BL observa-\ntions would match the generally late-afternoon peak of thunderstorm activity.\nI believe that the early evening peak of UFO reports is the result of greater\nlikelihood of detecting a luminous object at night than a non-luminous object\nby day. I gather that Klass shares some of the latter view; but he proceeds\nto a further idea that plasmas are formed with diurnal peak frequency in the\nearly evening. The route by which he gets there is curious indeed.\nFirst, he discusses the diurnal variation of the atmospheric electric\nfield-strength near the earth's surface and calls attention to a tendency\nfor most land-stations to have a maximum of field-strength near 7 p.m. He\nglosses over the point that more UFOs are seen in summer than in winter, and\nthat during summer most land stations have a strong maximum of field strength\n24\nin the mid-morning. But where his physics goes astray is that he mistakenly\nattributes the peak field-strength to a concurrent maximum of radon gas that\nproduces much of the air-ionization in the lowest atmosphere.\nThe actual situation is²⁸ that increased ionization would, per se,\nincrease the air's conductivity and thus decrease the observed atmospheric\nelectric field strength - precisely the opposite of what Klass claims.\nBriefly, the earth-ionosphere potential difference may here be treated as\nconstant (we may ignore the well-known universal diurnal variation), whence\nvertical current densities will remain sensibly constant so long as diurnal\nfactors only alter the conductivity in a relatively shallow air layer near\nthe earth's surface. But with constant current density, the atmospheric\nelectric field intensity must adjust itself to vary inversely with air con-\nductivity. Pollutants decrease air conductivity; ionization processes\nincrease it. The well-known evening increase in field intensity is due to\ndevelopment of an evening low-level inversion that traps pollutants, the\npollutants attach small ions to generate large ions of low mobility, the\nair conductivity consequently goes down, and the observed field intensity\nmust, to maintain fixed current density, go up.\nIf radon-trapping were the dominating factor here, as Klass evidently\nthinks, evening would be a time of minimal, not maximal, field-intensity!\nHe extrapolates the above to a claimed explanation for the higher fre-\nquency of UFO sightings in rural areas vs. urban areas; but again it is\nbased on the above misconception of the role of inversions, so that this\ndeduction of Klass' is also invalid.\nBut even beyond the confusion engendered by Klass' thoroughly confusing\nthe physics of the diurnal variations of conductivity and potential gradient,\nthere lie further basic shortcomings that warrant emphasis. One must ask,\njust what does he have in mind in talking about all this? How does it relate\nto formation of luminous, active plasmas? Evidently the answer is to be\nfound on p. 166 (18), where he asserts that these cyclical variations of\n\"pollution and electrification\" serve to set the stage \"for the chance trig-\ngering of a plasma-UFO by a corona discharge on a high-tension line or per-\nhaps by a brief power surge in a high-power TV or radio transmitter.\nLet's examine these two categories separately.\nOne can only conclude that Klass believes that an increase of atmos-\npheric ionization by the small factor (less than about 2) which he had in\nmind when he became confused over the foregoing diurnal-variation arguments\ncan exert an important \"triggering\" action on power-line corona. That he is\nnot clear as to the physics of corona-formation seems evident when he states\nearlier (18, p. 22) that \"under freak conditions an electrical avalanche\noccurs.\" He must be unaware that corona discharge from power structures is\nnot dependent upon unusual concentrations of atmospheric ions but only upon\nestablishing sufficiently strong field strengths that the continually form-\ning free electrons (ejected by cosmic-ray or air-radioactivity bombardment of\nneutral air molecules) shall be accelerated within one free path to energies\nsufficiently high to cause an additional impact-ionization event. Being con-\nfused on this point, he draws the erroneous inference that if he could\naccount for some extra air-ionization, he'd account for extra \"corona dis-\ncharge on a high-tension line.\" Also, coronas don't detach from power lines.\nNext consider the idea of a \"brief power surge in a high-power TV or\nradio transmitter. A clear-channel radio broadcasting station is permitted\n50,000 watt output. TV stations are typically operated at outputs in the\nneighborhood of 150,000 watts, though some can legally emit as much as twice\nthis wattage. Let's take a generously large value of 300,000 watts for the\n25\npower output from an elevated TV antenna, and, for wavelength reasons, we'll\nbe generous to Klass in assuming an effective emitting area of only 1 m².\nFrom the Poynting equation, we then wish to estimate the maximum electric\nfield strength prevailing near the antenna with a flux density of 3x10⁵\nwatts/m². Since P = 1.3 X 10⁻³Eₒ² (P in watts/m², E₀ in V/m), we find by\nthis order-of-magnitude estimate that E₀ ÷ 150 V/cm. Even after allowing\nfor the reduction in dielectric strength of air at the radio frequencies\ninvolved, this generously high estimate of 150 V/cm is more than an order of\nmagnitude too low (in fact, probably about two orders of magnitude too low)\nto initiate rf-breakdown and plasma-formation (see, e.g., 35, p. 185 and\n36, p. 156). Thus, far more than \"a brief power surge\" will be required to\ncause plasmas to appear around an antenna - and a mere two-fold variation\nof air-ionization would be entirely inconsequential in abetting this improb-\nable event. So Klass appears to be in difficulty here, too, even if he had\nnot made the prior mistakes with respect to the diurnal variations in atmos-\npheric-electrical parameters that led him into all this.\nAir Pollution as a Plasma Promoter. In the foregoing, there have now\nbeen several allusions to an underlying idea that runs through much of Klass'\nbook: Air pollutants are alleged to aid in the formation of plasma-UFOs.\nThis is such a curious idea, and the source of this notion is treated so\ncasually by Klass (18, p. 153) that few readers are likely to realize how it\narose. Because Klass weaves it into SO much of his argument, it warrants\ncloser examination.\nKlass contacted Dr. J. R. Powell concerning some interesting laboratory\nwork done at Brookhaven National Laboratory (APS abstract in BNL 10625,\nentitled \"Laboratory Production of Self-sustained Atmospheric Luminosities\",\nby Powell, Zucker, Manwaring, and Finkelstein). Using a 75 MHz rf arc dis-\ncharge as the primary power source, and feeding its output into a walk-in\nsize resonant cavity filled with selected gases at atmospheric pressure, the\nBrookhaven group were studying luminosities with radii in the decimeter\nrange and lifetimes of order of a second or more after shutoff of the rf\npower supply. Early work indicated that such luminosities could be produced\nin air, N₂, O₂, or N₂O, though not in A or CO₂. It was hypothesized that\nthe rf \"pumping\" stored energy in certain energetically accessible long-\nlived (metastable) states of N2, or O₂, or N₂O, and that vaporized electrode\natoms (e.g., Cu) produced the visible radiation after acquiring energy in\ncollisions of the second kind with the excited chamber-gas atoms. Possible\nrelations to the ball lightning problem were noted by the investigators.\nThe important points to note here are that this experiment appears to\ninvolve three crucial features: 1) a tuned cavity, 2) an rf power source\nfeeding into it, and 3) a gas, filling the cavity at 1 atm pressure and\nselected to have metastable states with lifetimes of the order of seconds\nsuch as to constitute an energy reservoir upon which the light-emitting\nspecies (metal vapor atoms) can feed repetitively during the post-shutoff\nglow period. (Whether the interpretations put on this promising experi-\nmental work stand the test of time need not bother us here; they do appear\nplausible.)\nUpon hearing of this laboratory work, Klass jumped via several erroneous\nsteps to his idea that pollutants from aircraft, cars, and factories will\nenhance the likelihood of forming plasma-UFOs.\nHis first error lay in mistakenly identifying what he terms \"nitrous\noxides\" (his plural) with the \"nitrogen oxides\" of air pollution literature\n(18, p. 153). As a matter of fact, nitrous oxide, N₂O, is a natural\n26\nconstituent of air, not considered an atmospheric pollutant (29, p. 156),\nand is therefore not even mentioned in most air pollution literature on the\nproblem of the nitrogen oxides (30, p. 3-12; 31, p. 83). NO is copiously\nproduced in all combustion processes, including those in aircraft and auto-\nmobiles, and oxidizes quickly in air to NO₂, the primary photon-acceptor in\nphoto-oxidation air pollution of the Los Angeles type. N₂O, a rather stable\ncompound, always present in concentrations about twice that of all other\nnitrogen oxides characterizing polluted atmospheres, plays no part at all in\nany pollution problems, since it \"is dangerous only in concentrations of\nabout 90 per cent and then has mainly an anoxic effect\" (32, p. 149). Indeed,\nchemical analysis of the \"nitrogen oxides\" in polluted atmospheres was not\nmeaningful until tests, such as the phenoldisulfonic acid method (29, p.159),\nwere developed to react to all N-oxides except N₂O! Briefly, through an\nerror of interpretation of elementary chemical terminology, Klass misidenti-\nfied the N₂O of the Brookhaven experiments with true pollutants and was off\non one of the many error-chains that so weaken his treatment of the UFO\nproblem.\nNext, he failed to appreciate relevant quantitative aspects concerning\nthe \"air pollutants\" he thus began to discuss. Average concentrations of\nN₂O at sea level are near 0.5 ppm (parts per million by volume). Average\nconcentrations of all pollutant-N-oxides in Los Angeles run about half that\n(31, p. 84). To suggest that any gas present in such trace quantities could\nplay theenergy-reservoir role of the test-gases with which the Brookhaven\ngroup filled their tuned cavity is to miss completely a basic quantitative\naspect of the experiments. Yet this is what Klass suggests; so here we have\nthe next stage in his error-compounding. If the metal atoms have to make a\nmillion or more collisions, on the average, before finding one of Klass'\npollutant molecules, not much light would be coming from the system.\nIn fact, it will have to be interjected somewhere here that, once one\nunderstands what Powell and co-workers think happens in their chamber, it\nbecomes somewhat unreasonable to talk about adding anything to ordinary air\nby way of abetting the process, for they clearly assert that the N₂ and O₂\nof ordinary air do quite well in providing suitable metastable energy levels\nto make the process work. In view of this point, all of Klass' discussion\nabout diurnal variation in pollutant concentrations, about pollutants swept\ninto tip vortices, and about alleged concentrations of pollutants near high-\nways is seen to be irrelevant and based on a network of misconceptions.\nBut, finally, the most basic error of Klass' attempts to fit the Brook-\nhaven experiments into his thesis lies in ignoring the very special nature\nof the energy source used in the laboratory work, and in casually overlook-\ning the complete absence of anything even roughly similar to it in the out-\ndoor environments in which he claims plasma-UFOs are being formed. The\nbuildup of fields in the standing-wave pattern of the Brookhaven tuned cav-\nity fed at the resonant frequency (75 MHz) provides excitation conditions\nthat simply cannot be blandly assumed to exist aft of a wing-tip, or under\nan inversion in a rural area, or above an automobile speeding down a highway\n- or even near a high-power TV antenna, as shown above.\nIn the light of the preceding points, it is interesting to re-read the\nkinds of inferences Klass attempts to draw: He asks (18, p. 153) if it is\n\"merely coincidence\" that \"both air pollution and UFOs have experienced a\ndramatic increase within the past two decades\"; and then goes on in similar\nvein. \"Is it also merely coincidence that many low-altitude UFOs are seen\nnear highways, where growing numbers of autos spew out their pollution\nproducts? And is it coincidence again that many of the high-altitude UFOs\nare reported by pilots while flying along well-traveled airways, where air-\ncraft also leave a trail of combustion-engine pollution products in their\nwake?\"\n27\nOther Misconstrued Laboratory Experiments. Although it is the Brook-\nhaven experiments that Klass misuses most extensively in his book, three\nother experiments are discussed in a manner purporting to provide support\nfor his basic plasma-UFO hypothesis. Because in each instance Klass fails\nto recognize quantitative factors that render the laboratory results irrele-\nvant to the case he is trying to make, brief comments on all three seem in\norder.\nFirst, he cites some demonstration experiments devised by A. F. Jenzano,\ndirector of Morehead Planetarium in North Carolina, and displays photos in\nsupport of the contention that erratically moving cigar- and disc-shaped UFOs\nmay result from open-air counterparts of the planetarium experiments (18,\np. 68 and plate 3b; also 17, p. 57 and 61). But when one reads the nature of\nthe experiments in question, they prove to be low-pressure glow discharges\ncarried out under pressure conditions and with externally varying capacitance\nquite unrelated to anything involved in UFO sightings. To make his point,\nKlass would have to show that something resembling the electric field\nstrengths and near-vacuum gas pressures used in these demonstrations occurs\nat times of UFO sightings in the atmosphere; but such confrontation with\nrelevant quantitative considerations is absent here, as elsewhere in Klass'\ntreatment. Jenzano is quoted as saying he uses the device to simulate\nNorthern Lights; this is rather more reasonable. But UFOs and the aurora\nare certainly two quite different matters.\nSecondly, Klass cites (18, p. 132) laboratory work of W. H. Bostick on\nsmall moving plasmoids. Klass quotes Bostick as saying\n\"\nthe plasma\ntravels\nnot as an amorphous blob, but as a structure (called a plasmoid)\nwhose form is determined by the magnetic field it carries along with itself.\"\nHe also quotes a passage that may seem to some readers to still further\nsupport the Klass plasma hypothesis for UFOs:\n\"\nthe two plasmoids seemed\nto seek each other out unerringly\nand attach themselves to each other.\"\nThe implication is that Bostick's work has some bearing on the UFO problem.\nHowever, on consulting the original papers (e.g., 33), one finds that to get\nthe observed phenomena Bostick worked at gas pressures of 10-5 mm HG (about\na hundred-millionth of an atmosphere), except when the pressure was raised\nto that of \"a poor vacuum (10⁻³ mm Hg) in order to slow the plasmoid down\".\nAnd about equally remote from any conditions prevailing in situations where\nUFOs have been reported, Bostick used externally applied dc magnetic fields\nranging from 500 to 2000 Gauss. The geomagnetic field has a strength of a\nfew tenths of a Gauss. Despite Klass' intimations, the Bostick laboratory\nexperiments bear no relation to the problem of explaining UFOs, their some-\ntimes startlingly fast movements, and their sometimes high luminosity.\nThirdly, Klass recounts (18, p. 284) some laboratory experiments which\nthe press featured as possibly explaining UFOs. Workers at Melpar, Inc.\nreportedly (34, p. 16) obtained luminous emissions from a mixture of ammonia\nand oxygen after spark-ignition. Neither cited account permits a reader to\ndecide whether this was some slow combustion process or perhaps chemilumi-\nnescence. Klass states that, on triggering the process with the spark, \"a\nglowing saucer-shaped object would form, providing the mixture had the right\nproportions.\" \"Sometimes the glowing object would hover horizontally\nat\nother times, the tiny UFO would pulsate mysteriously and flip over onto its\nrim or turn upside down.\" Interesting, from a scientific point of view; but\nwhat can this have to do with the UFO problem? Klass answers that question:\n\"The ammonia gas that Melpar used in its experiments\ncould be found over\nnewly fertilized farmlands - another possible reason why UFOs are more\nfrequently seen in rural areas.' Here is one more good illustration of\nomitting highly relevant quantitative considerations.\n28\nThe Melpar experiment is not described in terms one would require in\norder to make precise statements; but it seems clear that the partial pres-\nsure of NH3 in their reaction vessel is a fair fraction of an atmosphere.\nLacking data on maximum NH3 concentrations over farm barnyards, I will\nappeal to the fact that public health officials seem never to have expressed\nconcern over the safety of farmers exposed to hazardous concentrations of\nthat gas, so that barnyard concentrations presumably fall well under the\n100 ppm \"maximum allowable concentration\" set as the industrial safe limit\n(29, p. 24). This would be three to four orders of magnitude below the\npartial pressures likely to be involved in the Melpar demonstration. Not\nonly would reaction rates be slowed down by something like 3-4 orders of\nmagnitude by virtue of that adverse concentration ratio, but it seems\nentirely out of the question that it could be self-sustaining in such con-\ncentrations, even if there were a spark-source near every barnyard to pro-\nvide the requisite ignition. Actually, it seems so unreasonable to suggest\nthat farm concentrations of NH₃ could yield effects comparable to those\nobtained in the Melpar laboratory demonstration that the proper reaction\nwould seem to be astonishment that any such suggestion should have been made\nin the first place.\nArgumentation by Concatenation Thunderstorms, Dust Devils, and Ball\nLightning. Throughout his book, Klass uses a very curious type of \"argu-\nmentation by concatenation\". Noting that there exists some vague relation\nbetween concept A and concept B, he next passes on to observe another remote\nrelation between B and C. Then C may have something or other in common with\nD, and Klass is soon asserting that A and D are related. Put in that\nabstract form, the only criticism that could be made is that stringing such\nchains may be dangerous. But seen in the form of particular instances,\nKlass' use of this mode of deduction appears almost ludicrous. A good illus-\ntration has already been cited - that concerning the chain of steps by which\nKlass went from the diurnal variation of potential gradient at land stations\nto a conclusion that this bears on the diurnal variation of UFO reports, via\npollutants and inversions and radon gas.\nAnother example of this uncomfortably non-scientific mode of argument\nleads him to the following conclusion (18, p. 113): \"The dust devil and the\nkugelblitz (BL), which a few weeks earlier had seemed poles apart, now were\nbeginning to show signs of a possible family tie, at least on some occa-\nsions. Nature, I was beginning to realize, offers an even wider range of\nexplanations for UFOs than I had first imagined.\"\nLet's trace back through the concatenation of remarks that led to that\nstatement.\nHe gets into it by attempts to explain the many daytime sightings in\nwhich UFO witnesses have asserted that the object looked \"metallic\". This,\nKlass feels, can be understood if the UFOs are glowing plasmas (18, p. 108).\nBriefly, the observer is fooled into thinking that the self-glow is\n\"metallic reflection\" of sunlight. Leaving aside objections to that con-\nclusion, we next find (18, p. 109) him bothered by a UFO sighting in which\n\"dark crescents\" were seen on an otherwise white or silvery UFO; so Klass\nasks himself what might render a plasma-UFO dark in spots. He explains:\n\"The most obvious answer popped into my mind: dust particles.\"\nNext he cites a model of BL due to E. L. Hill, in which it had been\nsuggested that BL might consist of \"electrically charged dust particles and\ngroups of molecules which somehow are electrically separated into positively\nand negatively charged clusters by the action of a lightning stroke,\" a\n29\nmodel which I believe most students of the BL problem would regard as\nunpromising. But that model has dust and it has spin, and that's the\ndirection in which this chain is to be strung out.\nBy way of seeming to confirm the notion that dust may be involved in\nUFO phenomena, Klass then cites (18, p. 111) a UFO sighting in which beams\nof light, from the UFO's eight large \"windows\", were described as shining\nso brightly that air-dust could be seen in the beams. (See 3, p. 69 for\nthe complete account that is very abbreviated in the summary given by\nKlass. The sighting was made by a minister and his wife in Cleveland in\nthe early evening of Nov. 5, 1955; the object hovered for an estimated ten\nminutes, at a height estimated at 500 ft and at a distance from the two\nwitnesses of about a half mile before it began to slowly move away and pass\nout of sight. Out of all this, Klass takes the point that dust was visible\nin the beams reportedly shining out of apertures of some sort on the object,\nand builds that point into his chain. The fact that this plasma lasted ten\nminutes and had eight bright spots rather than dust-produced dark spots is\nignored. The important point for the idea-chain is that dust was present.)\nSo next (18, p. 111), Klass ponders \"swirling, charged dust particles,\ninteracting in complex ways with charged air particles in a plasma (which\ncould) explain the mysterious, moving, dark crescent-shaped areas\" in the\nsighting that started the chain. This is preparation for the next jump:\n\"This suggested still another phenomenon that I ought to investigate -\n'dust devils' So he then spoke with several persons who gave him infor-\nmation about the well-known fact that dust-devils and dust storms (28, p.122)\ncan disturb the fair-weather potential gradient by virtue of strong fric-\ntional electrification. When one of his informants remarked that dust devils\nare sometimes formed around the outflowing cool air that spreads out from\nthunderstorm downdrafts in summer storms over the arid Southwest, the last\nlink in the chain was forged. Klass notes, with an almost audible \"Ah,\nhah!\" implicit in the italicized windup that\n\"\nthunderstorms are the\nmost frequent sources of ball lightning.\"\nThat, in brief, is how Klass arrived at the passage quoted at the start\nof this section. That is how he established the bond between dust devils\nand ball lightning, with swirling, dust-laden vortical plasmoids created out\nof the rhetorical exercise.\nThe term \"vortex\" is one Klass likes to conjure with; it comes up\nrepeatedly throughout the book, and is woven into his model of the plasma-\nUFO in several ways - almost invariably without paying any attention to\nscale-factors, as in the above case of dust devils and BL. One sees that\nsame casual neglect of disparate scale factors, the same word-play in a\nlater discussion where concatenative argumentation takes Klass from tornadoes\nto spinning UFOs. At one intermediate step of that particular chain (18,\np. 157), he begins a paragraph speaking about tornadoes in the ordinary\nsense of the word, and shifts to an idea proposed by one investigator of the\nradar-angel problem, namely, that some angels are small airborne vortices,\nwhich that investigator dubbed \"micro-tornadoes.\" Because Klass had, else-\nwhere in the book (18, p. 89) intimated that probably angels are often caused\nby plasma-UFOs (thus clearing up, in his contention, many cases where UFOs\nwere tracked on radar), one comes out of the cited paragraph on p. 157 with\nthe impression that Klass does indeed infer that \"tornadoes and at least some\nUFOs may be distantly related members of the same family,\" and evidently\n\"micro-tornadoes\" and angels are also in that family. If in approaching\nproblems of meteorology and geophysics, scientists customarily employed that\nkind of concatenative logic, so casually ignored important scale considera-\ntions, and rested everything on verbal arguments almost wholly devoid of\nquantitative considerations, they could easily show that volcanoes are\nrelated to hurricanes and earthquakes to blizzards.\n30\nUFOs and Radar. From the chapter so labeled in Klass' book, one can\ndraw additional instances of the author's failure to understand much of what\nhe is talking about. He remarks, correctly, that plasmas can be seen on\nradar, re-entry plasma sheaths around space capsules and satellite debris\nbeing a well-known example. From that qualitatively correct beginning, with-\nout further attention to all-important quantitative matters, he proceeds to\nexplain instances of UFOs seen on radar.\nCiting (quite incompletely) a case from Hall (3, p. 85) in which an\nunknown object whose radar return suggested it was as big as \"any of our\nlarger transport planes\" was followed for over 30 minutes from an East coast\nUSAF radar installation, Klass proceeds to the conclusion that this was just\na plasma. The important item of information concerning duration of the radar\nsighting was omitted by Klass; it was a clear moonlit night in the fall, and\nplasmoids lasting 30 minutes are rather difficult to explain. The radar tar-\nget was described as moving, then stopping and remaining fixed (for the 30-\nminute period). An Air Force C-124 transport that came into the radar-cover-\nage area was vectored towards the unknown. Both blips remained on the scope\nuntil the C-124 came to within a distance that the radar operator estimated\nat about a half-mile from the unknown, at which juncture the unknown suddenly\ndisappeared from the scope.\nKlass explains the fact that the C-124 crew could not see the plasma as\ndue to its being \"on its last legs\", so that \"it did not have sufficient\nenergy to be luminous and thus was not visible\nIts sudden disappearance\nfrom the radar scope Klass sees as having resulted from the fact that \"the\nproximity of the large metal aircraft hastened the plasma's demise, serving\nto drain off its residual energy in much the same way that a lightning rod\nattracts a lightning stroke\nThis kind of easy argumentation makes it possible to assert that casually\nthat a plasma too weak to yield a visible glow is at so high an electrical\npotential relative to an ungrounded aircraft that it sends out a stroke over\nthe half-mile gap separating it from the aircraft. And it permits Klass to\nignore all considerations of recombination-times as he glosses over the 30+\nminutes' duration of the reported radar sighting prior to sudden disappear-\nance. Considering lightning returns on radar gives a much fairer comparison\nthan plasma-sheathéd re-entry vehicles. The latter draw steadily upon the\nkinetic energy of the entering object to maintain the plasma against recom-\nbinative losses. In lightning strokes, however, no such \"steady\" energy\nsource is available. The result is that spotting lightning strokes on radar\nis a rather rare (though definitely well-known) occurrence. Why? Because\nto get a discernible radar return demands that the electron concentration in\nthe lightning channel shall imply a \"plasma frequency\" greater than the radar\nfrequency. For the frequencies employed in conventional radar practice, the\nrequisite electron concentration runs from about 10¹⁰ to 10¹² electrons/cm³.\nBut recombination processes go on at rates that rise very rapidly (roughly as\nthe square) with increasing free electron concentration, so that lightning\nchannels quickly quench out to radar-invisibility (37, p. 108). Estimated\ndurations of radar-visibility of lightning run well under a second. The\nsweep-periods of typical search radar are so long compared with this time\nthat the probability of seeing a lightning stroke on radar is rather low.\nAll the same, basic physics must apply to any plasmoid that one hopes to\nsee on radar. If it lacks a sustaining steady energy source (virtually all\nof Klass' plasmoids suffer that deficiency), then their lifetimes relative to\nradar visibility must closely parallel that of lightning channels - of the\norder of a second or less. An unknown that gives a radar-return as intense\nas that of a large transport aircraft over a period exceeding 30 minutes can,\ntherefore, be explained as a plasma only if one accounts for a continuing\nsource of energy. Klass does not do so.\n31\n(Sudden disappearance of unknowns from radar screens, following uncon-\nventional behavior, is encountered in many UFO radar cases. Significantly,\n\"sudden\" disappearance in the sense of getting out of sight in a few seconds,\nis even more common among cases of visual sightings by credible observers.\nAs has often been remarked before, anything that could move many miles in a\nfew seconds would seem to disappear \"suddenly\" from all surveillance radars\nwith sweep periods greater than a number of seconds.)\nAnother example of misunderstanding of radar principles from the cited\nchapter concerns anomalous propagation effects (18, p. 88-9). Klass seems\nto be under the misimpression that spurious returns occur with anomalous\npropagation only if an aircraft is flying in the vicinity to provide an air-\nborne reflecting agent. He also seems to feel that \"motions and turbulence\nin the atmospheric layers\" cause ground-returns, bounced off the aircraft,\nto shift and move erratically, yielding the impression that the radar\nobserver's vicinity \"is being invaded by dozens of UFOs.\" This particular\nset of misconceptions appears suspiciously like a garbled version of Menzel's\nmisconceptions about anomalous propagation and aircraft-reflections (11,\np. 153-171). The reader familiar with radar propagation physics is urged to\nstudy both of these treatments and judge for himself. A detailed recounting\nof Klass' version of the matter does not seem worth presenting here.\nHe argues (18, p. 89) that because 67 per cent of NICAP's UFO radar\nsightings fell in the months of May, July, August, September, and November,\nwhen radar \"angels\" prove to be most common, it follows that the NICAP radar\ncases \"are classic radar angels\", for there would have been \"only 42 per cent\nin these five months had the UFO radar cases been equally distributed through-\nout the year.\" Evidently Klass has very scant knowledge of statistical sam-\npling theory, too. He intimates that the famous July, 1952 Washington\nNational Airport UFO radar-visual sightings might have been plasma-UFOs, and\ncloses with the comment that complete analysis is difficult fifteen years\nlater. Not SO. The data on that famous sighting, as I indicated earlier\nhere, can be reexamined quite meaningfully even today, including the erro-\nneous USAF claims that anomalous propagation and mirage effects accounted for\nits main features. Neither the latter, nor plasma-UFOs match convincingly\nthe events of those two famous nights in UFO history.\nKlass asks, finally, why all of our surveillance radar nets never see\nUFOs. My reply to that is to ask why he feels so sure that they do not?\nSpinning Plasmas. As noted above, Klass seems to place considerable\nemphasis upon rotation of his plasmoids. He notes that extensive surveys of\nball lightning witnesses (esp. 21, 22) find that from a fourth to a third of\nthe BL reports involve mention of a noticeable spinning motion. His argu-\nments about dust devils, tornadoes, and micro-tornadoes, plus other similar\narguments, dispose him to the view that UFO-plasmas will often (perhaps\nusually) be spinning.\nOn p. 160, he accepts a qualitative suggestion that rotation of a\ndoughnut-shaped plasmoid might store enough energy as rotational kinetic\nenergy to account for its characteristics. But suppose we hope thereby to\nextract luminous energy at the modest rate of 100 watts for the reasonable\ntime of 10 seconds, i.e., we ask for 10¹⁰ ergs. The result is a spin rate\nof about 1000 rev/sec. Clearly, no human eye could discern angular motions\nat so extremely high a speed. Angular motions do not constitute a partic-\nularly attractive storage mode for energy of plasmoids.\nKlass turns to an experiment by Vonnegut, Moore, and Harris³ which, to\nfill his needs, he identifies as one relating to vortex motion of the outer\n32\nshell of a plasma.\" On reading the original paper, one finds that it is\nonly very distantly related to Klass' idea of plasma-UFOs, for it actually\nconcerns the favorable effects of a vortex on maintenance of an arc dis-\ncharge struck along the axis of air rotation. The inward-directed buoyancy-\nforces, the authors note, convectively force the hot arc gases into the\ncenter of the vortex, reducing sinuous excursions of the arc and permitting\nan arc to exist stably over arc-spacings about twice the spacings attainable\nwithout the vortex. Clearly, the vortical effects employed here bear on\nstability of the high-temperature gases in an arc discharge but have no\nobvious bearing on stability of BL or UFOs, since no one believes that arc\ndischarge is involved in either of those phenomena. One more instance\nwherein Klass either fails to understand what he is talking about or else\ncrowds it into his mold - probably the former.\nThe just-cited section of the book is followed by another curiosity.\nKlass suggests next that \"this same vortex motion also helps to explain some\nof the weird movements reported both for ball lightning and UFOs, such as\ntheir right-angle turns, because it would make them behave like gyroscopes\n(18, p. 161). He next remarks that a spinning gyro \"does not move in the\ndirection of the push\" one applies to it, \"instead its gyroscopic properties\ncause it to move at right-angles to the direction of the push.\" He then\nsuggests that \"if a plasma-UFO is spinning at moderately high speed when it\ncomes near a metal object or a source of electromagnetic fields, the elec-\ntrical interaction in combination with its gyroscopic properties could cause\nit to move at right angles to the direction of its previous motion, as is\nfrequently reported.\"\nHere, as before, Klass gets demerits for ignorance of undergraduate\nphysics. It is torques, not gross body forces, which produce the noto-\nriously perverse reactions of gyros. A fast-spinning gyro acted upon by\nan external force moves in entirely direct response thereto, and not at\n90° to that force, as Klass evidently assumes.\nPlasmas as Nature's Rorschach Blots. To meet the objection that many\nwitnesses have reported seeing machine-like UFOs, sometimes with ports,\ndomes, leg-like structures, etc., Klass offers the proposal that a plasma\nwould act like a Rorschach ink blot (18, p. 77). Without wishing to become\nembroiled in arguments of primarily psychological nature, I would object\nthat projective tests of the Rorschach type do not function by virtue of the\nillusory mechanism Klass adduces. Normal persons arrive at their Rorschach\nanswers by dint of requested interpretation of the unstructured blots dis-\nplayed before them. To suggest, as Klass does, that light and dark areas on\nhis alleged plasmoids are illusorily converted by observers into fanciful\nports and domes is to introduce something well beyond Rorschach factors. I\ncite this because it is the closest Klass seems to come to confronting the\nvery important point that, in many highly credible UFO reports, structured,\ncraft-like objects are described in terms that fail to square with an amor-\nphous blob of glowing plasma. I would suggest that his Rorschach idea be\ndropped as unreasonable. The best observations of machine-like UFOs are day-\nlight observations where no glow is even involved, so the Rorschach-plasma\nidea seems to fail completely. See, for example, the Powell sighting of\nMay 21, 1966 8 for a single example which Klass has heard directly from the\nwitnesses, at the same time that I did. An 18,000-hour pilot, with a second\nwitness, saw a domed disc pass his light plane at an estimated distance of a\nhundred yards in midday, with excellent visibility. It was opaque, and was\ndescribed as having quite distinct edges, and had a sharply contrasting white\ndome over red disc. Many others in that kind of category not covered by\nRorschach effects could be cited.\n33\nMesmeric Properties of Plasma-UFOs. Not only does Klass propose that\nhis plasma-UFOs are Rorschach blots, but also he intimates (18, p. 227) that\nperhaps they have \" a hypnotic effect on some observers, especially if the\nUFO were seen at close quarters in darkness.\" Commenting on use of lights\nin concentrating a subject's attention in hypnotic experiments, he notes\nthat \"the plasma-UFO, with its intense glow, its flashing pockets of color,\nand its changing shape, certainly would focus the observers' attention.\nThis could deprive his brain of its normal contact with the outside world,\nespecially for night sightings when the object is in a remote spot\nThere is one very striking similarity between Klass' plasma-UFOs and\nMenzel's meteorological-optical phenomena: Both are stretched to cover a\nmost astonishing range of UFO events. The stretching and straining of\nscientific principles found in their writings on UFOs is paralleled in the\ncrackpot literature on UFOs. Indeed, if some of the unreasonable argumenta-\ntion which they employ were found in something by, say George Adamski, it\nwould be regarded as scientifically hilarious. As it is, such warping of\nfamiliar scientific principles seems only depressing.\nInterference of Non-C herent Light Sources. Another bothersome\nexample of failure to understand rather elementary physical principles is\nto be found in Klass' discussion of a sighting in which a chemist, having\nthe presence of mind to try viewing a UFO through his Polaroid glasses, dis-\ncerned a series of concentric light and dark rings around the airborne UFO\n(18, p. 99). Klass, ignoring the basic requirement of having coherent light\nsources if one is to generate interference effects, offers the suggestion\nthat interference between polarized sky light and the light being emitted by\nthe object caused the light and dark circles reportedly seen by Webb. Not\nrealizing that his argument was already lost, Klass continues to suggest that\nthe reason that the light from the UFO was polarized was that motions of\ncharges in the plasma that it really was generated magnetic fields that\ncaused the polarization of the emitted light that then interfered with sky\nlight when viewed through the chemist's Polaroid sunglasses. With arguments\nlike that, one might hope to show that the moon is a plasmoid.\nCold Plasmas of Ice Crystals. Perhaps the most bothersome general\nfeature of Klass book is the way it repeatedly tends to carry the unwary\nthrough what may appear to be reasonable deductions, but which involve large\nleaps of unjustified nature when you reexamine them.\nA good example concerns his discussion of \"cold plasmas\" (18, pp. 114-\n115). Let me quote his conclusion first, and then go back over the arguments\nthat purportedly support it: \" one thing was emerging as absolutely cer-\ntain. Nature has a surprisingly large bag of atmospheric electrical tricks\nwith which it can create unusual 'flying objects. Working backwards, one\nsees some intermediate remarks about \"cold plasmas\" of charged ice crystals,\nand working still further back one arrives at a reference to a short note by\nVonnegut in the October, 1955 issue of Weather. Reading Klass' version of it,\none gets the impression that electrical discharges in thunderclouds can so\nalter electrical forces on charged ice crystals as to make them change atti-\ntude relative to the sun that marked reflectivity or transmissivity of the\ncloud could result, and that this \"would cause the ice cloud to appear solid\n(because no sunlight passes through) and could even give a silhouette effect.\"\nThen, in a non sequitur he adds that \"the raw materials for such a phenomenon,\nbeyond those provided by nature, could come from the growing numbers of high-\naltitude jet aircraft\", and seems to intimate that the charges are to come\nfrom jet turbine blades!\n34\nBut returning to the foundation on which the above series of steps\nrests, let us see just what Vonnegut actually reported in the cited note.\nWhat he reported was a pilot observation of a bright band that propagated\nacross the top of a thunderhead, a ground observation of a bright streamer\nof cloud that built up slowly and then disappeared suddenly at the moment of\nlightning discharge within the thunderstorm, and finally some field observa-\ntions by Vonnegut on brightness changes (amounting to a mere few tenths of\na per cent) of thunderclouds at instant of lightning discharge within the\ncloud (as detected by radio-frequency noise gear). What in all of this\nremotely suggests UFOs to Klass? One could start talking about a very large\nvariety of cloud-physical effects of unusual nature and remain equally far\nfrom the area of UFOs. Yet after juxtaposing the foregoing, Klass leaves\nhis reader with the conclusion that \"Nature has a surprisingly large bag of\natmospheric electrical tricks with which it can create unusual 'flying\nobjects What flying objects?\nIn an earlier discussion of Vonnegut's note¹⁷, Klass went even farther\nfrom such slim supporting evidence. Introducing without any atmospheric-\nphysical basis the notion of a \"vortex of ice crystals\", he merges it with\nVonnegut's idea of electrical orientation effects as follows: \"If the angle\nof incidence of sunlight playing on a vortex of ice crystals aligned by elec-\ntric fields were such that reflected light was directed away from an observer,\nit conceivably could produce a silhouette effect (and) if the airborne vor-\ntex contains charged dust particles, similarly aligned by electric fields\na\nvery pronounced silhouette could result. If electric discharge is taking\nplace within the vortex between charged dust particles, as has been suggested\nby some ball lightning theories, it could easily create the illusion of a\nsolid spacecraft with small lighted windows.\" All of this suggests the con-\nclusion that if someone sets out to create UFOs out of almost thin air, he\ncan do SO.\nMirror Images and the Car-Stopping Problem. Klass (18, p. 96) evidently\naccepts, as do I, the reality of a puzzling number of instances where obser-\nvers have reported engine and headlight failure coincident with close passage\nof a UFO. Klass suggests that \"because a plasma contains a cloud of electri-\nfied particles, there is no doubt that if an auto battery were enveloped by\nsuch a plasma the battery could be short-circuited. But it is difficult to\nexplain how a UFO-plasma could gain entry to the car battery in the engine\ncompartment without first dissipating its energy to the metal body of the\ncar.\"\nHowever, he then comes up with an extremely curious suggestion that may\nbe some measure of the scientific level of Klass' analyses. He needs to have\nhis plasma ions inside the hood, to short the battery. So he remarks that\n\"an electric charge in the vicinity of a conducting surface, such as a car's\nhood, creates a mirror image of itself on the opposite side of the conducting\nsurface.\" Quite clearly, Klass is under the impression that \"image charges\"\nare real charges, and that the \"image charge\" induced on the inside of the\nhooded engine compartment can short-circuit the battery and cause other real\neffects. This is a puzzlingly erroneous misconception to be held by an\nelectrical engineer.\nAeronautical engineers in the CASI audience can appreciate the parallel\nto another closely similar situation where boundary-conditions can be handled\nby a similar ruse: The use of \"image-objects\" in flow problems near solid,\nplane boundaries. For instance, the enhanced lift that accounts for the\nfamiliar \"flare-out\" as an aircraft comes down to within a few feet of an\nairstrip can be treated, mathematically, in terms of an identical aircraft\nimagined to be upside down and moving along at a distance below the real\n35\naircraft's true distance above the ground-plane. In fact, wind-tunnel\ntests of flow problems near the ground-plane are actually conducted with\nreal model-pairs mounted in this \"mirror-image\" attitude. To suggest that\na real automobile battery could be shorted out by \"image charges\" induced\nin the hood is comparable, then, to suggesting that \"flare-out\" on landing\nresults from the fact that a real aircraft is actually flying along upside\ndown, just underneath the airstrip.\nSummary-Critique of Klass' Plasma-UFO Thesis. In the foregoing sections,\nI have pointed out a number of serious scientific errors and misconceptions\nthat mark Klass' writings on UFOs Although he has diligently pursued\nthe subject of UFOs for some months, his handling of the scientific questions\ninvolved reveals so many misunderstandings, often of elementary principles,\nthat his principal thesis, namely, that a substantial portion of the pre-\nviously most puzzling UFO cases can be explained as plasmas, cannot be\nregarded as supported.\nIt is important to note that Klass does not claim that all UFOs are\nplasmoids (18, p. 282); he feels that meteors, balloons, optical phenomena,\nplanets, and other misidentified phenomena account for many UFO reports. He\ndoes indicate, however, that he feels he has \"identified most if not all of\nthe previously unexplained UFOs as atmospheric electrical phenomena, using\nNICAP's most convincing cases (18, p. 174). By the latter, he refers to\nthe more than 700 cases in Hall's UFO Evidence³. Such a claim is fatuous;\nthere are in Reference 3 hundreds of cases that could not even remotely be\nreconciled with Klass' plasma-UFO hypothesis on any reasonable, scientific\ngrounds. Indeed, even considering the percentually small sampling of those\nNICAP cases that are specifically cited in Klass' book, I would say that\nonly perhaps two or three cases could be even tentatively viewed as some\natmospheric-electrical plasmoid phenomenon. His claims to have \"identified\"\nthe difficult NICAP UFO cases are gratuitous and lacking in scientific basis.\nKlass asserts (18, p. 286) that \"it is time that these two influential\norganizations (meaning NICAP and APRO) encouraged their members to open\ntheir minds to the possibility that UFOs may be only freak atmospheric\nelectrical phenomena.\" He adds that NICAP and APRO should \"more fully\ninform their members about the plasma theory\", evidently thinking that this\nwill lead them to accept his hypothesis that the most interesting UFOs are\n\"freak atmospheric electrical phenomena.\" As a matter of fact, members of\nNICAP and APRO had weighed and rejected hypotheses similar to Klass' long\nbefore he developed an interest in the UFO problem, and three communications\ncited in his book (18, pp. 55, 58, and 177) from NICAP members contain more\nreasoned, albeit brief, reactions to that hypothesis than one finds in all\nof Klass' writings. The provocative UFO cases are low-altitude, close-\nrange sightings of structured, machine-like objects of entirely unconven-\ntional nature, reported by witnesses whose credibility does not appear to\nbe in question. The nearest Klass comes to confronting such cases is to\nsuggest hypnotic effects or Rorschach-projective effects that make the wit-\nnesses see plasmoids as if they were structured vehicular objects with domes,\npanels, legs, ports, markings, etc. I have, myself, interviewed so many wit-\nnesses who have seen such objects that I can only smile weakly at the\nunreasonableness of Klass' intimation that he has \"identified\" such UFOs as\nplasmoids.\nFurthermore, implicit in Klass' plea that NICAP, APRO, and the rest of\nthose whom he labels as \"UFOrians\" should be made \"fully informed\" about\nplasma theory, is the tacit assumption that Klass, himself, is so informed.\nThe many instances cited above wherein Klass completely misconceived perti-\nnent aspects of the plasma physics he was attempting to talk about make such\na plea quite hollow. The net effect of further study of plasma theory by\n36\nany \"UFOrians\" will be to make still clearer that Klass has written a book\nfilled with sometimes ludicrous errors concerning plasma theory and related\nphysics. He accuses the \"UFOrians\" of having closed minds; looking at his\nhandling of the UFO problem, I am left with the difficult choice of deciding\nwhether he, himself, has an even more tightly closed mind or whether the\nglaring weakness of his book simply reflects his ignorance of elementary\nprinciples of physics and electrical engineering. Rather than make that\nchoice, I split my opinion about down the middle on those two alternatives.\nThe principal points I would emphasize by way of critique of Klass'\nplasma-UFO theory are the following:\n1) He fails to put numbers into his hypotheses where numbers are read-\nily inserted. The result is that he presents what may appear to be\nplausible arguments because they contain some qualitatively plaus-\nible elements. In this regard, Klass resembles Menzel. Quantita-\ntive evaluations reveal serious difficulties, sometimes outright\nabsurdity, in instance after instance in the writings of these two\nprincipal proponents of the notion that UFOs are only misidentified\nnatural phenomena.\n2) Plasmas are notoriously unstable and evanescent, except when suit-\nably contained and provided with sustaining energy sources. Klass\nappears to be almost unaware of these prime characteristics of\nplasmas for he casually adduces plasma-explanations in UFO inci-\ndents for which he offers no suggestions as to what provides the\ncontinuing energy sources of his plasmas, often over times of the\norder of not only tens of seconds, but often tens of minutes.\n3) In the one or two instances where Klass does actually propose some-\nthing resembling an energy source (powerline corona, TV antennas,\naircraft charge-leakage), it has been shown above that there are\nfatal difficulties with his position.\n4) Through a quite astonishing series of misunderstandings, Klass\nbuilds up a thesis to the effect that air pollutants are favorable\nto plasma-formation, and from this, makes repeated deductions (such\nas greater incidence of high-altitude UFOs because of more jets\npolluting the airways) of exorbitant nature. That Klass would go\nto press with such error-riddled ideas is surprising.\n5) Through failure to understand elementary principles of atmospheric\nelectricity (the field in which he claims to be making discoveries),\nhe builds an error-chain extending from diurnal variation of atmos-\npheric potential gradient to diurnal variation of UFOs, and deduces\ntherefrom an \"explanation\" of excess of rural over urban sightings.\nFor someone claiming to have uncovered an intriguing new phenomenon\nof atmospheric electricity, Klass' ignorance of fundamentals of\nthat subject seems startling.\n6) His claim to have accounted for the high frequency with which pilots\nobserve UFOs following aircraft falls apart completely on subjecting\nthe idea to quantitative assessment, as shown above. His related\nintimations that charged automobiles and charged pedestrians also\nattract plasma-UFOs are absurd. It is to be stressed that the quan-\ntitative evaluation of that hypothesis involves only elementary\nphysics and, say, electrical engineering, yet no such evaluation\nwas made by Klass. And, to add an extremely important criticism,\nhe overlooks dozens of well-reported cases wherein UFO maneuvers\nwould defy explanation in terms of his Coulomb-attraction hypothesis.\n37\n7) It seems entirely fair to suggest that part of the reason for the\ncredence and attention given Klass' plasma-UFO hypothesis in press\nand non-scientific journals rests on his being an electrical engi-\nneer (the other part being, of course, his senior editorial posi-\ntion with a well-known aviation/aerospace magazine). In this\nlight, his almost incredible misconceptions about \"mirror-image\ncharges\", as noted above in connection with the long-puzzling UFO\ncar-stopping problem, and the cited instance in which he was clearly\nconfusing voltage and voltage-gradient, not to mention the many mis-\nconceptions about plasmas themselves, deserve the emphasis given to\nthem above.\n8) Finally, the most pervasively disturbing feature of Klass' book¹⁸\nis the frequency with which it relies on argument by innuendo,\nargument by concatenation (to re-use the phrase employed above,\nargument by juxtaposition - that is, his specious assembly of what\nto many an unwary reader will look like a clever series of related\ndeductions, carried out in the detective-story atmosphere that he\nrepeatedly tries to create in his writing. After giving that\nannoying feature of his writing a good deal of thought, and after\nreflecting on the high frequency of scientific errors in his writ-\ning, it is my guess that these arguments are probably not deviously\ncontrived to fool the reader but constitute reflection on the lack\nof preparation of the author. The reason that they need exposure,\nhowever, is that at the present time, the UFO problem is not yet\nbeing fought-out in the usual context of serious scientific dis-\ncussion. The present major difficulty still remains that of con-\nvincing a large number of persons (in the scientific community, in\nfederal science-related agencies, in Congress, and in the general\npublic) that the UFO problem is an extremely serious scientific\nproblem too long laughed out of court. For this reason, the kind of\nof easy acceptance already given to Klass in the press cannot be\nviewed as unimportant. Menzel's role in helping to foster the\nimpression, for many years now, that UFOs are all explainable in\nquite conventional terms has had very deleterious influence on the\nUFO problem; Klass will now join Menzel in extending that influence\nif the serious deficiencies of his thesis are not held up to care-\nful scrutiny. It is for this reason that I have devoted so much\nspace here to what ought perhaps to be regarded as so unscientific\nan exposition as to need no comment.\nSummary and Conclusion\nReturning now to more positive considerations, let me stress that my own\nstudies of the UFO problem have forced me to the conclusion that it is an\ninternational scientific problem of potentially enormous importance.\nIn my view, the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial origin for UFOs\nappears (via argument by elimination of many alternative hypotheses) to be\nthe most satisfactory hypothesis to account for the impressive body of obser-\nvational evidence that has been accumulated over the past two decades of UFO\nsightings. Space has not permitted my confronting here the many obvious\nchallenges that such a position properly evokes; I have confronted some of\nthose elsewhere in cited references. Others are simply unanswerable in terms\nof presently available information. That's scarcely a new situation in the\nhistory of science.\nIf there is admitted to be even a very slim possibility that UFOs are\nextraterrestrial surveillance devices of some type (and I incline to that\n38\nview at present, as do many other serious students of the UFO problem),\nthen it should be obvious that a very energetic scientific investigation\nof that possibility ought to be launched. Instead, to date, world scien-\ntific opinion still leans predominantly in the direction that UFOs con-\nstitute a \"nonsense problem\", a bothersome host of reports of misidentified\nnatural phenomena. However, one finds that the spokesmen who most strongly\nemphasize that view are (with almost no exceptions) quite uninformed as to\nthe real nature of the UFO evidence. Ridicule and official mishandling of\nthe problem have kept the true nature of the UFO evidence well out of sight.\nAs one American writer recently quipped, \"The American public is not telling\nthe Air Force the truth about UFOs.\" This has been true on a global scale,\nwhile the mass of evidence has grown steadily greater.\nNew, independent, vigorous UFO investigatory programs are sorely needed.\nInvestigators in countries other than the U.S. may have a superior opportu-\nnity to make progress towards clarification of the UFO problem because they\nwill not be working against the long-standing prejudices so visible in\nofficial U.S. handling of the subject. Thus, I urge that programs such as\nthe newly created Canadian UFO investigation at the University of Toronto\nbe instituted in other countries in all parts of the world, to delve vigor-\nously and imaginatively into the fascinating and potentially world-shaking\nproblem of the Unidentified Flying Objects.\nUFOs are, in my opinion, the greatest international scientific problem\nof our times.\n39\nREFERENCES\n1. McDonald, J.E., \"UFOs - Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times?\",\npresented to Am. Soc. Newspaper Ed., April 22, 1967, Washington, D.C.\nThis, plus two other UFO statements by McDonald have been reproduced\nfor sale by the non-profit UFO Research Institute, Suite 311, 508 Grant\nSt., Pittsburgh, Pa., 15219.\n2. Bloecher, T. R., \"Report on the UFO Wave of 1947\", 1967. Available from\nNICAP, 1536 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D. C., 20036. Bloecher's\nstudy summarizes about 800 UFO reports from a brief period in the summer\nof 1947, when the UFO problem broke into public attention.\n3. Hall, R. H., ed., \"The UFO Evidence\", 1964, 184 pp. Available from NICAP\n(see Ref. 2). Hall's book is one of the most valuable of all references\non UFO reports and must be read by all persons attempting serious study\nof the problem.\n4. Stanton, L. J., \"Flying Saucers: Hoax or Reality?\", Belmont Books, NYC,\n1966, 157 (paperback).\n5. Young, Mort, \"UFO: Top Secret\", Simon and Schuster, NYC, 1967, 156 pp.\n(paperback).\n6. Ruppelt, E. J., \"Report on the Unidentified Flying Objects\", Ace Books,\nNYC, 1956, 318 pp. (paperback).\n7. Keyhoe, D. E. (Keyhoe has written four books on UFOs which, for brevity,\nwill be listed here only by title, since the earlier ones are out of\nprint), \"Flying Saucers are Real\" (1950); \"Flying Saucers from Outer\nSpace\" (1953) ; Flying Saucer Conspiracy\" (1955); \"Flying Saucers Top\nSecret\" (1960).\n8. McDonald, J. E., \"Science, Technology, and UFOs\", presented at United\nAircraft Research Laboratories, Jan. 26, 1968.\n9. Associated Press, June 30, 1954.\n10. Launceston, Tas., Examiner, Oct. 18, 1960 and Oct. 29, 1960.\n11. Menzel, D. H., and L. G. Boyd, \"The World of Flying Saucers\", Doubleday\n& Co., Garden City, N.Y., 1963, 302 pp.\n12. Olsen, T. M., \"The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports,\"\nUFOIRC, Box 57, Riderwood, Md., 21139.\n13. Menzel, D. H., \"Flying Saucers\", Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1953,\n319 pp.\n14. Menzel, D. H., ed., \"Fundamental Formulas of Physics\", Prentice-Hall,\nNYC, 1955, 765 pp.\n15. Hill, R. G., \"Some UFOs Identified\", Air Force/Space Digest, February,\n1960, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 77-78.\n16. Rayleigh, Lord, \"The Theory of Sound\", Vol. 1. Dover Publ., NYC, 1945,\n480 pp.\n17. Klass, Philip J., \"Plasma Theory May Explain Many UFOs,\" Aviation Week,\nAugust 22, 1966. Also \"Many UFOs are Identified as Plasmas\", ibid.,\nOct. 3, 1966.\n18. Klass, Philip J., \"UFOs-Identified\", Random House, NYC, 1968, 290 pp.\n40\n19. Brand, W., \"Der Kugelblitz\", Henri Grand, Hamburg, 1923, 170 pp.\n20. Dewan, E. M., \"Eyewitness Accounts of Kugelblitz\", Microwave Physics\nLaboratory, AFCRL, CRD-125, March 1964, 71 pp.\n21. Rayle, W. D., \"Ball Lightning Characteristics\", NASA Tech. Note D-3188,\nJan. 166, 38 pp.\n22. McNally, J. R., \"Preliminary Report on Ball Lightning,\" Oak Ridge Natl.\nLaboratory, Rept. ONRL-3938, May, 1966, 25 pp.\n23. Dewan, E. M., \"Attempted Explanations of Ball Lightning\", AFCRL Phys.\nSci. Res. Paper No. 67, Nov. 1964, 13 pp.\n24. Coroniti, S. C., ed., \"Problems of Atmospheric and Space Electricity\",\nElsevier Publ. Co., Amsterdam, 1965, 616 pp.\n25. Uman, M. A., and C. W. Helstrom, \"A Theory of Ball Lightning,\" J.\nGeophys. Res., Vol. 71, April 15, 1966, p. 1975 ff.\n26. Edwards, R. C., and G. W. Brock, \"Meteorological Aspects of Precipita-\ntion Static, J. Met., Vol. 2, Dec. 1945, p. 205 ff.\n27. Gunn, Ross, \"Precipitation Electricity,\" in Compendium of Meteorology,\nT. F. Malone, ed., Am. Met. Soc., 1951, 1334 pp.\n28. Chalmers, J. A., \"Atmospheric Electricity,\" Pergamon Press, London,\n1957, 327 pp.\n29. Faith, W. L., \"Air Pollution Control\", Wiley, New York, 1959, 259 pp.\n30. Magill, P. L., F. R. Holden, and C. Ackley, editors, \"Air Pollution\nHandbook,\" McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956.\n31. Air Conservation Commission, Am. Assn. for Adv. Sci., \"Air Conserva-\ntion,\" AAAS, Washington, D.C., 1965, 335 pp.\n32. U. S. Dept. Health, Educ. and Welfare, \"Motor Vehicles, Air Pollution,\nand Health,\" U. S. Govt. Printing Off., Washington, D.C., 1962, 459 pp.\n33. Bostick, W. H., \"Experimental Study of Ionized Matter Projected Across\na Magnetic Field,\" Phys. Rev., 104, 292-299, 1956.\n34. Anon., \"New Light on 'Flying Saucers'\", U. S. News and World Report,\nMarch 20, 1967, p. 16.\n35. Cobine, J. D., \"Gaseous Conductors - Theory and Engineering Applica-\ntions,\" Dover Publ., New York, 1958, 606 pp.\n36. Francis, Gordon, \"Ionization Phenomena in Gases,\" Butterworth Sci.\nPubl., London, 1960, 300 pp.\n37. Battan, L. J., \"Radar Meteorology\", Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago,\n1959, 161 pp.\n38. Vonnegut, B., C. B. Moore, and C. K. Harris, \"Stabilization of a\nHigh-voltage Discharge by a Vortex, J. Met., 17, 468-471, 1960.\nSCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND UFOS\nJames E. McDonald*\nPresented January 26, 1968, at a General Seminar of the\nUnited Aircraft Research Laboratories, East Hartford, Conn.\nScience has, over the past few centuries, erected a strong framework of\nfact and theory that successfully compasses much of our experience. On this\nimpressive and steadily rising framework are supported our ever-broadening\ntechnologies - the kinds of technologies so well represented by the aerospace\ntechnology in which many of you are engaged. These Laboratories here in East\nHartford where we are meeting today exemplify the symbiotic interrelations of\ntechnology and science that mutually support and nurture both of these impor-\ntant activities of modern man.\nSome Truisms About Science, Technology, and UFOs:\nA truism about science that has strong bearing on what I shall be saying\nto you concerning the UFO problem is this: Proud as we can be of today's\ncumulative record of scientific exploration of the world about us, we cer-\ntainly do not yet know all that deserves the name of fundamental scientific\nknowledge. Indeed, do we not all subscribe to the spirit of the closing\nlines of Alfred Noyes' moving trilogy about science, \"The Torchbearers\",\n\"Who that has once seen how truth leads on to truth\n,Shall ever dare to set a bound to knowledge?\"\nA truism about technology that has strong bearing on what I shall be\nsaying about UFOs today is this: Given time, an edifice of expanding tech-\nnology far more impressive than that which we see about us in 1967 could be\nerected simply on the basis of the present stock of fundamental scientific\nknowledge. The magnitude of the technological edifice that will grow with\nthe seemingly exponential increase of future scientific discoveries is vastly\ngreater, unforeseeably greater than our current technology.\nA truism about modern man's outlook on nature and on his place therein\nthat has strong bearing on the present status of the UFO problem is this:\nIn his centuries-long struggle out of slavery to superstition and fear of the\nsupernatural, modern science-oriented man has developed subtle but well-\ningrained dispositions to reject observations and reports of the anomalous\nand the inexplicable; and that rejection is the more vehement the farther the\nobservations seem to lie beyond the pale of present-day science.\nFinally, a truism about UFOs themselves: Today, as for the past twenty\nyears of \"the UFO era\", a majority of scientists tend to view UFOs as a non-\nsense problem, one deserving only scorn or silent disdain. Throughout the\nentire world, only a small handful of scientists have taken the trouble to\nattempt direct checks on the puzzling and recurrent reports of UFO phenomena;\ncompared with that handful, there has been a large and rather vocal group who\nhave either explicity or indirectly ridiculed the notion that there might be\nunconventional craft-like objects operating over our planet, and their scoff-\ning has been based not upon extensive personal investigations of UFO reports\nbut primarily upon a priori considerations. Most of this scorn has been\ndirected against the suggestion that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin\n(Ref. 1). Because I shall be referring to this latter idea frequently here,\nI shall use ETH to denote the extra-terrestrial hypothesis concerning UFOs.\nIt will here imply the hypothesis that UFOs are some kind of extraterrestrial\nprobes or vehicles, products of some technology other than our own.\n* Dr. J. E. McDonald is Senior Physicist, Institute of Atmospheric Physics,\nand Professor, Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona, Tucson.\n2\nOther Hypotheses Competitive with the ETH:\nAlthough I shall not here examine them in any detail, it will be well to\nlist the principal alternative hypotheses for accounting for UFOs. One can\ngroup them usefully into the following eight categories: 1) Hoaxes, fabrica-\ntions, and frauds; 2) Hallucinations, mass hysteria, rumor phenomena; 3) Lay\nmisinterpretations of well-known physical phenomena (meteorological, astro-\nnomical, optical, etc.) 4) Advanced technologies (test vehicles, satellites,\nre-entry phenomena, etc.) 5) Poorly understood physical phenomena (rare\natmospheric-electrical effects, cloud phenomena, plasmas of natural or tech-\nnological origin, etc.) 6) Poorly understood psychological phenomena;\n7) Extraterrestrial probes, i.e., the ETH; 8) Messengers of salvation and\noccult truth.\nSkeptical scientists with limited exposure to the UFO record generally\nprefer to think that UFO reports can be explained adequately by some admix-\nture of hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and perhaps occasionally 4. If they have given\nthe existing UFO literature (Ref. 2) more than cursory inspection, they may\nsomewhat grudgingly add that possibly hypothesis 5 warrants study, since\nsomething of real scientific interest (perhaps in atmospheric physics, say)\nmight be learned by a closer examination of selected reports.\nI have encountered a substantial number of skeptical laymen, aware that\nmany UFO reports seem to comprise credible accounts of machine-like objects\nmaneuvering in our atmosphere in unusual manner, who prefer hypothesis 4.\nIn 1947 and 1948, when UFO reports first exploded into public attention,\nhypothesis 4 was a sensible working hypothesis. However, persons familiar\nwith the state of present-day technology and with the serious difficulty of\nkeeping entirely secret any new and massive block of technology of the sort\nthat would be required to produce craft matching the performance character-\nistics of UFOs, do not today seriously consider hypothesis 4. I reject it\ncategorically as an explanation of any but occasional reports of inherently\nsmall interest (re-entry luminosity, unaccounted sonic booms, sunlit con-\ntrails, etc.). A recently-published book by Bloecher (see Ref. 2) has strong\nbearing on hypothesis 4, since Bloecher has uncovered over 800 UFO sightings\nin an approximately two-week period in the summer of 1947, when the \"flying\nsaucers\" first received public attention. Many of those reports are essen-\ntially similar to 1967 sightings; so one seems forced to say that at least\nas early as 1947 (and probably substantially earlier), the UFOs were with us.\nTo assert that some secret technology was, right after World War II, produc-\ning superlative vehicles still far beyond the known state of propulsion tech-\nnology should sound particularly unbelievable here at United Aircraft. I say\nthat all such ideas centered on hypothesis 4 can be regarded as having only\nvanishingly small probability of explaining the UFO puzzle.\nPersons subscribing (often fervently) to hypothesis 8 have undoubtedly\ncontributed in a significant way to discrediting the UFO problem. Cultist\nand crackpot ideas abound in a garish \"literature\" of paperbacks and magazine\narticles, mainly aimed at the suggestion that the Space Brothers from Venus,\nMars, and Saturn are here to save us from such hazards as \"unbalancing the\natomic state of the upper atmosphere with H-bomb radiations\". This all-too-\nvisible group is frequently identified by scientists as constituting the\ntotality of those who take seriously the UFO problem. To lump serious\nstudents of the UFO problem together with the cultist-crackpot fringe is an\nerror that results simply from limiting one's examination to a superficial,\narmchair approach to the UFO record. One can, in fact, easily and quickly\nseparate the crackpots and identify the serious investigators. Regrettably\nfew scientists have yet taken the trouble to do so (Ref. 3).\n3\nMirages and Ball Lightning:\nOne of the few scientists who have examined a substantial number of UFO\nreports and still scorn hypothesis 7 is Dr. Donald H. Menzel, former Director\nof Harvard Observatory. His second book (Ref. 4) is chiefly aimed at explain-\ning UFOs in terms of hypothesis 3 and especially in terms of atmospheric-\nphysical phenomena (refractive anomalies, mirages, meteorological optical\neffects, etc.). In a small fraction of all the reports he treats, he adduces\nhypotheses 1, 2, or 4; but mainly he stresses hypothesis 3. I have elsewhere\n(Ref. 5) cited a number of specific examples of objections to Dr. Menzel's\napproach in explaining away UFO reports. A characteristic defect of his\ntreatment is, in my opinion, his use of arguments that are perhaps qualita-\ntively reasonable but definitely not quantitatively reasonable. In other\ninstances, I would object that he simply ignores essential parts of the sight-\ning in arriving at his conclusion.\nIn the famous July 24, 1948, Chiles-Whitted sighting over Montgomery,\nAlabama, involving two experienced Eastern Airlines pilots, Dr. Menzel insists\non the \"meteor\" explanation of the fast, glowing object that passed a DC-3 on\nnear-collision course, despite the clear-cut testimony by both men that, just\nas the object passed on their starboard side, it executed an abrupt pull-up.\nI have recently interviewed both Chiles and Whitted, confirming this important\npoint and many others that cannot be squared with the \"meteor\" explanation\nthat Dr. Menzel stresses, that Air Force consultant Dr. J. A. Hynek first pro-\nposed in 1949, and that Air Force Project Bluebook officially accepted as its\nexplanation a half-dozen years ago (see, e.g., Ref. 6). Both pilots reiterated\nto me, quite recently, that each saw square ports or windows along the side of\nthe fuselage-shaped object from the rear of which a cherry-red wake emerged,\nextending back 50-100 feet aft of the object. To term this a \"meteor\" is not\neven qualitatively reasonable. One can reject the testimony; but reason for-\nbids calling the object a meteor.\nAnother example of both Dr. Menzel's and Project Bluebook's insistence on\nexplanations that are not even qualitatively reasonable can be found in a\nmultiple-witness sighting at Vandalia, Ohio on the morning of March 8, 1950.\nDespite the fact that the object was sighted in daytime condition by several\npilots in the air (hence viewing the glowing object through a windshield and\nviewing it from a moving platform), Dr. Menzel concludes (with Bluebook) that\nthis was a case of the planet Venus misidentified as a UFO. That ground radar\nat Wright Patterson AFB got an echo from the unknown, he explains away as due\nto a radar return from an \"ice cloud\", ignoring the point that only in the\nclosing portions of the extended observation were clouds present. Two F-51\npilots were scrambled and, by Dr. Menzel's own admission, had no difficulty in\nclimbing up with the object in steady view (until a cloud deck finally inter-\nfered). Anyone who has tried to find Venus and then to keep it located while\nengaged in even the slightest distractive activity will surely agree that it\nis essentially out of the question for a fighter-pilot to execute flight\nmaneuvers and keep Venus identified in daytime conditions. Still more quali-\ntatively unreasonable is the testimony of one of the commercial airline pilots,\nwhom I have quite recently located and interviewed. TWA Capt. Dean Miller,\ninbound to Vandalia, saw the object dead ahead of his plane, in a direction\nnot at all matching Venus' sky-location; and, while he had it well in sight,\nobserved the shiny or glowing elongated object move out from its hovering\nposition and climb through a ninety-degree arc to another position again\ninconsistent with Venus' position in the southeastern sky. The fact that one\nmilitary pilot objected to the Bluebook Venus explanation on grounds that he\nlooked in the same part of the sky the following day and found no such object\nas he had pursued in his F-51, Dr. Menzel explains away as follows:\n\"\nweather conditions the first day would have distorted\nthe image and made it unlike the pale light of Venus\n4\noccasionally visible in the daytime. It was not visible\nat all the following day because of different weather\nconditions.\n\"\nAre any quantitative arguments offered to support such a conclusion? No.\nAs a matter of fact, for the substantial angular altitude of Venus at the\ntime of this protracted ground-air-radar observation, nothing but direct\nsmoke- or cloud-obscuration could comprise a \"weather condition\" that would\nsignificantly affect the difficult task of finding Venus in the daytime sky.\nI here add to my previous criticisms of Dr. Menzel's approach to the UFO\nproblem because he has had what I can only view as a deleterious influence\non scientific thinking about the UFO problem. A scientific colleague of\nmine, who was in Russia not many months ago, asked many Russian astronomers\nhow they felt about the UFO problem and was told by most that Menzel had\nexplained the whole thing quite satisfactorily. I strongly disagree. Some\nof his explanations are acceptable, but the bulk of them do not seem to me\nto constitute reasonable assessments of the facts.\nBecause we always have more to learn, most scientists approaching the\nUFO problem for the first time will surely keep hypothesis 5 well in mind.\nThere may be still-poorly understood atmospheric or even astronomical\nphenomena which are being misinterpreted by observers as vehicular objects\nof unconventional nature. I agree with the importance of repeatedly assess-\ning this possibility and carefully matching it against the details of well-\nreported UFO observations. The serious difficulty with this hypothesis is\nposed by the many reports from apparently quite credible witnesses in which\nthe object seen is entirely too much like a fabricated product of technology\nmachinelike) to warrant an explanation, say, in terms of some poorly\nunderstood plasma phenomena. I have said before (Ref. 5) that attempts to\naccount for the core of the UFO problem in terms of corona-discharge and\nball lightning effects represent failure to confront the fact that the bulk\nof the important cases are not even remotely like such plasmoids. In my\nopinion, Philip J. Klass, one of the editors of Aviation Week, has yet to\nadvance arguments adequate to support his repeated contentions that UFOs are\nsimply various types of plasmoids. To be sure, plasma-like glows accompany\nmany nighttime reports of high credibility, but daytime reports of formations\nof disc-like objects flying overhead or pacing aircraft under fair weather\nconditions are not as easily subsumed under the plasmoid heading as Klass\nwould suggest.\nA report of seemingly high credibility which, interestingly enough, was\njointly heard from the eye-witnesses by Dr. Menzel, Mr. Klass, and myself,\nalong with several hundred editors of major American papers (April 22, 1967\nsession of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D.C.) is a\ncase in point. On the afternoon of May 21, 1966, we were told, Mr. William\nC. Powell and Miss Muriel McClave were flying in a Luscombe over Willow\nGrove, Pennsylvania, at about 4500 ft altitude, with 15-mile visibility.\nPowell, the pilot, has 18,000 hours to his flying record (RCAF, AAF, KLM,\nand executive-transport work currently). After a flight of Navy jets\nclimbed out under his wing from Willow Grove NAS, Powell spotted an object\nclosing on the jets from their rear. Noting absence of a vertical tail-fin,\nhe watched more closely and saw it make an abrupt (no-bank, no-slewing) turn\nof about 150 to 160 degrees and head for his aircraft. He and Miss McClave\nwatched it approach on seeming collision course at their level, until it\npassed their starboard wing at a distance Powell put at perhaps 100 yards.\nPowell said, \"It was just like looking at a Cadillac.\" The object, no\nCadillac, was described by both as a domed disc, of diameter 30 to 40 feet,\nwith a bright white dome on a red discoid base. One can reject the testi-\nmony here, of course; but it would not seem reasonable to try to account for\nthis as some refraction anomaly or other aberration of meteorological optics,\n5\nnor is it reasonable to assert that here was some peculiar fair-weather\nvariant of ball lightning. Examples equally difficult to force into those\npigeonholes are very easily multiplied, but the time at my disposal here\nprecludes the kind of extensive recapitulation of cases that can be adduced\nin support of my position (see refs. 2 and 5 for more examples).\nI have now made brief comments about all of the listed hypotheses except\n6, the psychological hypothesis. Having discussed this one with many psy-\nchologists, I am forced to the conclusion that it is quite unlikely that UFO\nreports will prove to be some globally-epidemic wave of hallucination or\npsychosis, interesting and significant as this would be. I shall not here\nsay more about it, despite having given it much thought.\nMy list of eight hypotheses is not exhaustive because other hypotheses\nstill more bizarre than, say, numbers 7 or 8 can be proposed (time-travel,\nhidden terrestrial societies, mad millionaires with secret laboratories,\netc.). However, those eight cover the most commonly proposed ideas advanced\nby persons seeking to explain the enigma of the UFOs, and perhaps I have now\noffered adequate suggestion of why I reject most of those.\nThe Official Air Force Project Bluebook Position:\nSince I have presented a fairly long discussion of the Air Force position\nand the history of its handling of the UFO problem elsewhere (Ref. 5), I shall\nnot do more than summarize here. As I studied the Air Force record, it ap-\npeared to me that, following an important turning point of 1953 (Robertson\nPanel), the official objective has been to debunk \"flying saucers\" as a non-\nsense problem that imposes a bothersome public relations burden on the Air\nForce. From visits to Wright-Patterson AFB and discussions with a number of\npersons affiliated with Project Bluebook, I conclude that only abysmally\nlimited scientific competence has been brought to the study of UFOs within\nAir Force circles in the past fifteen years. Unfortunately, during all this\ntime, the scientific community and the public were repeatedly assured that\nsubstantial scientific talent was being used in Air Force UFO studies. This\nwas untrue, and I believe that it has been scientifically disastrous to UFO\nstudies that this image was steadfastly built up.\nJerome Stanton, in a valuable analysis of the history of the UFO problem\n(Ref. 7), speaks of the way in which the Air Force \"created the impression\nthat a scientific investigation of UFOs was going on when in fact nothing of\nthe kind was being done.' Stanton asserts that \"\nuntil\nthe\nwell-publicized\nsightings of 1965 and 1966, no serious effort to do more than narrow down the\nresidue of unknowns to as small a percentage as possible appears to have been\nmade.\" I would feel obliged to comment that what he calls \"serious effort\"\nis not to be confused with \"competent scientific effort\"; to me, the record\nreveals only a rather low-powered, low-priority whitewash job by a very tiny\nproject (three persons: officer, sergeant, secretary, as of 1966 when I\nvisited Bluebook). Stanton, after reviewing a few instancesof the many out-\nrageously unscientific UFO evaluations that Bluebook has issued over past\nyears\nasks:\nWhat is the motive for identifications so absurd that they\nfool no one, destroy public confidence, and insult and anger the people who\nreport such things in good faith?\" He rejects, as do I, the suggestion that\nthe Air Force knows the UFOs are extraterrestrial and are trying to avoid\npublic panic. He concludes, as I have on basis of all evidence I have seen\nto date, that we confront here no grand conspiracy, but rather an incompe-\ntently handled operation devoid of scientific talent.\nAnother journalist who has, like Stanton, recently surveyed UFO history,\ncomes up with a rather different conclusion. In another one of the few valu-\nable UFO books to appear in a recent flood of bad ones, Mort Young (Ref. 6)\nprefers the \"grand conspiracy\" hypothesis. He states that, \"the Government\nis trying to keep flying saucers out of the realm of serious, public\n6\ndiscussion,\" and presents a number of cases which, I agree, constitute a form\nof coverup. Where I would (at present) disagree with Young is in his equat-\ning the sum of many such coverups to a \"grand conspiracy\". Rather, I remain\non record as regarding them as just a lot of little coverups of the type that\ncan become all too common in a military milieu, especially when a highly vis-\nible official position would be embarrassed by a policy of candor.\nThe UFO problem has been so badly mishandled, for so many years, by\nProject Bluebook that it is almost easier to imagine this part of a grand\ndesign of some high-level intelligence agency than to accept the conclusion\nthat any program could possibly be handled so ineptly. I have to concede a\npoint to those who criticize my position when they stress, \"It's hard to\nimagine that they could be that incompetent.\" Readers unfamiliar with UFO\nhistory cannot possibly appreciate the full force of that argument against\nwhat I nevertheless defend as the \"grand foulup\" alternative to the \"grand\nconspiracy\" hypothesis for interpreting official Bluebook handling of the\nUFO problem.\nFor the record, let me reiterate (see Ref. 5) that I have never been dog-\nmatic about insisting the \"grand foulup\" theory, and I have never scoffed at\nthose knowledgeable students of the UFO problem who defend the only seemingly\nsensible alternative, \"grand conspiracy.\" The existence of repeated small (?)\nUFO coverups so confuses the issue that one cannot be certain. The group\nwhich I regard as having made by far the most significant contribution toward\npast clarification of the UFO question, the National Investigations Committee\non Aerial Phenomena (NICAP, Washington, D.C.), has always inclined toward the\ngrand conspiracy theory. Before anyone casually pooh-poohs their position,\nhe will do well to make himself aware of the body of evidence upon which NICAP\nhas based its preference for that theory. I have attempted to examine much of\nthat evidence and can only say that it is impressive, puzzling, and argues\ncaution in defense of the grand foulup interpretation. Yet, to repeat, I\nstill see a larger fraction of the total visible evidence explained as\nfoulup than as high-level coverup. It is a big question, and I cannot do much\nmore in this limited space towards elaborating my position than the above.\nFor deserved emphasis, I wish to repeat a statement that I made to the\nAmerican Society of Newspaper Editors (Ref. 5) on the grand conspiracy theory:\nIf that theory does in fact prove to be correct, that is, if we ultimately\nlearn that for the past fifteen or more years it has been accepted at some\nhigh level in our intelligence machinery that UFOs are extraterrestrial sur-\nveillance devices, while a studied effort has been maintained to conceal that\nfrom domestic and foreign scientific view, then I shall be only one of an\noutraged body of scientists throughout the world who will ask how a decision\nto conceal such information from the world scientific community could have\nbeen arrogated to itself by any national intelligence or military organiza-\ntion. I have made this same statement before a number of scientific audiences\nin recent months, and I am deeply troubled to find that more than a few who\nhave heard it have taken the trouble to tell me that I am naive if I think\nthat such deception is out of the question. I do not wish here to pursue\nfurther this line of thought, important as it is in the minds of all who have\ndiligently examined the UFO evidence; to dwell too long on these points before\na group not already thoroughly familiar with the incredible history of the UFO\nproblem is to invite criticism of forgetting the primary scientific issues at\nstake. Just let one remark summarize: that one of the by-products of exten-\nsive study of the UFO record is a puzzled preoccupation with the coverup vs.\nfoulup question.\n7\nEvidence For and Against the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis:\nThe ETH seems, of course, absurdly improbable on both first and second\ninspection. One has two choices: intrasolar-system origin, or origin in a\nplanetary system of some distant star. The cultist easily brings in his\nspaceships from Venus, Mars, Saturn, and sometimes even Jupiter and Neptune,\nand does not bat an eye as he relates being told by the Space Brothers that\nVenus has cities and streets, fields and farms, running rivers and streams,\ntimbered hills - the works. However, scientists aware of the growing body\nof knowledge concerning conditions on the other planets of the solar system\nfind it difficult to imagine that a high technology could possibly exist on\nany other planet of our solar system, utterly fascinating as such a concep-\ntion might be.\nThat's too bad, since it crowds into a tight corner the supporter of the\nETH. He is, quite properly, confronted with the challenge to come up with\nsome answer as to how the UFOs cross the vast reaches of interstellar space\nin reasonable intervals of time. In that challenge lies the heart, I believe,\nof most present scientific rejection of the ETH - a seemingly insuperable pro-\npulsion problem. Markowitz (Ref. 1) has recently made much of this, and\nearlier Purcell and others have examined the problem with rather discouraging\nresults.\nMy own inclination (supported by months of study of the UFO evidence) is\nto appeal to the implications of that boundless future of science and tech-\nnology that we seem to be able to discern as an extrapolation of our own\npresent-day progress. What seemed absurdly impossible a century ago, we do\ntoday and take it for granted. A few weeks before the Wrights flew, noted\nastronomer Simon Newcomb published an article showing why heavier-than-air\nflight by man was out of the question. His error was simple: he failed to\nreckon with the possibility that engines of sufficiently low weight-to-power\nratio would be produced; he must have known only of Hiram Maxim's monstros-\nities. The Wrights got off the ground at Kitty Hawk with an engine of\n15 lb/hp; Manley, Langley's assistant, had one operating at about the same\ntime with a ratio of only 3.6 lb/hp. By World War II that crucial ratio was\ndriven below 1.0 lb/hp. And as the ratio went down, absolute thrust ratings\nwent up; imagine how Newcomb's aplomb would have been shattered to witness a\nthrust-test on a Pratt & Whitney turbojet in the 50,000-lb class, only one\nhuman lifetime later than his \"conclusive\" 1903 analysis.\nPropulsion is indeed very much at the heart of the ETH puzzle. So com-\npare Goddard's 1935 record of a rocket ascent to a then-impressive 7500-ft\naltitude with our rocket-technology 30 years later - and then reflect that,\nbroadly speaking, this progress was made on the basis of scientific funda-\nmentals already available well before 1935. That is, this stunning gain came\nwithout any truly new scientific insights, \"merely\" through improvements in\ninnumerable contributing technologies. When one reflects a bit along these\nlines, and recalls that, months after the first success at Kitty Hawk, Dayton\nnewspapers refused to run any stories about all those silly rumors that two\nbrothers were actually flying a machine along the interurban line on the out-\nskirts of town (it just didn't make sense), then one is disinclined to be\noverpowered by arguments of those who, like Markowitz, would reject the ETH\non grounds that nothing in our existing propulsion technology and nothing in\nour currently foreseeable technology makes \"sense\" out of the notion of inter-\nstellar travel. To be sure, we don't yet have any red hot ideas for getting\nout to Tau Ceti; but the pace and tempo of our own technology ought to give\npause to those who would insist that there are no Tau Cetians who can do that\nwhich we still regard impossible.\nI like to put it in this way: Imagine the consternation, the sheer dis-\nbelief of a Solomon Islander who, with only the most shadowy prior contact\n8\nwith twentieth-century industrial-scientific technology, suddenly found him-\nself witness to a 1942 amphibious invasion. How could the mind of one still\nin the Stone Age encompass arrival of dozens of enormous ships of all shapes,\nfrom which fire, smoke and unpleasant crashing noises spewed, and from some\nof which still other smaller ships were discharged, only to have the latter\nrun up on the beach and disgorge a bewildering variety of men and moving\ndevices out of which more noise and fire came. Imagine his puzzlement to\nthen see dozens of aircraft move over, drop bombs, strafe, and engage in\nintricate air combat with still other aircraft, the like of which we are to\nhere imagine he has never before seen. One can pursue this metaphor much\nfarther, obviously, and I believe it is a good exercise for those inclined to\narch skepticism about UFOs. For we may be like the Solomon Island Stoneager\nrelative to the bewildering variety and number of UFOs that seem to be cred-\nibly reported as operating in our environment. We cannot understand how any\nsociety could produce such devices, accomplish such feats, display as many\ncraft of such unprecedented performance characteristics, and do things that\nto us border on the miraculous. But remembering the Solomons invasion may\ngive us perspective on our own present situation; and thinking about how our\nown technology has forged ahead in mere decades may give us second thoughts\nabout Science, Technology, and UFOs.\nSo What? And So Where Next?\nSo What? I'm glad to report that I have been asked that by only one or\ntwo scientists out of the hundreds to whom I have been speaking about UFOs in\nthe past year or so. One ought not need to emphasize that if the ETH is cor-\nrect, it would constitute one of the most startling scientific revelations of\nall times. (Scientists need not look for Nobel prize material herein; the\npriority credit for judiciously arriving at and publishing the ETH concept\nappears assignable to writer Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe; his 1950 journal of pub-\nlication was True Magazine!)\nNot only would science move ahead enormously, once it got over what can\nnow only be predicted as a dreadful shock of recognition, if the ETH is cor-\nrect, but also the technological gains that could accrue from contact with\nand study of a technological society far beyond ours could be enormous. I\ncannot refrain from smiling a bit at some of the arguments made in recent\nyears in support of efforts at interstellar communication, arguments center-\ning around what I like to call the \"interstellar brain drain\", the leap ahead\nwe'd enjoy if we could make radio- or other remote-contact with high civili-\nzations far out in the galaxy. But, in principle, that argument makes good\nsense; doubters can review some facets of it in Cameron's book (Ref. 8).\nStill, there might be other consequences of a full confrontation of the\nUFO problem, consequences unforeseeable and even fraught with hazard to us\nall. I like to think not; and twenty-plus years of evidence provides a good\ndeal of reassurance, I believe. Freeman Dyson has waved aside unwarranted\noptimism about the benevolence of advanced technologies and has remarked that,\nfor all we know, technology may be a cancer sweeping across the Galaxy.\nPossibly; but I'm glad to report that a close look at the UFO evidence does\nnot suggest that we are about to be given an exposure to such a virus.\nWhat a closer look at the UFO evidence does, however, suggest is this:\nCurrent scientific attitudes towards the UFO problem must be radically\naltered. We must stop smugly laughing at \"all those nuts\" who see UFOs,\nstop accepting hollow assurances from the official agency that has so long\nand SO incredibly mishandled the UFO problem, and stop assuming that the very\nidea of our being under extraterrestrial surveillance is so amusingly absurd.\nIn past months, I have been at most of the Washington agencies one might\nexpect to take a new, hard look at UFOs. To sum up briefly my results -\n9\nzero-point-zero. Despite NASA's claim that it has keyed its whole space\nprogram to the \"search for Life in space\", NASA seems not to be even slightly\ninterested in looking into the UFO problem. Other science-oriented agencies\nmay see subtle political hazards in moving into the UFO problem. Congress\nseems indisposed to initiate any action. And at every turn one hears, \"Wait\ntill Colorado makes its report.\"\nThe Condon Committee:\nAfter the 1965 summer wave of sightings and a long series of editorial\ncriticism (Refs. 5, 7), the Air Force took steps to do something about UFOs.\nI have talked with enough persons directly and indirectly associated with the\nsequence of events that led from that August, 1965, epoch to the October,\n1966, announcement of a $300, project at the University of Colorado, to\nfeel entirely confident in saying that public relations difficulties, not\nscientific considerations, were of dominant importance in the establishment\nof the project now headed at Colorado by Dr. E. U. Condon.\nFrankly, my early hopes that the Condon Committee would work vigorously\nand open-mindedly to unravel the UFO problem have dimmed very considerably\nas time has gone by. This is not the place to elaborate in detail my growing\npessimism; but I must say, candidly, that I no longer view Dr. Condon's\napproach as either scientifically vigorous or scientifically very open-minded.\nDr. Condon has stated directly to me that he is not himself interested in\ndoing any interviewing of the witnesses in the classic cases which have led\nto the very problem he took on. And he has repeatedly indicated an almost\nwhimsical preoccupation with the crackpot and cultist aspects of the UFO\nproblem. I submit that one can easily and with confidence make a very effec-\ntive separation of the irrelevant crackpot material from that warranting\nscientific attention; hence, I find it difficult to justify Dr. Condon's\ninterest in the crackpot aspects to exclusion of consideration of reports of\npilots, scientists, engineers, law enforcement officers, and all the other\ncredible witnesses whose testimony has been so impressive to most who have\nbeen willing to examine it at first hand.\nI had hopes that the Condon Committee would prove a turning point in\nscientific confrontation of the UFO problem, and I fully understand how easy\nit is in Washington to say, \"Let's wait for Colorado.\" It makes sense; but\nonly in Washington - not in those circles where a large volume of UFO evidence\nhas already been weighed. In such circles, the present situation appears\ngloomy because of Dr. Condon's publicly expressed attitudes.\nThere are issues so sensitive here that I cannot fully discuss them in\nthe present context. But a basic prerequisite seems now to get some entirely\nnew study underway, entirely removed from sponsorship by any of the agencies\nthat have had any past responsibility for UFO studies. I do not here cry,\n\"Whitewash!\" I do not see whitewashing underway. I see, instead, a lot of\npersons whose minds have long been made up about UFOs, going through motions\nthat are not scientifically motivated, and moving in directions that do not\naugur well for early clarification of the UFO problem.\nThe situation is gloomy enough that there are days when, despite my hav-\ning been driven by my studies ever farther towards support of the ETH, with\nall of its profound implications, I almost wish someone would come along and\nshow conclusively that UFOs are just \"something seen by a lot of nuts,\"\nnothing more. Then I could forget the whole thing and get back to what I was\nworking on when I decided, in the spring of 1966, to take my first close look\nat the full history of the UFO problem. But that hope, I know, is futile.\nThe evidence is just not that weak and vulnerable. Quite the opposite.\n10\nHence, for the moment, the best plea I can make to you, as fellow-\nscientists, is to try to do as a number of us have, take a closer look at\nthe UFO evidence and decide for yourselves. Evidently the need is for a\nmuch greater weight of scientific opinion pleading for a vigorous investi-\ngation backed by ample resources. I have elsewhere indicated some of the\napproaches that I think need to be used (Ref. 5); at the moment, the problem\nseems to be slipping back to the prior level of convincing the appropriate\nagencies and persons in Washington that there really is a problem here. The\nlatter task was the one task many of us hoped Dr. Condon would perform when\nhe took on the UFO study. Instead, he appears to be deepening the problem\nby virtue of his evidently slight interest in the whole business.\nA Longer-Range View:\nAfter about eighteen months of study and direct interviewing of about\nthree hundred witnesses in important UFO cases, I can say to you that I see\nthe UFO problem as one of extraordinary scientific importance.\nI regard the ETH as the most probable hypothesis to explain the UFO\nevidence. To go from that expression of hypothesis-preference to a position\nof claiming adequate proof is no small step, needless to say. That step will\nnot be taken until quite large financial resources are behind monitoring and\nobservational programs, supported by budgets that will probably dwarf the\npresent NASA budgets. And that step will not be taken until large numbers\nof scientists in many disciplines begin to confront the enormously intriguing\nquestions posed by the UFOs. If my remarks to you today serve in any small\nmeasure to increase the number of scientists and engineers seriously con-\ncerned with the UFO problem, I shall consider my time well spent.\nReferences and Notes\n1. Markowitz, W., Science, 157, 1274, 1967. Markowitz, in concluding,\nexpressed his fear that \"21st-century science will contemplate with\nwonder the fact that, in an age of science such as ours, the U. S. Air\nForce was required to sponsor repeated studies of UFOs. Dr. Edward U.\nCondon, director of a current UFO investigation sponsored by the U. S.\nAir Force, in an interview of Sept. 27, 1967, with the Rocky Mountain\nNews, was quoted as agreeing in general with Markowitz, and more speci-\nfically paraphrased Markowitz by saying that \"the 21st century may die\nlaughing (when it looks back on the many things we have done). This\n(the Colorado UFO study) may be one.\" He stated, \"I'm almost inclined\nto think such studies ought to be discontinued unless someone comes up\nwith a new idea on how to approach the problem.\"\n2. The totality of UFO \"literature\" includes much that is scientifically\nworthless. I regard as the outstanding contribution to the more solid\nUFO literature The UFO Evidence, edited by R. H. Hall, and published\n(1964) by NICAP, 1536 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036.\nAnother very recent addition to the UFO literature that deserves wide\nstudy is a book by T. R. Bloecher, Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, also\navailable from NICAP. Recent, useful books by Stanton and Young are\ncited below. An earlier and quite significant reference is E. J.\nRuppelt's Report on the Unidentified Flying Objects, Doubleday, 1956\n(currently available as an Ace paperback). A useful source on a selec-\ntion of about 160 interesting cases is The Reference for Outstanding UFO\nSighting Reports, available from UFOIRC, Box 57, Riderwood, Maryland,\n21139. Others could be cited, but the main point stressed here is that\nthere do exist references from which a reliable estimate of the nature\nof the UFO problem may be drawn.\n11\n3. Predisposition to identify the entire UFO problem with the crackpot\naspects was particularly well-documented in the views expressed by a\nnumber of scientists interviewed as part of an hour-long program pro-\nduced in the \"CBS Reports\" series, on May 10, 1966, titled \"UFO:\nFriend, Foe or Fantasy.\" The viewer could only conclude from this\nprogram that scientists believe that UFOs are seen and discussed almost\nentirely by persons who have \"a need for miracles\", a \"need to believe\".\nMy own investigative experience runs exactly counter to this: I have\nfound that the \"believers\" are hardly interested at all in UFO reports\nper se, not needing them to back up their firm convictions. And by\ncontrast, the impressive reports come from responsible persons whose\ntypical reluctance to come forward and report what they have seen\nresults from concern that they in no way be confused with such\n\"believers.\" Scientists who condemn UFO witnesses as \"believers\"\ndeserve strong criticism for their non-scientific behavior!\n4. Menzel, D. H., The World of Flying Saucers, Doubleday, Garden City, New\nYork, 1963. The book is subtitled, \"A Scientific Examination of a Major\nMyth of the Space Age.\n5. McDonald, J. E., UFOs - Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times? pre-\nsented to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D.C.,\nApril 22, 1967. Copies of this presentation have been reproduced for\nsale by UFORI (formerly Pittsburgh Subcommittee of NICAP), Suite 311,\n508 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15219. The ASNE material\nis combined with material presented to the Outer Space Affairs Group of\nthe United Nations and material presented to the District of Columbia\nChapter, American Meteorological Society by the same writer. Inquiries\nshould be sent to the indicated address.\n6. Young, Mort, UFO: Top Secret, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1967 (paper-\nback).\n7. Stanton, L. Jerome, Flying Saucers: Hoax or Reality, Belmont Books,\nNew York, 1966 (paperback).\n8. Cameron, A. J. W., Interstellar Communication, W. A. Benjamin, Inc.,\nNew York, 1963.\nADDENDUM\nIn the discussion following the UARL presentation on 1/26/68, a number\nof floor-questions asked what specific scientific programs or investigations\nthe speaker would recommend to achieve clarification of the UFO problem. As\nindicated, a number of such recommendations are already presented in Ref. 5\nabove. A brief summary of possible scientific investigations is appended\nbelow for completeness.\n1. As someone has observed, the most important step in solving any problem\nis to recognize that there is a problem. The scientific community will take\nthis step only when a substantial number of scientists have investigated\nenough past and current UFO reports to sense that (a) an astonishingly large\nbody of observations by credible observers points to the presence of entirely\nunconventional machine-like objects maneuvering in our global airspace,\n(b) that this has been occurring for more than 20 years, and (c) that despite\nall official assurances, there has never been any substantial scientific\nexamination of this body of observations. One might hope that the Condon\nCommittee will accomplish this first step, though basis for optimism thereon\nseems to be diminishing.\n12\n2. Assuming accomplishment of Step 1, a first escalation of scientific\neffort would be justified. A number of task groups should be created to\ninvestigate certain specific questions: (a) An extremely intensive examina-\ntion should be made, on an international basis, of all known sighting reports\nfrom all accessible parts of the world. I would estimate that we probably\nknow of less than ten per cent of all sightings, due to the \"ridicule lid\"\nholding them below the level of visibility. This lid will immediately dis-\nappear upon accomplishment of Step 1, with the result that an order-of-magni-\ntude increase in reports may be expected to come to the surface almost\nimmediately. As with past reports, not all will be significant. However,\nby securing full cooperation of press and other media, rapid clarification\nof what constitutes a worthless report, what constitutes a significant report\ncan very quickly be communicated to persons in most of the countries of the\nworld. Such an educational program poses no intrinsic problems, although it\nwould require a degree of cooperation between mass media and scientists that\ndoes not now exist with respect to UFOs. Step 1 being accomplished, that\ndegree of cooperation would appear instantly, in my opinion. (b) In order\nto undertake the first adequate quantitative analysis of significant patterns\nof movements and appearances of UFOs over the globe, computer processing of\nthe suddenly increased body of available reports would be necessary. Design\nof Step 2a would have to be made with careful regard to Step 2b, to insure\neffective data-handling and data-retrieval of the large body of observational\nmaterial that would have to be processed. At the start (first few months\nonly), limitations of number of scientists with adequate familiarity with the\nUFO problem would be a handicap. My own experience leads me to suggest that\na crash-training program could be confined to a period of at most two to\nthree months for the personnel doing the design work for Steps 2a and 2b.\nFortunately, as stressed in Ref. 2 above, there does, in fact, exist a quite\nusable UFO literature upon which to draw in this initial training effort.\nOnce new reporting procedures and reporting questionnaires were designed for\ncompatibility with adequate data-processing, something like three or four\nhundred scientists in the physical and social sciences could be engaged in\nSteps 2a and 2b in a number of investigative centers distributed around the\nworld. (c) Concurrently, special investigative groups, not primarily con-\ncerned with interviewing or data-processing, should attack selected questions\nthat appear to be of high priority. For example, the moot point of UFO dis-\nturbances in large power systems clearly warrants exceedingly careful scrutiny.\nI know of about a dozen instances in which there seems to be evidence for such\ndisturbances; there is much more evidence indicating frequent presence of UFOs\nnear power facilities without any apparent system-disturbances. The fact that\na number of UFO observations accompanied the Northeast Blackout of Nov. 9,\n1965, is not widely known; that many smaller-scale electrical disturbances\nappear to have accompanied close passage of a UFO is also not generally appre-\nciated. Engineers and physicists should pursue this question as one that\nmight involve \"hazard considerations\"; their objective would be to reject or\notherwise pass on the current suspicion of some students of the UFO problem\nthat a potentially serious problem could exist in this area. Secondly, the\nlarge category of automobile-stopping cases warrants intensive study by\nengineers and physicists to try to draw from available reports implications\nfor the possible mechanism of this frequent process. Magnetic effects come\nunder serious suspicion here, though it is difficult to propose any single\nadequate mechanism at present. Thirdly, the long-rumored but only superfi-\ncially studied cases of aircraft-interferences might be studied by persons\nwith suitable backgrounds, given completely free entry into all necessary\nfiles. Fourthly, historians of various specialties should be urged to begin\ncritical review of pre-1900 sightings that seem to bear provocative similarity\nto current sightings. The important \"airship episode\" of 1896-7 constitutes\nonly a single such topic warranting the most careful study. Much amateur\n13\nspeculation on pre-1800 sightings is, at present, worthless; scholarly scru-\ntiny of this curious body of early reports might, in light of new insights\ngained from other parts of the escalated UFO studies, shed new and important\nlight on whether the UFO phenomena have been going on for much more than a\nfew decades. This has potentially important bearing on \"hazard considera-\ntions\", for obvious reasons. Fifthly, psychologists and psychiatrists should\nfocus attention on the substantial subgroup of reports (usually skirted by\nphysical scientists such as myself) in which seemingly credible and stable\nobservers have reported paranormal psychological experiences in conjunction\nwith UFO observations. Details will be skirted here, in keeping with my\nusual unwillingness to become too specific on this matter lying well outside\nmy own area of competence. Sixthly, the \"occupant problem\" should be search-\ningly explored by psychologists and biologists, armed with the most complete\navailable assemblage of reports from all parts of the globe concerning\nobservers who have reported seeing one or another type of \"creature\", \"entity\",\n\"humanoid\", etc., emerge from UFOs. At present, this subset of UFO reports\nis getting essentially no solid scientific attention. Accomplishment of\nStep 1 would immediately push this subset into a position of prominent impor-\ntance. I, myself, can only say that I am deeply puzzled by the large number\nof \"occupant\" reports of which I now have knowledge. I make no present judg-\nment, however, as to their significance. (In addition to the cited special\nprograms, a number of others would be needed, but will be omitted here.)\n3. Towards the end of the time-period needed to carry out Steps 2a, 2b, and\n2c, certain follow-on efforts would probably be undertaken. Step 3a would be\nthe deployment on a global basis of an adequate network of new UFO-sensors,\ndesigned on the basis of information assembled in previous steps of the\nescalating UFO program. Past evidence points conclusively to the fact that\nUFOs can be tracked, at least under some conditions, on radar. We already\nhave radar equipment all over the globe. Special study groups would review\nall available past data on radar-sightings to suggest best procedures for\ncollecting far more complete radar data from existing gear. On the basis of\nthat study, plus continuing efforts, new electromagnetic sensing devices\nshould be conceived and deployed. There is on record a wide range of electro-\nmagnetic disturbances accompanying close passage of UFOs (see Ref. 5, for\nexamples). Systematic searching with broad-band EM sensors, with frequency-\nscanning devices covering the full radio spectrum, and with both existing and\nspecially-designed magnetometers could, with adequate support, rapidly increase\nour knowledge of how to secure new types of objective (rather than subjective)\ninstrumental (rather than anecdotal) data on the movements of UFOs. In addi-\ntion, optical and spectroscopic techniques of observing UFOs would be devel-\noped. It is often objected that we already have many networks of radar and\noptical observing devices, but close examination of how they are set up almost\ninvariably reveals that built into such systems is a sharp selectivity, with\nprovisions to reject all \"tracks\" not satisfying pre-set criteria. Such\nselectivity is almost indispensable in monitoring systems to avoid being\nflooded with unwanted data. Our present technologies in all these areas are\ncapable of an extremely rapid improvement over the present zero-level effort\nin remote-sensing of UFOs. Much of the initial design discussions aimed at\nStep 3 could and should begin soon after Steps 2 are set in motion, possibly\nsooner. From the results of Step 3 would come the first reliable basis for\nsearching for significant patterns of UFO movements. Obviously, the search\nfor such patterns holds high priority in solving the UFO mystery.\n4. Attempts at communication, possibly in entirely novel manner not now under\nconsideration even by students of the UFO problem, should be a goal of earlier\nstudies. Interestingly, there do already exist credible reports of \"communi-\ncation\", but on a level so technologically primitive as to do injustice to\n14\nterrestrial science. That \"response\" does seem to have been obtained in a\nfew instances is intriguing. But far more elaborate techniques and systems\nare easy to imagine. Social scientists, however, need to ponder certain\n\"hazard considerations\" before Step 4 is set in motion, so there is little\npoint in attempting more specific proposals here. Along with efforts towards\ncommunication should go extensive studies aimed at elucidating propulsion\ntechniques and a host of other currently inexplicable \"performance features\"\nof UFOs.\nThe above suggestions are intended only to indicate a bit more specif-\nically the kinds of scientific efforts that one might envisage should the\n\"UFO problem\" be generally recognized as a scientific problem rather than\nthe nonsense problem that it has been regarded for the past two decades.\nTo accomplish Steps 1 and 2 might require an international-total\nexpenditure of a few tens of millions of dollars, say the price of an SST\nor a few large bombers or one small naval vessel. To go on to Steps 3 and 4\nwould, of course, involve greater total expenditures, but still at a level\nsmall compared with the international-total funding of present space programs.\nUltimately, if we are indeed under some form of extraterrestrial surveillance,\nglobal expenditures at the level of billions of U. S. dollars per year would\nbecome a small price to pay for clarification of such a profoundly important\nissue.\nThe problem of the moment, however, is to see that there is a UFO\nproblem.\n10\nni\nIIs\nE\nB\nAF Approves\nQuick, Deep\nfale\nUFO Studies\nWASHINGTON (AP)-The Air\nForce intends to contract with\na few selected universities to\ninvestigate promptly and in\ndepth certain sightings of uni-\nin\nUPI-159\n(UFO)\n1 WASHINGT ON--THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE WILL QUIZ AIR FORCE\nOFFICIALS NEXT WEEK ON THE RECENT WAVE OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT\nSIGHTINGS, IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY.\nCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN L. MENDEL RIVERS, D-SeCe, DIRECTED AIR FORCE\nSECRETARY HAROLD BROWN AND GEN. JOHN P. MCCONNELL, AIR FORCE CHIEF\nOF STAFF, TO COME PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE SIGHTINGS WITH THE PANEL\nON TUESDAY.\nTHE SESSION, WHICH WILL BE CLOSED, IS A REGULARLY SCHEDULED PART OF\nTHE COMMITTEE'S ANNUAL HEARINGS ON THE NATION'S MILITARY \"POSTURE.\"\nBROWN AND MCCONNELL APPEARED TODAY AND HAD PLANNED TO COME\nBACK TUESDAY. RIVERS TOLD THEM THAT WHEN THEY DO THEY SHOULD BRING WITH\nTHEM OFFICIALS SPECIALIZING ON UFO'S.\n3/31--WM356PES\nCPI-164\nADD UFO, WASHINGTON (UPI-159)\nTHE COMMITTEE'S ACTION WAS PARTIALLY IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST BY\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD FORD, MICH., THAT EITHER THE ARMED\nSERVICES COMMITTEE OR THE SPACE COMMITTEE CONDUCT A FULL FLEDGED\nINVESTIGATION OF THE SIGHTINGS.\nSPACE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN GEORGE MILLER, D-CALIF., SAID IF ANY\nINVESTIGATIONS PANEL. TO BE HELD IT SHOULD BE DONE BY THE ARMED SERVICES\nARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE MEMBERS STRESSED THAT TUESDAY'S SESSION\nWAS IN NO WAY TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN INVESTIGATION.\n\"WE JUST WANT TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT IT,' SAID ONE.\n3/31 --WM412PES\nChrinan Trubbe Hearings\nJro, E.Karth\nat Reat time in\n6831\nDo taget a app together\n& we fred days if dealing #\n- Closed dn At was is, Hprik\nmuch areas gavest\n- Cart. of Date eysel, as natin,\nprouts.\nfuther do you differ\nConcl. Phere was us line Pret\nThere were Foreya extra - terres In\nThose Thou 40% signted treyd\n7 universh by AF + Af came up my\nsome sal Explain or\nmexap cheer whesethere was no\nexplan Whatsoever,\nbg don't take Jession it as\nThe charamon the sed any herring we donthans\nHong itum to date i\n22 day over like 8'go into it again\nit if\nla, comm\nLearnings of\nThis 8f There The reaction Phings Phat would be dispelled\nbir guess fn UFO sight\nDrffic, ostogini found, that refer\nhandthern explained.\nbee thes parti want\nInjan See no \"reason Insurarcy\nthe people\nWe whateverfears\nments, letts sell Reen so-\nwe he conduct. mil. experi-\nOpen A heaving could become\nGangerous There are a willion nuts on\nThis Thing #\nDigns making\nnervery on This thing # Sez he Is good\nbut J. he could\nfriend of yrs t doesn't wantyon to get\nbe made to look ride culous,\ncomm. but nothing released\nKasth made rept the full\nto to public Q\nHearing were congle unperblieized\ngoral for The F\nBare Secret\nHouse Quiz\non 'Saucers'\nBy J.F. TER HORST\nChief of Our Washington Bureau\nWASHINGTON, April 2.\n-A secret investigation of\nunidentified flying objects\n(UFOS) was conducted five\nyears ago by the House Sci-\nence and Astronautics Com-\nmittee.\nThe results never were made\npublic.\nNo printed record of the\n\"hearing\" was made and there\nare no secretarial minutes.\nBut according to the man\nwho conducted the inquiry,\n\"Those Fantastic Flying\nSaucers,\" the first of two\narticles by Jean Pearson,\nis in the Passing Show Sec-\ntion (Section H) today.\nRep. Joseph E. Karth, Minne-\nsota Democrat:\n\"I am absolutely convinced\nthere are no objects visiting\nearth from other planets.\n\"I am also convinced that\npeople are not seeing the re\nsults of any exotic research\nwork bearing a top-secret label\n\"I was convinced then ano\nI am now.\"\nHEARD SPECIALISTS\nThe convincing of Karth wa:\ndone by Air Force specialist\non UFO manifestations. Ai\nForce representatives were th\nonly witnesses he interrogated\nKarth said.\nKarth said he made \"a ful\nreport\" to the committee chair\nman, the late Rep. Overto:\nBrooks, Louisiana Democrat.\nBrooks requested Karth t\ngive the report to the full com\nmittee.\n\"And that's what I did,\" h\ntold The Detroit News.\n(Concluded on Page 8A)\nUFO's\nTHE NATURE, ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF SPACE PEOPLE\nAND THEIR MYSTERIOUS FLYING SHIPS\nThe COSMIC STUDY CENTER was organized by a group of adult students, who\nare gifted with extra-sensory or super-physical perception, for the purpose of\nCosmological and Metaphysical research. We investigate fascinating phenomena\nencountered in the invisible realms of the Cosmos, the existence of which is\nacknowledged by physicists but the aspects of which extend beyond the field of\nScience.\nOne of our projects has been an investigation of the nature and origin of\nUnidentified Flying Objects, which are still mysterious to many, even though\nthey are often seen in our skies and have been visiting the Earth at various\ntimes and places down through the ages.\nDr. Carl Sagan, a Harvard University astronomer, states that \"The statistics\nwe now have on the universe suggest that the Earth has been visited many times\nby representatives from various galactic civilizations.\" Myths and legends of\nancient cultures have recorded varied descriptions of UFO sightings similar to\nthose of this Century. Such historical sightings were the prelude to today's\nworld-wide reports of the visits of Flying Saucers to all parts of our planet.\nIn addition to the invisible matter here on Earth, such as air and gas, our\nstudies support the scientific view that matter, also, exists in finer degrees\nof density likewise invisible to our physical eyes, and that each density vi-\nbrates at a different frequency or velocity--the most dense having the slowest\nand the least dense the fastest rate of vibration. Only the very dense Earth,\nhaving the slowest vibratory rate, is visible to our 3-D human eyes, but the\nothers are just as real to the beings who inhabit them as our physical surround-\nings are to us.\nIn the evolutionary process of growth, all planets and their inhabitants\nevolve successively from life in one degree of awareness to that of the next\nhigher degree of consciousness. According to our research, human life on the\nplanets of our Solar System, with the exception of Earth, has progressed to\nhigher planes of existence, which are composed of finer degrees of matter invis-\nible to our physical sight.\nOur research shows that there are on other planets beings that we cannot\nsee. This explains why the recent US spaceship that flew by Mars took pictures\nthat did not show any signs of human life on its surface. Recently, there was\na newspaper article that referred to past life on Mars. The fact that our\nscientists have reached the conclusion that these other planets do not bear\nhuman life is due to their lack of knowledge that the inhabitants have already\nevolved to a higher plane of existence and so cannot be seen by most Earth peo-\nple. Nevertheless they are there functioning at a faster rate of vibration than\nthat of our scientists who, if they land there, will find only the remnants of\nwhat they call a former civilization. This explains why Flying Saucers are\nmisunderstood and why there is no visible human life on Mars although it is said\nthat space ships come from Mars, Venus and other planets of our Solar System and\nfrom other Solar Systems as well.\nThe physical realm contains seven states or degrees of matter. We Earth\npeople exist in all seven, but we are conscious only of the three lower states\nknown as solids, liquids, and gases, The Space People of other planets exist in\nthe four higher degrees of physical matter but also can function in the three\nlower levels. The next evolutionary step for the inhabitants of Planet Earth\nwill be to raise their consciousness out of the lower into the higher degrees of\nthe physical plane, as the inhabitants of other planets of our Solar System have\nalready done.\nAn interesting point is that people functioning in the higher phases of\nlife have the ability to see into the lower ones, but people on the Earth plane\ndo not have the ability with normal physical sight to see into the higher phases.\nHowever, people with clairvoyant ability can see into these other realms, and\ncan observe other people living there.\nc 1966 Clo Diroll\n7835 Northdown Road, Alexandria, Va.\nPhone - SO 5-7982\n-2-\nSince life on each higher plane is known to function at a faster rate of\nvibration than that of the one next below it, beings who originate on these\nhigher planes normally function at a faster vibratory rate than that of the\nEarth's people. So, in order to make their spacecraft and themselves visible\nto us, it is necessary for them to lower their rate of vibration or frequency\nto synchronize with ours. This is what occurs at the time Flying Saucers sud-\ndenly appear within our octave of sight. Conversely, when they disappear from\nour range of vision, they simply increase their rate of vibration until their\noriginal vibratory rate is resumed. In other words, before we Earth people\ncan be contacted by more highly developed interplanetary Space People, their\nrate of vibration must be lowered to ours, or ours raised to theirs.\nHow do we know that they have to lower their vibratory rates? This would\nnecessarily be true because our physical eyes do not have the ability to see\ninto these higher frequencies. A few people can do this because they have\ndeveloped the faculty known as clairvoyance.\nSome of the people, who report they have ridden in space ships, may have\ndone this while they were in the sleep state. In that instance, the three-\ndimensional person took the ride in his higher dimensional body. You see, we\nco-exist in both a physical body and a spiritual body. The Center's research\nshows that the Real Self resides in the fourth-dimensional world in another\nbody, a finer body in which we travel while we are asleep when the physical\nbody is motionless. We have found that this body is, also, the same one in\nwhich we will function after we make the transition of so-called death. The\nonly difference being that when one goes out in his finer body during sleep the\nmagnetic life-line, the elastic-like \"silver cord\" which joins the two bodies,\nis not severed as occurs at the time of so-called death.\nDuring the time a person is awake, these two bodies are in perfect align-\nment, but the moment a person falls asleep or becomes unconscious for any reason,\nhis finer body moves out of and away from the physical form to distances varying\naccording to the person's stage of evolvement. The Real Self when functioning\nin this co-existing finer body can look down and see his physical body. He may\ngo to school on the inner planes and do many things that the person upon awaken-\ning usually is not aware of. On occasions when people do remember their activi-\nties during sleep, they say they had a dream. The experiences I have referred\nto are not what we would call dreams, but actual four-dimensional experiences\nwhich most people do not have the ability to distinguish between. They classify\nthem all as dreams.\nYou and I, and every human being, possess a finer body, even though most\nof us are not conscious of the fact. So-called death does not suddenly bestow\nupon a person a new body which he did not previously possess. He already has it.\nHe has had it all his life. The physical body, which is a facsimile of the other\nbody, is merely the vehicle which the Real Self uses while living on this three-\ndimensional plane.\nAccording to our research at the COSMIC STUDY CENTER, there is no death.\nThere is only a discarding of our physical garment of flesh and a continuation\nof life in our finer body on the other side of life, where we have co-existed\nsince being born here as a babe, and where we have been functioning each night\nof our earthly existence.\nWhere is this world in which our finer body functions? It is all around\nand about us. Scientific instruments such as the microscope, the telescope, and\nradar have disclosed the fact that there are many sights and sounds that our\nphysical eyes alone cannot see or hear. Our eyes and ears receive only those\nvibrations of light and sound that travel within a limited range. Beyond the\nscòpe of modern-day Science, according to the Center's research, another plane\nof existence teems with life and activity, the fourth-dimensional plane, which\nparallels the world and life we know. Some people see it and hear it by tuning\ninto its higher vibration. These people possess extra-sensory perception, which\nenables them to see, and hear, and know much that is hidden from their normal\nphysical senses.\nWe also have found that many people reach the stage of consciousness which.\n-3-\nenables their minds to get in tune with their higher or fourth-dimensional\nselves and thus acquire the ability to function consciously interdimensionally\non two planes of existence simultaneously while awake. People who possess\nextra-sensory perception have the ability to see and hear with the eyes and ears\nof their fourth-dimensional selves. Like radio and TV instruments, they tune\ninto the higher vibrations and register various light and sound frequencies\nwhich occupy the same place at the same time.\nLikewise, the fourth-dimensional plane of consciousness interpenetrates\nthis physical plane right here. It consists of seven phases of energy sub-\nstance, each having a rate of vibration faster than the preceding one--the\nlowest rate of 4-D energy substance being higher than the highest rate of 3-D\nmatter substance. For example, if one visualizes a glass bowl filled with a\nmixture of large marbles, small marbles, smaller beads, sand, and water, with\nCosmic Rays radiating through it all, one gets an idea of how varied densities\nof matter can occupy the same space at the same time.\nLikewise, various dimensions or planes of consciousness, each one having\na different rate of vibration, interpenetrate each other. The particles of the\ndifferent densities, which comprise the areas of the various interpenetrating\ndimensions or planes of existence, are distinguished from the particles of the\nadjoining dimensions by their alternating negative and positive polarities as\nwell as their varying rates of frequency or velocity.\nI mentioned earlier that the rate of vibration of Space People must be\nlowered to synchronize with our frequency before our physical eyes can see them.\nThe same thing seems to happen when we see their so-called Flying Saucers in the\nsky. Our visitors from Outer Space have this power of speeding up and slowing\ndown the vibratory rate of the matter of their ships as well as of their bodies.\nEvidence that UFOs have suddenly appeared and disappeared in the Earth's\natmosphere is provided by many verified reports from reliable observers. For\ninstance, in 1957, military personnel in Korea saw a white, luminous object\nhovering above the ground that went out suddenly and disappeared \"like a bulb\nturned off.\" According to the research of the COSMIC STUDY CENTER, the principle\nby which UFOs suddenly appear and disappear is based upon the interchangeability\nof matter and energy. Matter is energy at a slower rate of vibration. It\ndisappears from our vision when its vibratory rate is increased beyond the point\nat which matter becomes energy. Likewise, the various densities of matter may\nbe changed. Therefore, when Space People wish to disappear from our sight, they\nmerely increase their rate of vibration beyond that of ours. If they wish to\nappear to us, they simply decrease their vibratory frequency to the point at\nwhich their density is the same as ours.\nWhat is the principle of the locomotion used by these UFOs? Our research\nindicates that within each Solar System there exist powerful magnetic fields of\nforce which bind the planets to their sun and to each other. Also, we have\nlearned that from the sun emanates a balanced pattern of magnetic rays having\ntremendous negative and positive energies. Moreover, each spacecraft contains\na powerful electro-magnetic system having an instantly reversible polarity from\ngravitational attraction to magnetic repulsion. This system also nullifies or\nsuspends the pull of gravity and thus enables the ship to hover in mid-air and\nto move in any direction and at any angle. A highly magnetized pillar, towering\nfrom the center of the ship's base to the dome of the ship, is the instrument\nby which the powerful magnetic forces, which pervade all space, are used for\npropulsion purposes. Cables carry static electricity from the magnetic poles\nto condensers, which are also the landing-gear balls under one type of ship.\nThe top of the pillar is normally positive while the bottom is negative. Its\npolarity as well as the ship's direction of movement can be reversed merely by\npushing a button.\nApparently, the operators of spacecraft simply select from their charts of\nCosmic forcefields the proper ray of energy which beams to whatever planet they\ndesire to visit. In order to travel to a different planet, they merely switch\ntheir vehicle into another stream of force or energy and ride upon it faster\nthan the speed of light until they reach their journey's end. In other words,\n-4\nit appears that UFOs are not driven by propellers, or jets, or rockets. They\nare irresistably drawn to the opposite magnetic pole of the planetary field at\ntheir chosen destination.\nWhat are Space People like, and what is their purpose in visiting us? To\nus at the Study Center, they seem like elder brothers, who have experienced all\nthe sorrows and suffering that accompany the limited consciousness of Earth\npeople, who have gained spiritual wisdom and kindliness, and who have volunteered\nto come here and offer assistance by introducing to us by means of telepathic\ninspiration new concepts that they deem advisable for us to adopt at this parti-\ncular stage of our development and to help us take our next evolutionary step.\nMost of the people, who have become interested in so-called Flying Saucers,\nhave accepted them without understanding them. Now that former ridicule has\nbeen removed from the subject, this may be the time when an explanation, such as\nthis, will help clarify the situation. It appears, however, that the Space\nPeople will not be free to make themselves known to us in greater numbers until\nthey have been recognized by the Government and welcomed by an enlightened public.\nThese visitors from Outer Space have proved that they are not hostile. If\nthey had been intent upon harming us with their advanced electronic instruments,\nthey surely would have done so a long time ago. Therefore, our investigators\nhave no doubt but that the Space People are here to enlighten us, and no doubt\nthat when the time arrives that we can accept them with understanding, that they\nthen will make themselves known in a much more public way and in greater numbers.\nI would like to close with an explanation of the relationship of the fourth-\ndimensional plane to the third-dimensional plane of existence. Actually 4-D is\nthe parent of 3-D. The viewpoint that the 3-D world is the materialization of\nthe 4-D world is supported by Plato who logically assumed that the world which\nwe behold is shadowed forth from some other world beyond physical matter and\nthat the Reality of matter is something other than its physical appearance.\nAbsolute Consciousness existing everywhere simultaneously is stepped down\nfrom the ultimate source, the highest level or the 7th dimension, through a\nsequence of lower dimensions - 6th, 5th and 4th - each having a reduced rate of\nvibration, until that which was the one Unlimited Consciousness becomes veiled\nin denser energies, and finally is subjected to the limitations of lower matter,\nor 3-D. Since the ultimate source of matter and form in its final reduction of\nvelocity is in the appearance of physical matter, it is concluded that the 3-D\nphysical world would necessarily have to be the projection or child of the 4th-\ndimensional plane, rather than the reverse.\nTo summarize: It has been shown that UFOs have been visiting the Earth\nfor centuries. It has been explained that matter exists in finer degrees of\ndensity than that of air and gas. It has been suggested that our earthly civili-\nzation may be less advanced than that of the other planets in our Solar System.\nIt has been deduced that a temporary synchronization of the vibratory rates of\nboth Earth People and Space People is required for mutual visibility. The activ-\nity of the co-existing or fourth-dimensional body during sleep has been explained.\nThe principle of spacecraft locomotion has been described. The idea that the\nfourth-dimensional plane is the parent of the dense 3-D world has been supported.\nIt has been indicated that the purpose of our visitors from space is a friendly\none intended to be beneficial and enlightening to the Earth's inhabitants. In\nconclusion, let us recognize the profound effect that these revolutionary dis-\nclosures will have upon traditional religious doctrines.\nThe Detroit News\nEntertainment\nStage\nCLASSIFIED\nMovies\nTV-Radio\nColumns\nHobbies\nThe Passing Show and REAL MICHIGAN'S LARGEST ESTATER WANT AD MEDIUM\nBooks\nArt\nSUNDAY, APRIL 3, 1966\nSECTION H\nThis picture, purportedly of a flying saucer, was taken Dec. 26, 1965, at Cappoquin in County Waterford, Ireland. Large, bright area was described as plume of saucer at left-hand tip.\nARE THEY FACT, FICTION OR ILLUSION?\nThose Fantastic Flying Saucers\nScientists in 3 Special Fields Explain\nConstructed\nMichigan's Eerie UFO Sightings\nin France,\nthis concept\nof a flying\nof a number of fairly common objects,\nsaucer ma-\nBy JEAN PEARSON\nchine was un-\nDetroit News Science Writer\nsuch as a dog standing on grass, a bird in\nveiled in\nThe House Republican leader has called\nthe sky, a pile of bricks and a fire hydrant.\nJuly, 1955,\nfor a congressional investigation.\nHe projected them on the screen for a\nbut there are\nA national organization for the investi-\ngroup of viewers who hadn't seen the pic-\nno published\ntures before. Purposely, he made the pro-\ngation of aerial phenomena, with hig h-\nreports of it\njected image very blurred at first. Then\nranking, retired military officers and pro-\nflying. It has\nslowly, in stages, he put it into focus.\na diameter\nfessors on its governing board, has urged\nGiven a blur, the viewers immediately\nof almost 27\na nationwide tracking network.\ntried to determine what it was they were\nfeet.\nPeople are puzzled.\nlooking at. Once they had reached a con-\nAre the UFOs real, illusions or just\nclusion that seemed to satisfy, they clung\nnatural events people can't explain? Is the\nto it\nState Flying Object Report\nBring Plea for Federal Sif\nANN ARBOR (AP)-A Mich-\nigan congressman planned Tues-\nday to ask the Defense Depart-\nment to investigate reports of\nunidentified flying objects sight-\ned near Ann Arbor\nII, the orde D UTO study program,\n(Continued on page 2, column 5)\n1\nGRAND RAPIDS PRESS, TUES., MARCH 22, 1966\nAir Force Investigating\nReported Flying Objects\nIONIA SENTINEL - MAIR.\n23,\nANN ARBOR (AP) - As re-\nports of unidentified flying ob-\njects mounted in southeastern\nMichigan today the United\nStates Air Force began an in-\nvestigation of the many sight-\nings.\nDr. J. Allen Hynek, a North-\nwestern University astrophysi-\ncist and UFO project consult-\nant, was asked to visit the Ann\nPhoto Adds New Wrinkle to Saucers\nBy DOUGLAS BRADFORD\nthat they saw the strange glow-\nThe object in the picture\ncan account for the fact that\ning objects cavorting in the sky\ndoesn't seem to have much ma-\nWhile Air Force officials\nthe thing they saw was bright\nand that the dark area on the\nterial substance.\nand shiny with flashing colored\nprowled through the coun-\npicture represents one of them.\nNeither Paul nor his mother\nlights while the camera re-\ntryside looking for some\ncorded a dark smear.\nsign of the strange night\nPaul said his Argus F100 was\nMariannice Richwine, insist\nhe pointed it at the unidentified flying object.\nSee SAUCER-Page 13A\nTHE DETROIT NEWS, WED., MARCH 23,1966\n3-25-96\n: puty Sheriff 'Shoots' a UFO Over Michigan\nBOR, Mich. (AP)-A\ndistinct steaks of light in th\ndeputy sheriff said an\nsky high above street light\nd flying object sight-\nleading into Milan. No details (\nouthern Michigan last\nthe objects are visible in th\n1\n$\nTHE EVENING STAR, WASH., MARCH 25,1966 - FRIDAY\nNEW YORK TIMES\nTUES., MAR 72,196\n40 in Michigan Say\nA Mysterious Craft\nHovered in Swamp\nANN ARBOR, Mich.. March\n21 (UPI) At least 40 persons,\nincluding 12 policemen, said to-\nday that they saw a strange\nflying object guarded by four\nsister ships land in a swamp\nWash.Post 3-29-66\nTruth About Flying Objects\nHidden by AF, Faithful Say\nBy Howard Simons\nwhose major aims to eva-\nfied pilots and missle track-\nWashington Post Staff Writer\nluate all UFO sightings; get\ners - had sighted objects;\nFirm\nbelievers\nthe Air Force to own up to\nroughly 100,000 persons in\nthat\nunidentified flying objects\nthe \"truth,\" and to expose\nall.\nare for real and from a far-\nUFO charlatans who keep\nThe Air Force, which has\noff supercivilization met the\nseeing \"little green men.'\nbeen investigating UFO re-\na tor-\nKeyhoe and his col- ports since 1948, has stead-\nWashington Post 3-27-66\nDon't Sneer at UFOs\nBy Roscoe Drummond\ntrained observers) reported\ngent life on other planets\nYOU CAN'T dismiss the\nseeing \"flying saucers\" in\nMany scientists think other\nseven states, from Maine to\nplanets could not sustain\npossibility that some of the\nTexas to Colorado.\nsuch life. But we don't really\nunidentified flying objects,\nLast year, project Blue\nknow,\nwhich SO many people have\nBook, the small Air Force\nOne fact about the UFO:\nsighted in SO many places,\nunit created to keep tabs on\ngives me pause. There have\nare real.\n886\nre-\nsolid reports\nits\n(\n0\n1\nd\nE\n1\ne\n11\n1\ne\nn\n1\n11\nIS\na\nWASH. POST, MAR.23, 196\nWEONESDA\nFirst UFOs\nOf Season\nAre Sighted\nSpring's first flying sauce\nhave sprouted right alongsi\nthe forsythia.\nScores of people in Michig:\nhave reported strange flyir\nobjects since the weeken\nand a former fighter pilot say\nhe saw several over his B\ntherde\nNEW YORK TIMES, WED., MAR.23,1966\nTHE\n87 Michigan Coeds\nthat of a football. This wa\nroughly the same descriptic\ngiven by a man and his son wh\nand Official Sight\nreported that they saw an eeri\nobject land in a swamp Sunda\nMysterious Object\nnight 45 miles northeast of her\nnear Ann Arbor.\nThe Air Force announced\nwas bringing in Dr. H. Alle\nHILLSDALE, Mich., March\nHynek chairman of Dearbor\n22 (UPI)-A civil defense di-\nObservatory at Northwester\nrector an assistant dean and 87\nUniversity, Evanston, Ill., ar\ncoeds reported a glowing ob-\nscientific consultant to the A\nject fly past a college dormi-\nForce's Project Blue Book pro\ntory and hover in a swamp for\ngram to track down the report\nhours.\nof unidentified flying objects.\nTheir description of the ob-\nDr Hynek set un his hear\nSaucer Observers Upset\nOver Air Force Analysis\nDETROIT (UPI) - The U.S. the-scene investigation by tell- conditions that night-were suc\nAir Force closed its books Satur-\ning a press conference it ap-\nas to have produced this u:\ndav on the case of two \"visits\"\npeared \"very likely\". that\nusual and puzzling display,\" }\ndings, climaxed three days of on-larea - - and particular weather|\n(Continued on page 2, column 5)\nLa\nhe D \" de sh\nGRAND\nPRESS\nMAR.\n26\nStudying swamp gas and less\ntime watching what I took to be\nUFOS,\" she said.\nWilliam Van Horn, the Hills-\ndale County civil defense di-\nrector, said he was \"dissatis-\nfied\" with the Hynek explana-\ntion because his investigation of\nthe sighting was too brief and\nbecause he sidestepped mention\nof the report from two of the\ncoeds who said they saw the\nUFO close-up as it swept past\ntheir window.\n\"I'm not satisfied until there\nmore thorough investiga-\n.obe\nA Loes Ire\nObservers Contest\nProf's Explanation\n(Continued from page 1)\nnlikely place for a visit from\nuter space,\" Hynek said.\n\"It was in both cases a very\ncalized phenomenon,\" he said.\nI think that this is a most\nignificant point. It would seem\n\") me that the association of\n1e sightings with swamps, in\nlese particular cases, is more\nian coincidence.\"\n\"I emphasize in conclusion\n12\n1\nla\ne\n0\nI\na\nIt\n01\nIf\nr\n01\nto\nn\nF\nT\nal\nec\ne\n0\n16\ne\nf\n0\nII\nbe\n;\n0\nal\nLe\nle\nti\n01\n'o\nI\nId\nel\nit\nr\nIV\ne\nh\n01\nru\nit\n01\n(\nh\nes\n01\n;;\nIi\nUPI-18\n(UFO)\nBANGOR, MAINE--SCORES OF PERSONS -- POLICE AND CIVILIANS -- REPORTED\nSEEING UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS LAST NIGHT IN WIDELY SCATTERED\nSECTIONS OF THE COUNTRY.\nA BANGOR, MAINE, MAN TOLDAUTHORITIES HE FIRED HIS PISTOL AT A\nGLOWING OBJECT -- AND HIT IT.\n\"I COULD HEAR THE ELDERBERRY BUSHES SCRAPING AS THE THING CAME\nTOWARD ME,\" SAID JOHN KING, 22, HE SAID HE FIRED FOUR TIMES AND THE\nOBJECT -- DESCRIBED AS ABOUT 60 FEET LONG -- ZOOMED SKYWARD.\nDR. H. ALLEN HYNEK, A NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY ASTRO-PHYSICIST\nCHIEF INVESTIGATOR FOR THE AIR FORCE'S PROJECT BLUE BOOK, IS INVESTIGA-\nTING RECENT MICHIGAN SIGHTING REPORTS... HE SAID HE EXPECTED TO COMPLETE\nHIS INVESTIGATION TODAY, BUT WOULD GIVE NO INFORMATION HOW SOON HIS\nREPORT WOULD BE READY.\nTHE MYSTERIOUS NIGHT-FLYERS WERE SPOTTED LAST NIGHT NEAR TRINIDAD,\nCOLO., NOT FAR FROM THE BURIED NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENSE COMMAND\nPOST. LOUIS DI PALO, A LOCAL POSTMAN, SAID HE WATCHED THREE OF THE\nOBJECTS THROUGH BINOCULARS.\nAS IS USUAL IN CASES OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT SIGHTINGS, THE\nAIR FORCE SAID IT SAW NOTHING ON ITS SOPHISTICATED RADAR.\nIN BRYAN, TEX., POLICE SAID HUNDREDS OF PERSONS REPORTED SEEING A\n\"STAR-LIKE\" OBJECT THAT EMITTED A PURRING SOUND AND CHANGED COLORS.\nA TOMAH, WIS., WTMB RADIO NEWSMAN WAYNE EDDY SAID HE SAW A MULTI-\nCOLORED OBJECT HOVERING HIGH IN THE SKY LAST NIGHT.\n\"IT'S OF A RED, GREEN AND WHITE COLORING THAT SORT OF GOES ON AND\nOFF, HE SAID. \"IT'S HIGH IN THE AIR AND ZIPS FROM SIDE TO SIDE.\"\nTHE OBJECT, REPORTED BY MOST OF THE CITIZENS OF THE WESTERN\nWISCONSIN TOWN AND BY MAUSTON POLICE OFFICER GEORGE SUTTON, REMAINED\nNEARBY FOR ABOUT 45 MINUTES.\n-0-\nOKLAHOMA CITY--UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS ARE BEING INVESTIGATED\nIN OKLAHOMA NOW.\nAN ELECTRONICS INSTRUCTOR FOR THE AIR FORCE REPORTED A \"FISH\nSHAPED\" \" CRAFT MANNED BY AN \"ORDINARY HUMAN\" BLOCKED HIS CAR ON U.S.\n70 NEAR THE TEXAS BORDER.\nAT HARTSHORNE, IN EASTERN OKLAHOMA, THE HEAD OF THE STATE CIVIL\nDEFENSE RADIOLOGICAL UNIT WAS INVESTIGATING REPORTS THAT RADIOACTIVITY\nWAS ABNORMALLY HIGH ON LAND WHERE A UFO WAS REPORTED TO HAVE\nHOVERED.\nCIVIL DEFENSE MAJ. CHARLES We DUTREAU PLANNED TO TAKE GEIGER\nCOUNTER READINGS TODAY AT PLACES WHERE DOZENS OF HARTSHORNE RESIDENTS,\nINCLUDING THE POSTMASTER AND POLICE CHIEF, REPORTED SEEING \"CIGAR\nSHAPED\" FLYING OBJECTS.\n3/25--GE937A\nWASHINGT ON--HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD FORD, MICH., CLAIMING\nTHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE BECOMING ALARMED, TODAY CALLED FOR A\nCONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE LATEST RASH OF UNIDENTIFIED\nFLYING OBJECT SIGHTINGS.\nFOR SAID AIR FORCE INVESTIGATORS HAVE BEEN CHECKING ON SUCH\nREPORTS FOR YEARS \"BUT HAVE COME UP WITH NOTHING CONCLUSIVE.\nFORD SAID THAT IN VIEW OF THE NEW ROUND OF SIGHTINGS IT WOULD\nBE \"A VERY WHOLESOME THING\" FOR A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT\nHEARINGS. HE PROPOSED CALLING AS WITNESSES GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND\nTHOSE WHO CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN THE UF O'S.\n\"I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD FEEL BETTER IF THERE WAS A\nFULL-BLOWN INVESTIGATION OF THESE INCIDENTS, WHICH SOME PERSONS\nALLEGE HAVE TAKEN PLACE, FORD SAID IN A STATEMENT.\n-0-\nNEW OELEANS--TWO EMPLOYES OF A MISSISSIPPI MISSILE TESTING\nFACILITY, ONE A FORMER AIR FORCE OFFICER, SAID THEY SAW MYSTERIOUS\nLIGHTED OBJECTS IN THE SKY NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI-LOUISIANA BORDER\nLAST NIGHT.\nLEE R. GULLEY, A RETIRED AIR FORCE LIEUTENANT COLONEL, AND DEAN\nKISSEL SAID THEY WATCHED THE LIGHTS OF THREE UNIDENTIFIED FLYING\nOBJECTS FOR ABOUT FOUR MINUTES.\nGULLEY, A PUBLIC INFORMATION SPECIALIST FOR THE GENERAL ELECTRIC\nCO. AT THE TEST SITE FACILITY AT GAINESVILLE, MISS., AND KISSELL, A\nPROGRAM SPECIALIST, SAID THE OBJECTS APPEARED AT INTERVALS AND ALL\nWERE VISIBLE, EITHER STANDING STILL OR MOVING IN VARIOUS DIRECTIONS.\n3/25--DP1235PES\nUPI-80\nUPI-53\n(UFO)\nDETROIT - -THE U.S. AIR FORCE CLOSED ITS BOOKS TODAY ON THE CASE OF\nTWO \"VISITS\" BY UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS. IT'S VERDICT: SWAMP\nGAS.\nBUT SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO WITNESSED WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS A LANDING\nBY A GLOWING, EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL SPACE CRAFT, WERE NOT COMPLETELY\nCONVINCED THE EXPERTS WERE RIGHT.\nAND EVEN WHILE THE TWO MOST SPECTACULAR MICHIGAN SIGHTINGS NOW\nWORE THE TAG OF AN \"OFFICIAL EXPLANATION, UFO SIGHTINGS CONTINUED\nTO POP UP ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IN RURAL AREAS AND CITIES ALIKE.\nDR. J. ALLEN HYNEK, THE TOP AIR FORCE ADVISER ON UFO SIGHTINGS\nCLIMAXED THREE DAYS OF ON-THE-SCENE INVESTIGATION BY TELLNG A NEWS\nCONFERENCE IT APPEARED \"VERY LIKELY\" SWAMP GAS WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR\nMASS REPORTS OF STRANGE GLOWING OBJECTS THIS WEEK AT HILLSDALE AND\nDEXTER IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN.\nHYNEK, AN ASTROPHYSICIST FROM NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, SAID RTTING\nVEGETATION CAN RELEASE A GAS, ESPECIALLY AT SPRINGTIME, WHICH CAN GLOW\nLIKE FIRE AND EVEN MAKE \"POPPING\" NOISES. HE SAID BOTH INSTANCES HE\nINVESTIGATED TOOK PLACE IN MARSH LAND.\n\"A DISMAL SWAMP IS A MOST UNLIKELY PLACE FOR A VISIT FROM OUTER\nSPACE,\" HYNEK SAID.\n3/26--JD104 9AES\nUPI -173\n(UFO)\nANN ARBOR, MICH.-THE TOP AIR FORCE EXPERT ON UNIDENTIFIED\nFLYING OBJECTS SAID TODAY RECENT REPORTS OF A GLOWING OBJECT SEEN\nTHROUGHOUT SOUTHERN MICHIGAN ARE \"MORE CONSISTENT\" THAN MOST HE HAS\nINVESTIGATED.\nDR. H. ALLEN HYNEK OF NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, CHIEF SCIENTIFIC\nADVISER FOR THE AIR FORCE PROJECT BLUE BOOK, REFUSED TO SPECULATE,\nHOWEVER, ON WHAT MIGHT BE BEHIND THE RASH OF UFO SIGHTINGS IN\nRECENT DAYS.\nHYNEK, DRESSED IN FATIGUES AND HIP BOOTS FOR HIS CLOSE-UP\nLOOK AT A SWAMP NEAR DEXTER, MICH. WHERE A FARMER REPORTED THE\nGHOST SHIP LANDED SUNDAY NIGHT, SAID \"I'M STILL GATHERING THE\nFACTS.\nHYNEK HAS BEEN IN THE AREA SINCE TUESDAY, INTERVIEWING WITNESSES\nAND EXAMINING AREAS WHERE THE OBJECT WAS REPORTED. HIS\nINVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CARRIED ON BEHIND AIR FORCE SECRECY BUT\nHE MADE TODAY'S COMMENTS WHEN ENCOUNTERED AT THE DEXTER POLICE\nSTATION WHERE HE WAS QUESTIONING THE POLICE CHIEF AND SEVERAL\nOFFICERS.\n\"IT'S LIKE REPORTS FROM PEOPLE WHO SAW A FIRE, 17 THE\nASTROPHYSICIST SAID. \"YOU GET AS MANY DIFFERENT FACTS AS YOU GET\nPEOPLE WHO SAW THE FIRE. SO FAR, ALL I'VE BEEN ABLE TO COME UP\nWITH IS REPORTS OF A VARIETY OF LIGHTS.\n\"THESE REPORTS ARE MORE CONSISTENT THAN MOST OF THE OTHER\nSIGHTINGS I'VE INVESTIGATED,\" HE SAID.\nHYNEK SAID \"I WISH WE HAD SOME PHOT OGRAPHS OF THIS AND MORE\nTECHNICAL OBSERVERS. THE IDEAL SITUATION WOULD BE TO HAVE A\nSPECTOGRAPH TRAINED ON THE OBJECT TO DETERMINE ITS MAKEUP.\nI WISH WE HAD THEM AVAILABLE.\n\"FREQUENTLY THESE THINGS TURN OUT TO BE USUAL THINGS SEEN UNDER\nUNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SAID. HYNEK ESTIMATED THAT OF THE\nUNEXPLAINED 10 PER CENT OF UFO'S REPORTED SINCE 1948, MOST COULD\nHAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH A SPECT OGRAPH.\nHYNEK SAID THAT AS AN ASTRONOMER HE WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT THAT\n\"POSSIBLY YES, THERE ARE INTELLIGENT BEINGS IN OTHER SOLAR\nSYSTEMS, \"BUT IT'S A LONG STEP TO SAY WE ARE BEING VISITED BY\nTHEM.\n3/23--MJ622PES\nUPI-25\n(UFO)\nCOLUMBUS, GA.--AN AIRPORT CONTROL TOWER OPERATOR REPORTED SEEING A\nGLOWING, OBLONG OBJECT MANEUVERING HIGH IN THE SKY YESTERDAY. HE SAID\nIT WAS TRACKED ON RADAR.\nSIX COLUMBUS POLICEMEN, AND A CONTROL TOWER OPERATOR AT FT.\nBENNING, GA., ALSO SAID THEY SAW THE STRANGE OBJECT.\nDOYLE PALMER, AN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL OPERATOR AT MUSCOGEE COUNTY\nAIRPORT, SAID HE FIRST SPOTTED THE GREENISH WHITE, CIGAR SHAPED OBJECT\nAT ABOUT 5:30 A.M. AND THAT IT WAS TRACKED ON RADAR AT ATLANTA FOR\nOVER AN HOUR. HE ESTIMATED ITS HEIGHT AT ABOUT 5,000 FEET.\nDON HADDOCK OF RADIO STATION WDAK ALSO SAID HE WATCHED A TRIANGLE-\nSHAPED GLOWING OBJECT IN THE SAME AREA UNTIL ABOUT 7 A.M.\nALL REPORTS CONCURRED ON THE LOCATION OF THE OBJECT SOUTHEAST OF\nCOLUMBUS OVER AN ARMY RESTRICTED AREA.\n3/28--GE950A\nUPI 3\n(UFO)\n,NEWTON, N.C.--A GLOWING BLUE OBJECT STREAKED LOW ACROSS PARTS OF\nWESTERN NORTH CAROLINA ABOUT 2 Amo TODAY AND EXPLODED WITHOUT A\nSOUND OVER VALDESE.\nTHE EXPLOSION LIT UP THE TOWN LIKE A GIGANTIC FLASHBULB.\nPOLICE OFFICERS IN SIX TOWNS IN THREE COUNTIES SAID THEY SAW THE\nLIGHT. IT WAS MOVING FROM EAST TO WEST.\nOFFICER MELVIN BARLOWE OF THE NEWTON POLICE DEPARTMENT IN CATAWBA\nI\nCOUNTY SAID IT LOOKED LIKE A \"BIG BLUE BOLT WITH FIRE ARCING OFF THE\nEDGES.\" HE SAID IT MADE NO SOUND WHEN IT PASSED.\nBARLOWE ESTIMATED ITS ALTITUDE TO BE 1,000 FEET. HE COULD NOT\nESTIMATE ITS SPEED.\n\"WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AROUND HERE THAT COULD CATCH IT,\" HE SAID.\n\"NO SWAMP GAS OR NOTHING LIKE THAT COULD MOVE THAT FAST.\n:\n3/28--GE1107A\nUPI-95\nDAYTON, (UFO) OHIO--AN AIR FORCE SPOKESMAN SAID TODAY AN UNIDENTIFIED\nFLYING OBJECT SEEN \"HOVERING\" OVER WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE\nSATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY WAS THE PLANET VENUS.\nMAJ. HECT OR QUINTANILLA, PROJECT OFFICER OF THE AIR FORCE'S PROJECT\nBLUE BOOK, WHICH INVESTIGATES REPORTS OF SUCH UNIDENTIFIED PHENOMENA,\nSAID ALL TECHNICAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE SHOWED THE OBJECT \"COULDN'T\nBE ANYTHING ELSE BUT VENUS.\nQUINTANILLA SAID THAT VENUS PRESENTLY IS OF A MAGNITUDE OF MINUS\n4+1 AND THAT THE BRIGHTEST IT GETS IS MINUS 4.3.\nTHE AIR FORCE REQUESTED FILM OF THE SIGHTINGS TAKEN BY AN OHIO\nHIGHWAY PATROL OFFICER. THE PATROL SAID IT MUST CLEAR RELEASE OF THE\nFILM WITH ITS DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS BEFORE TURNING OVER ANY PICTURES\nTO THE AIR FORCE.\n3/28--GE131P\nUPI-78\n(UFO)\nWARREN, MICH. -THREE PERSONS INCLUDING TWO POLICEMEN SAID THEY\nSAW WIERD FLYING OBJECTS NEAR HERE EARLY TODAY. ONE MAN SAID HE TOOK\nPICTURES OF A SILENT CIGAR-SHAPED VEHICLE.\nTHE TWO SIGHTINGS WERE REPORTED ABOUT 50 MILES NORTH OF THE\nSOUTHERN MICHIGAN AREA WHERE MASS SIGHTINGS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING\nOBJECTS LAST WEEK TOUCHED OFF AN AIR FORCE INVESTIGATION. AN AIR\nFORCE SCIENTIST ATTRIBUTED LAST WEEK'S REPORTS TO LUMINOUS SWAMP GAS.\nMAC OMB COUNTY PATROLMAN KENNETH STEPHENS SAID HE AND ANOTHER\nOFFICER SAW STRANGELY MOVING INTENSE WHITE LIGHTS IN THE SKY OVER\nNEARBY SHELBY TOWNSHIP. HE SAID THEY FELL SWIFTLY, VEERED INTO A\nSWAMPY AREA AND VAISHED.\nARTHUR W. FIEDLER OF WARREN TOLD STATE POLICE HE PHOTOGRAPHED A\nCIGAR-SHAPED FLYING OBJECT WITH A RED LIGHT IN FRONT AND A WHITE LIGHT\nIN BACK. HE SAID THE OBJECT WAS ABOUT THE SIZE OF AN AIRPLANE BUT HAD\nNO WINGS AND MADE NO NOISE.\nOTHER SHELBY TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS REPORTED SIGHTINGS SIMILAR TO THOSE\nBY THE TWO POLICEMEN.\nOFFICERS SAID THEY SEARCHED THE AREA BUT FOUND NOTHING.\nTHREE POLICEMEN SAID THEY SAW A LIGHT BLUE OBJECT VEER THROUGH THE\nSKY JUST AFTER DAYBREAK SUNDAY NEAR BAD AXE, MICH., ABOUT 80 MILES\nNORTH OF HERE.\n3/28--BA1235PES\nUPI-174\n(UFO)\nWASHINGTON--JEANE DIXON, SELF-STYLED PROPHETESS WHO HAS BEEN\nFORETELLING THE FUTURE FOR THREE DECADES, THINKS THAT UNIDENTIFIED\nFLYING OBJECTS ARE OF TERRESTIAL ORIGIN.\n\"I THINK THEY ARE PLANES OR MILITARY CRAFT OF SOMEKIND--BUT\nNOT FROM OUTER SPACE,' SHE TOLD UPI TODAY. \"I THINK THEY ARE\nFROM THE OTHER SIDE--THEY ARE EITHER FROM THE ENEMY, RUSSIA, JAPAN\n[\n(CORRECT) CHINA OR OUR OWN AIR FORCE.\"\nSHE SAYS SHE GETS HER PREDICTIONS FROM A PSYCHIC REACTION--A\nKIND OF VIBRATION.\nSHE SAID SHE DOES NOT GET ATMOSPHERIC VIBRATIONS THAT THE\nUF O'S NOW BEING SIGHTED IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE U.S. ARE\nEXTRATERRESTRIAL. AND THE UFO'S SIGHTED IN PAST YEARS WERE\n\"DEFINITELY NOT, SHE SAID.\n3/23--MJ626PES\nUPI-18\n(UFOS)\nHILLSDALE, MICH. AN AIR FORCE INVESTIGATING TEAM TODAY LOOKED\nOVER FARM FIELDS AND INTERVIEWED PERSONS WHO HAVE REPORTED A RASH\nOF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS.\nSCORES OF PERSONS, RANGING FROM FARMERS TO POLICEMEN TO COLLEGE\nCOEDS AND A DEAN, SAID THEY SAW THE HOVERING OBJECT DURING THE PAST\nFEW DAYS.\nDR. H. ALLEN HYNEK, THE TOP AIR FORCE SCIENTIFIC ADVISER ON\nUNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS, YESTERDAY QUIZZED A FARM FAMILY NEAR\nANN ARBOR, MICH. FRANK MANNOR, THE FARMER, HAD REPORTED THAT A\nPULSATING OBJECT LANDED IN A SWAMP ON HIS LAND SUNDAY AND WAS\nOBSERVED BY HIS FAMILY AND BY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES.\n3/23--JD10AES\nCOPY\nMarch 28, 1966\nRep. George P. Miller, Chairman\nRep. L. Mendel Rivers, Chairman\nScience and Astronautics Committee\nArmed Services Committee\nU. S. House of Representatives\nU. S. House of Representatives\nWashington, D.C.\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Chairmen Miller and Rivers:\nNo doubt you have noted the recent flurry of newspaper stories about\nunidentified flying objects (UFO's). I have taken special interest in\nthese accounts because many of the latest reported sightings have been\nin my home state of Michigan.\nThe Air Force sent a consultant, astrophysicist Dr. J. Allen Hynek of\nNorthwestern University, to Michigan to investigate the various reports;\nand he dismissed all of them as the product of college student pranks or\nswamp gas or an impression created by the rising crescent moon and the\nplanet Venus. I do not agree that all of these reports can be or should\nbe so easily explained away.\nBecause I think there may be substance to some of these reports and\nbecause I believe the American people are entitled to a more thorough\nexplanation than has been given them by the Air Force to date, I am\nproposing that either the Science and Astronautics Committee or the\nArmed Services Committee of the House schedule hearings on the subject\nof UFO's and invite testimony from both the executive branch of the\ngovernment and some of the persons who claim to have seen UFO's.\nI enclose material which I think will be helpful to you in assessing the\nadvisability of an investigation of UFO's.\nMay I first call to your attention a column by Roscoe Drummond, published\nlast Sunday in which Mr. Drummond says, \"Maybe all of these reported\nsightings are whimsical, imaginary or unreal; but we need a more credible\nand detached appraisal of the evidence than we are getting.\"\nMr. Drummond goes on to state, \"We need to get all the data drawn together\nto one place and examined far more objectively than anyone has done so far.\nA stable public opinion will come from a trustworthy look at the evidence,\nnot from belittling it.\"\n\"The time has come for the President or Congress to name an objective and\nrespected panel to investigate, appraise, and report on all present and\nfuture evidence about what is going on.\"\nI agree fully with Mr. Drummond's statements. I also suggest you scan\nthe enclosed series of six articles by Bulkley Griffin of the Griffin-\nLarrabee News Bureau here. In the last of his articles, published last\nJanuary, Mr. Griffin says, \"A main conclusion can be briefly stated. It\nis that the Air Force is misleading the public by its continuing campaign\nto produce and maintain belief that all sightings can be explained away\nas misidentification of familiar objects, such as balloons, stars, and\naircraft.\"\nI have just today received a number of telegrams urging a congressional\ninvestigation of UFO's. One is from retired Air Force Col. Harold R. Brown,\nArdmore, Tennessee, who says, \"I have seen UFO. Will be available to\ntestify.\"\nAnother, from Mrs. Ethyle M. Davis, Eugene, Oregon, reads, \"Nine out of\nten people want truth of UFO's Press your investigation to the fullest.\"\n(MORE)\nRep. George P. Miller, Chairman\nRep. L. Mendel Rivers, Chairman\nPage Two\nMarch 28, 1966\nRonald Colier of Los Angeles, who identifies himself as \"a scientist from\nM.I.T.,\" urges that you \"do everything in your power to make Air Force\nProject Blue Book (the AF name for its study and verdicts on UFO reports)\nknown to the people.\"\nAre we to assume that everyone who says he has seen UFO's is an unreliable\nwitness?\nA UPI story out of Ann Arbor, Michigan, dated March 21, 1966, states that\n\"at least 40 persons, including 12 policemen, said today that they saw\na strange flying object guarded by four sister ships land in a swamp near\nhere Sunday night.\"\nMatt Surrell of Station WJR, Detroit, cites an eye witness account of a\nrecent UFO sighting by Emile Grenier of Ann Arbor, an aeronautical engineer\nemployed by Ford Motor Company. He points out that an aeronautical\nengineer can hardly be considered an untrustworthy witness.\nIn the firm belief that the American public deserves a better explanation\nthan that thus far given by the Air Force, I strongly recommend that there\nbe a committee investigation of the UFO phenomena.\nI think we owe it to the people to establish credibility regarding UFO's\nand to produce the greatest possible enlightenment on this subject.\nKindest personal regards.\nSincerely,\n/s/\nGerald R. Ford, M.C.\nGRF:plr\nEnclosures\n###\nUPI-173\n(UFO)\nANN ARBOR, MICH.-THE TOP AIR FORCE EXPERT ON UNIDENTIFIED\nFLYING OBJECTS SAID TODAY RECENT REPORTS OF A GLOWING OBJECT SEEN\nTHROUGHOUT SOUTHERN MICHIGAN ARE \"MORE CONSISTENT\" THAN MOST HE HAS\nINVESTIGATED.\nDR. H. ALLEN HYNEK OF NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, CHIEF SCIENTIFIC\nADVISER FOR THE AIR FORCE PROJECT BLUE BOOK, REFUSED TO SPECULATE,\nHOWEVER, ON WHAT MIGHT BE BEHIND THE RASH OF UF O SIGHTINGS IN\nRECENT DAYS.\nHYNEK, DRESSED IN FATIGUES AND HIP BOOTS FOR HIS CLOSE-UP\nLOOK AT A SWAMP NEAR DEXTER, MICH. WHERE A FARMER REPORTED THE\nGHOST SHIP LANDED SUNDAY NIGHT, SAID \"I'M STILL GATHERING THE\nFACTS.\"\nHYNEK HAS BEEN IN THE AREA SINCE TUESDAY, INTERVIEWING WITNESSES\nAND EXAMINING AREAS WHERE THE OBJECT WAS REPORTED. HIS\nINVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CARRIED ON BEHIND AIR FORCE SECRECY BUT\nHE MADE TODAY'S COMMENTS WHEN ENCOUNTERED AT THE DEXTER POLICE\nSTATION WHERE HE WAS QUESTIONING THE POLICE CHIEF AND SEVERAL\nOFFICERS.\n\"IT'S LIKE REPORTS FROM PEOPLE WHO SAW A FIRE, \" THE\nASTROPHYSICIST SAID. \"YOU GET AS MANY DIFFERENT FACTS AS YOU GET\nPEOPLE WHO SAW THE FIRE. SO FAR, ALL I'VE BEEN ABLE TO COME UP\nWITH IS REPORTS OF A VARIETY OF LIGHTS.\n\"THESE REPORTS ARE MORE CONSISTENT THAN MOST OF THE OTHER\nSIGHTINGS I'VE INVESTIGATED,\" 17 HE SAID.\nHYNEK SAID \"I WISH WE HAD SOME PHOT OGRAPHS OF THIS AND MORE\nTECHNICAL OBSERVERS. THE IDEAL SITUATION WOULD BE TO HAVE A\nSPECTOGRAPH TRAINED ON THE OBJECT TO DETERMINE ITS MAKEUP.\nI WISH WE HAD THEM AVAILABLE.\n\"FREQUENTLY THESE THINGS TURN OUT TO BE USUAL THINGS SEEN UNDER\nUNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SAID. HYNEK ESTIMATED THAT OF THE\nUNEXPLAINED 10 PER CENT OF UFO'S REPORTED SINCE 1948, MOST COULD\nHAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH A SPECT OGRAPH.\nHYNEK SAID THAT AS AN ASTRONOMER HE WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT THAT\n\"POSSIBLY YES, THERE ARE INTELLIGENT BEINGS IN OTHER SOLAR\nSYSTEMS, \"BUT IT'S A LONG STEP TO SAY WE ARE BEING VISITED BY\nTHEM.\n3/23--MJ622PES\nUPI-174\n(UFO)\nWASHINGT - JEANE DIXON, SELF-STYLED PROPHETESS WHO HAS BEEN\nFORETELLING THE FUTURE FOR THREE DECADES, THINKS THAT UNIDENTIFIED\nFLYING OBJECTS ARE OF TERRESTIAL ORIGIN.\n\"I THINK THEY ARE PLANES OR MILITARY CRAFT OF SOMEKIND-- BUT\nNOT FROM OUTER SPACE, IT SHE TOLD UPI TODAY. \"I THINK THEY ARE\nFROM THE OTHER SIDE--THEY ARE EITHER FROM THE ENEMY, RUSSIA, JAPAN\n(CORRECT). CHINA OR OUR OWN AIR FORCE. \"\nSHE SAYS SHE GETS HER PREDICTIONS FROM A PSYCHIC REACTION--A\nKIND OF VIBRATION.\nSHE SAID SHE DOES NOT GET ATMOSPHERIC VIBRATIONS THAT THE\nUF O'S NOW BEING SIGHTED IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE U.S. ARE\nEXTRATERRESTRIAL. AND THE UFO'S SIGHTED IN PAST YEARS WERE\n\"DEFINITELY NOT SHE SAID.\n3/23--MJ626PES\nUPI-18\n(UF OS )\nHILLSDALE, MICH. AN AIR FORCE INVESTIGATING TEAM TODAY LOOKED\nOVER FARM FIELDS AND INTERVIEWED PERSONS WHO HAVE REPORTED A RASH\nOF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS.\nSCORES OF PERSONS, RANGING FROM FARMERS TO POLICEMEN TO COLLEGE\nCOEDS AND A DEAN, SAID THEY SAW THE HOVERING OBJECT DURING THE PAST\nFEW DAYS.\nDR. H. ALLEN HYNEK, THE TOP AIR FORCE SCIENTIFIC ADVISER ON\nUNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS, YESTERDAY QUIZZED A FARM FAMILY NEAR\nANN ARBOR, MICH. FRANK MANNOR, THE FARMER, HAD REPORTED THAT A\nPULSATING OBJECT LANDED IN A SWAMP ON HIS LAND SUNDAY AND WAS\nOBSERVED 3/23--JD10AES BY HIS FAMILY AND BY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES.\n2\nPartland, Maine, Evening Express, Manday, Jan. 17, 1966\nThose Flying Saucers'\nAir Force Explainings-Away Of UFOs\nDeepens Mystery\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This la\nan apparent Air Force lack of and curious than ever about\nof the UPO performance. On\n\"Reports poured In\" from\n\"The Air Force contends\nthe office of Congressman John\nenthustasm - especially at high\nthese strange, usually lighted.\nTuesday. Aug 3. The New York\n21 cities and towns. continued\nmost of the sightings were\nJarman (D) of the Oklahoma\nthe first of a series about\nlevels - to do a thorough job\nobjects in the sky. The Air\nTimes and other newspapers\nthe AP dispatch The 21 are\nprobably stars or planets\nCity Congressional District and\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\nof investigating sightings\nForce and the burdened Project\ncarried an Associated Press\nnamed Seven are listed in Tex-\nIt was the fourth consecutive\nto the National Investigations,\nJacia) by Bulkley S. Griffia,\nBlue Book have often resorted\ndispatch from Oklahoma City,\nas. three in New Mexico. five\nnight of UFO sightings\nA\nCommittee on Aerial Phenom-\nassentive editor of the Evening\nHEADQUARTERS of the Air\nto the expedient of lumping a\ndated Aug 2 It began:\nin Oklahoma and six in Kan-\nlot of people took Issue with\nena (NICAP) in Washington a\nExpress Washington Bureau.\nnumber of sightings together\n\"Authorities in Texas. New\nsas.\nForce investigation and conclu-\nthe Air Force's claim that they\nsummary of the teletype 10-\nlic wrote the stories after via-\nsions on unidentified flying ob-\n- not naming any particular\nMexico. Oklahoma and Kansas\nwere stars or planets.\"\nports sent into the Oklahoma\nthing the UFO office of the\none and furnishing a gener-\nwere deluged last night and\nTHE UNITED PRESS Inter-\njects - they call the enterprise\nHighway Patrol Communica-\nU.S. Als Force.\nalized catch-all explanation.\nearly today (Aug. 2. by reports\nnational, In a dispatch in the\nIt can be mentioned in pass-\nProject Blue Book - is at\ntions Network Center July 31-\nof unidentified objects seen\nevening of Aug. 2. named eight\ning that radar does not pick\nWright Petterson Air Force\nAug. 5, from the verious high-\nun stars OF planets\nose Flying Saucers'\nPortland. Maine, Evening Express, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 1966\nHighway Patrol Report Fires Controversy Over UFOs\nSecond. no radar sighting is\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nBlue Book. the latter the name\nOklahoma City stated flatly\ned four of the objects\nOkla-\non the highway patrol wire on\nadmitted This is despite the\nthe second of a series about\nfor the Alr Force investigation\nthat Tinker and Carswell both\nhoma Highway Patrol Units 30\nAugust 1st\". it is stated in the\nHighway Patrol's report of\nUFOs (unidentified fiying ob-\nof UFOs\nhad the UPO on radar.\nand 40 have also made visual\nsummary from the Department\nTinker and Carswell Air Force\nAt 3:30 p.m. Aug 2. Project\nThe next night saw the URO\nsightings. Reports have come\nof Public Safety. On Aug 2. the\ndectal by Bulkley S. Griffia,\nBases having a fix on a July\nBlue Book issued & statement\nreports crowding the Highway\nfrom I three Individuals\".\nteletype carried its first UFO\n31 object. and Tinker having\nexecutive editor of the Even-\nassuming to explain the aval-\nPatrol teletype. Some quota-\nNames of two civilians are giv-\nreport of that day at 2 pm.\na fix on up to four objects the\nIng Express Washington Bu-\nanche of UFO sightings that\ntions of messages will be given,\nen: third was a police officer\nregarding a sighting at 12:50\nnight of Aug. 1-2: and despite\nreau He wrote the stories all-\nhad hit the Southwest - but\nAt 9:19 pm. the Highway\nfrom Tulsa. not named.\np.m. near Cushing Other re-\nnational wire services reports\nThose Flying Saucers'\nPortland, Maine, Evening Express, Wednesday, Jan. 19, 1968\nNew Hampshire The sequence of Sighting One Of Most Frightening\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This la\nevents\nnear\nExeter began at one o'clock in\nlights came from behind\na\nthe third of & series about\ngroup of trees near us They\ncause of this sighting. The\nUFO. (unidentified fiying ob-\nthe morning of last Sept 3\nwere extremely bright and\nthree observers seem to be sta-\n\"Prellminary analysis re-\nwhen Exeter Police Officer Eu-\nble, reliable persons especially\nreals object not explainable in\nFOWLER TALKED with wit-\njusts) by Bulkley S. Griffin,\nflashed one at a time.\nconventional terms Object\nnesses and others and said he\ngene P. Bertrand Jr 30. cruis-\nthe two patrolmen I viewed\nIng in his police car. came\ncaused reduction in farm\nwas told that Pease AFB of-\nexecutive editor of the Even-\nupon an auto drawn up by the\n\"At one time they came so\nthe area of the sighting and\nlag Express Washington Bu-\nclose I fell to the ground and\nfound nothing in the area that\ncows' milk from two and one-\nficers had asked the police and\nhalf cans to one can can.\na local newspaper correspon-\nIVAM.\nside of the road and in It an\nhysterical woman. who accord-\nstarted to draw my gun. The\ncould be the probable cause.\nPease AFB had five B47 air-\nDisturbed bull in field. Caused\ndent not to mention the sight-\ning to the officer's report to\nHghts were - bright If was un-\ncraft flying in the area during\ndog to bark.\" This sighting.\nIngs The request was put to\nWASHINGTON D C-One\nthe investigative officer from\nable to make out any form.\nof the more impressive sight-\n\"There was no sound or vi-\nthis period but do not believe\nby the way is one of the very\nthe police on the ground peo-\nfew that Project Blue Book\nple would be alarmed If told\nthgs of an Unidentified Flying\nPease Air Force Base. N. H\nbration but the farm animals\nthey had any connection with\nhas marked \"unidentified.\"\nthe facts it is stated\nObject (UFO) occurred near\n\"stated she was too upset to\nthis sighting\nwere upset in the area and\nMal. Quintanilla informed\nExeter. N. H. last September. been following her and had\ndrive.\" She stated a light had\nmaking a let of noise. When\nHowever. Project Blue Book\nAs narrated. it was an extend-,\nthe lights started coming near\nprobably lists low-fiying airplanes as\nThe Exeter UPO produced\nof this charge. said that \"I\nfairly familiar charge name- a\nwould not allow any suppres-\n2\nPortland. Maine, Evening Express, Thursday, Jan. 20, 196'\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nAF Brushes Off Flood Of Sightings In Southwest\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is (stops on the possibilities of eld.\nlike and how they act. They are\npatrol officers that had sightings\nhour from people reporting\nand stood still. then went east it doesn't announce - is not\nthe fourth of a series about\nzens making mistakes and in\nalso pretty well acqualated\nmust have totaled two dozen\nUFOs\" This report refers\nto\nand suddenly disappeared from\nreally trying to discover what\nUFOs (unidentified flying eb-\ncluding a statement from the\nwith stars. which at the me-\nand more Yet the formal Aug\njust one hour of the several day\nsight. The first ones were orange\nthe UFOs are. Or. If the Air\nofficial of a planetarium in Ok\nment may be supplanting bal-\n20 report from Tinker shows in-\nsighting period.\nlights. the ones that joined them\njects) by Bulkley B. Griffin.\nForce already knows. It is pain-\nlahoma City whose text was\nloons as the favorite explana-\n(erviews with but two civilians\nChances are, It is said. that\nhad red and green lights like\nstakingly keeping its information\nexecutive editor of the Evening\nthat \"the average person is un-\nNon put forth by Project Blue\nand two police officers\nthe Air Force handling of the\nairplanes. PD (police depart-\nfrom the public. Chief blame for\nHapress Washington Bureau.\neducated as to what the sky nor-\nBook.\nMaj. Hector Quintanilla in\nUFO problem may be allowed\nment) Cushing also observed the\nthis lack of action must rest on\nmally looks like\"\ncommand of Project Blue Book.\nto drag along by an apathetic\nsame things\".\nthe government.\nWASHINGTON D. A good\nThe Tinker AFB report did\nsays the Air Force seeks Inter-\npublic Yet one may specu-\nBut another culprit, the scl-\ntwo weeks after the flood of un\nInterviews with military ex-\nnot need to avoid mention of\nflews with persons who call up\nlate on what an honest and en-\nOr the \"approximately 30\nentific community must bear\n2\nPortland, Maine, Evening Express, Friday, Jan. 21, 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nWhat Sheriffs Saw Wasn't Star, UFO Prober Admits\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\none from the start, as will be\nwriter was discussing this\nExeter. N H.. case reported be-\nand appeared to be triangular\nwas wearng a long-sleeved shirt\n\"After talking with both of-\nthe firth of a series about\nseen from the testimony of the\nsighting at the headquarters of\ning followed.\nshaped with a bright purple\nand a coat, he later said that\nficers involved to the sighting\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\ntwo deputy sheriffs. Recently.\nProject Blue Book and pointed\nlight on the left and the small-\nhe feit the heat apparently ema-\njects) by Bulkley S. Griffia.\nMaj. Hector Quintanilla. in\nout that a Tinker AFB radar\nCHIEF DEPUTY Sheriff Billy\ner. less bright, blue light on the\nthere is as doubt in my usled\nnating from the object.\"\nexecutive editor of the Evening\ncommand of Project Blue Book.\nsquadron sergeant bad referred\nE McCoy and Deputy Sheriff\nright end. The bulk of the ob-\nthat they definitely saw Feals\nExpress Washington Bureau.\nstated he has withdrawn this\nto two stationary objects and\nRobert W Goode were on\nject appeared to be dark grey\nunusual object or phenomenan.\nTHE OFFICERS rushed away\nconclusion after talking over the\ntwo moving in the formation.\nroutine patrol near Damon Tex.\nin color with no other distin-\nHowever my investigation fail.\ntoward Damon 'as fast as we\nWASHINGTON D C - The\nphone with Deputy Sheriff Mc-\nProject Blue Book proposed\nwhich is around 40 miles south-\nguishing features. It appeared\ned to uncover any facts that\ncould go\". traveling \"at speeds\ncase of the two Texas deputy\nCoy The star-verdict didn't\nthat the two stationary objects\neast of Houston - when they\nto be about 200 feet wide and\npermitted me. with my meager\nup to 110 miles an hour\". said\nknowledge\nof\nsuch\nthinks.\nis\n2 Portland, Maine, Evening Express, Saturday, Jan. 22. 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nEvidence Indicates AF Misleading\nPublic On UFOs\nBy BULKLEY GRIFFIN\nas balloons. stars and aircraft.\nis this: no energatic and ther-\nintelligence of our citizens. la\nter. affirmed half a dozen years\nYet to an sugmenting number\n(Last of als articles)\nThe logical assumption.\nough effort to investigate the\none that has been heard at the\nago that he did not believe In\nof competent observers the QVI-\nbacked by much circumstantial\nunidentified flying object phe-\nCapitol off and on for ap-\nthe Air Force explainings-away:\ndence grows stronger that some\nWASHINGTON DC -This\nevidence. is that the Air Porce\nnomenon is being made by the\nproaching 20 years. Some spec-\nbut he did not indicate he\nof the UFOs are real and really\nla the final one of half a dozen\nis deliberately misleading the\nAir Force or ever has been\nulate It may be the reason the\nthought he knows the truth of\nunknown So very many im-\narticles on the unidentified\npublic\nmade by It. And this charge\nAir Force has given to the\nthe matter.\npressive sightings can't be ex-\nflying objects (UFOs). the Uni-\nIn this campaign the Air\nholds true respecting any other\nchairmen of the two congres-\nplained away. it is said\nted States Air Force. which has\nForce. backed by normal pub-\ngovernment agency and res-\nalonal space committees in its\nAn increasing number of good\n\"From the United States.\nthe official job of investigating\nlic respect for the military and\npacting what has been termed\nunderstood endeavor to hold\nobservers hold that a sizable\nfrom Argentina. Uruguay. Por-\nthe sightings. and the public.\nfor authoritative statements.\nthe nation's scientific commu-\noff & congressions] investign-\nminority of the sightings -\ntugal. France. Antarctica and\nnity\nthourd\nWashington post 3-27-\nDon't Sneer 66. at UFOs\nBy Roscoe Drummond\ntrained observers) reported\ngent life on other planets.\nYOU CANT tismiss the\nseeing \"fying saucers\" II\nMany seientists think other\npossibility that some of the\nseven states, from Maine to\nplanets could not sustain\nunidentified flying unjects,\nTexas to Colorado.\nsuch life. But we don't really\nwhich TO many people have\nLast year, project Blue\nsnow.\nsighted in so many places,\nBook, tite small Air Force\nare real.\nunit created to keep tabs on\nOne fact about the UFOs\nThere\nthese things received me\ngives me pause. There have\nof\nWash Post 3-29-66\nTruth About Flying Objects\nHidden by AF, Faithful Say\nBy Howard Simons\nwhose major aims to eva-\nfled pilots and missle track-\nWashington Post Statf Writer\nluate all UFO sightings; get\ners - had sighted objects:\nFirm believers that\nthe Air Force to own up to\nroughly 100,000 persons in\nunidentified flying objects\nthe \"truth,\" and to expose\nall.\nare for real and from a far-\nUFO chariatans who keep\nThe Air Force, which has\noff supercivilization met the\nseeing \"little green men.\"\nbeen investigating UFO re-\npress yesterday amid a tor-\nKeyhoe and his col-\nports since 1948, has stead-\n- shout - lessues instruding scienists fastly maintained there is\nPhoto Adds New Wrinkle to Saucers\nDOUGLAS BRADFORD that hey saw the trange glow- The object in the incluration account or he fact that\nWhile BY Air Force officials ng Diects savorting n he sky doesn seem to save much na- the thing hey saw vas. hight\nand hat the dark area on the terial inbstance.\nprowled through the coun-\nand anny with ilashing colored\ntryside. looking for some\npictura represents one if mem. Neither Paul for his mother lights vitue the camera 28+\ncorded 1 tack smear.\nsign of the strange night\nPact and us argus FIND vas\nvisitors that have been zip-\non time exposure It 2.3 and\nphotographs aphs blown up to 9 by If\nthe objects are visible in the\nleading into Milan No details of\nsky high above street lights\ndistinct stonks of light in the\n'a UFO Over Michigan\nDeputy Sheriff 'Shoots' a UFO Over Michigan\nANN ARBOR, Mich (AP)- A\ndistinct stowks of Hairt in the\nMichigan deputy sheriff said an\nsky high above street lights\nunidentified flying object sight.\nleading Into Milan No details of\nnd over Southern Michigan last\nthe objects are rights in the\nweek was trapped on film-\nphotographe blown 1115 to 10g to\nFirst UFOs\nOf Season\nTHE\n40 in Michigan Say\nA Mysterious Craft\nAre Sighted\n87 Michigan Coeds\nthat of a football. This was\nmughly the same description\ngiven by & nan and his son vño\nHouered in Swamp\nSpring's first flying saucers\nand Official Sight\nreported that they saw an serie\nobject land n si $ swamp Sunday\nhave sprouted right alongside\nMysterious Object\nhight 15 miles northeast of here\nthe forsythia.\nnear Lnn Arbor.\nThe Air Force announced it\nANN ARBOR Mich. March\nScores of people in Michigan\nbringing in Dr. H. Allen\n31; (UPI)-A: least 40 persons.\nhave reported strange flying\nHILLSDALE. Mich. March\nHynek: chairman of Dearborn\nincluding = patteement said are\nobjects since the weekend,\n22 UPD-A civil defense die\nObservatory at Northwestern\nday that they saw % trange.\nrector in assistant lean and 57\nUniversity, Evanston, III., and\nand a former fighter pilot saysi\nBying object guarded by Sours\ncoeds reported a slowing ob-\nscientific consultant to the Air\nsister ships and the = wamp\nhe saw several over his Be-\nject fly past 3 college dormi-\nForce's Project Blue Book pro-\nsear here Sunday night.\nthesda liome. Saturday aight.\ntory and hover in 1. swamp for\ngram to track down the reports\nhours.\nof unidentified flying objects.\nDescriptions of the unidenti-\nThe Air Force, which has in-\nTheir description of the ob-\nDr. Hynek set up his head-\nbe\nJ\nC-\nre\nas\nid\nd.\na-\nor\nly\nit\n11-\nbe\nIt\nMDH\n\\\nJohrinan was Trubhz hearing\n4\nJro. E.Karth\nat Reat this in\n6831\n& we we fred days Freening #\nsociesion acouple Holder taget a off together\nunited lotef S - gt frith\n- Closed dr - At was is, Hputz\nsuch areas gavest\n- Cent. of Dare cyjel. as nation,\npraits.\nbut how do $ you differ\nCond. Phere was us evil Pret\nThere were Foreign extra - terres tn\nThose Thou 40% signted kreptd\n7 underst by AF + AF came up m\nsome sal Explain or\nmaxap cheer whesethere was no\nexplan Whatsoever,\nby don't take poor it any\nThe station sed any Remining we donthans\n20mg over like to go into it again\nthing itup to date i\nit if\nla, comm\nZhere\nWould Favor puth Learnings of\n= Thisis & There She reaction Rungs Acct would be dispelled\nfine guess fn UFO sight\nDrffic ostogini found, that\nhandthen explained.\nI gan see no reason Insearce\nbe thes party with\nThe people\nWe whateverfears\nments, lath tell Reen so\nwe he conduct. mil. experi-\nGangerous There are a willion nuts on\nOpen heaving could become\nThis Thing #\non This Sez he's good\nOrgins making\nfriend of yrs to doesn't wantyon toget\nhurt he could\nbe made\ncomm. but nothing released\nKasth made rept the full\nto public a\nHearing were couple inpublicized\ngoral for AF\nBare Secret\nHouse Quiz\non 'Saucers'\nBy J.F. TER HORST\nChief of Our Washington Bureau\nWASHINGTON, April 2.\n-A secret investigation of\nunidentified flying objects\n(UFOS) was conducted five\nyears ago by the House Sci-\nence and Astronautics Com-\nmittee.\nThe results never were made\npublic.\nNo printed record of the\n\"hearing\" was made and there\nare no secretarial minutes.\nBut according to the man\nwho conducted the inquiry,\n\"Those Fantastic Flying\nSaucers,\" the first of two\narticles by Jean Pearson,\nis in the Passing Show Sec-\ntion (Section H) today.\nRep. Joseph E. Karth, Minne-\nsota Democrat:\n\"I am absolutely convinced\nthere are no objects visiting\nearth from other planets.\n\"I am also convinced that\npeople are not seeing the re-\nsults of any exotic research\nwork bearing a top-secret label.\n\"I was convinced then and\nI am now.\"\nHEARD SPECIALISTS\nThe convincing of Karth was\ndone by Air Force specialists\non UFO manifestations. Air\nForce representatives were the\nonly witnesses he interrogated,\nKarth said.\nKarth said he made \"a full\nreport\" to the committee chair-\nman, the late Rep. Overton\nBrooks, Louisiana Democrat.\nBrooks requested Karth to\ngive the report to the full com-\nmittee.\n\"And that's what I did,\" he\ntold The Detroit News.\n(Concluded on Page 8A)\nState Flying Object Reports\nBring Plea for Federal Sift\nANN ARBOR (AP)-A Mich-\nigan congressman planned Tues-\nday to ask the Defense Depart-\nment to investigate reports of\nunidentified flying objects sight-\ned near Ann Arbor.\n08358 M in W REWA S V\n(ht-\nelf-\nunt\nhe\nege\nto\nit\nred\n1\n1\nGRAND RAPIDS PRESS, TUES., MARCH 22, 1966\nAF Approves\nQuick, Deep\nFel\nUFO Studies\nWASHINGTON (AP)-The Air\nForce intends to contract with\na few selected universities to\ninvestigate promptly and in\ndepth certain sightings of uni-\ndentified flying objects.\nThe Air Force said that no\nd\nd\ny\ntance 01 a pase of the Air Force\nSystems Command.\nin\nAir Force Investigating\nzar\nit c\nacr\nWy\nthe\nReported Flying Objects\nbra.\none\nIONIA SENTINEL - MAR. 23,\nA\nANN ARBOR (AP) - As re-\nports of unidentified flying ob-\njects mounted in southeastern\nMichigan today the United\nStates Air Force began an in-\nvestigation of the many sight-\nings.\nPhoto Adds New Wrinkle to Saucers\nBy DOUGLAS BRADFORD\nthat they saw the strange glow-\nThe object in the picture\ncan account for the fact that\ning objects cavorting in the sky\ndoesn't seem to have much ma-\nWhile Air Force officials\nthe thing they saw was bright\nand that the dark area on the\nterial substance.\nand shiny with flashing colored\nprowled through the coun-\npicture represents one of them.\nNeither Paul nor his mother\nlights while the camera re-\nMariannice Richwine, insist I ne pointed it at the flying object. I See SAUCER-Page 13A\nTHE DETROIT NEWS, WEO., MARCH 23,1966\nTHE EVENING STAR, WASH, 3-25-66\nDeputy Sheriff 'Shoots' a UFO Over Michigan\nANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP)-A\ndistinct steaks of light in the\nMichigan deputy sheriff said an\nsky high above street lights\nunidentified flying object sight-\nleading into Milan. No details of\ned over Southern Michigan last\nthe objects are visible in the\nweek was trapped-on film-\nphotographs blown up to 8 by 10\nand\nUFO\nre]\north-\nI\nhysi-\nric\nAir\nCo\nwit\ncent\nsiz\nhe\ncon-\nI\ndis-\nthe\nFo\nden-\nme\nouth\nI\nwho\nide\ny in\nHo\niff's\nMr\nped\nwh\nmas\nSo\nover\nSa\nerty\naci\nthe\nthe\nfee\nrm-\nI\nS on\nap]\nred\nan\n1.\nTHE EVENING STAR, WASH., MARCH 25,1966 - FRIDAY\nWash. Post 3-29-66\nTruth About Flying Objects\nHidden by AF, Faithful Say\nBy Howard Simons\nwhose major aims to eva-\nfied pilots and missle track-\nWashington Post Staff Writer\nluate all UFO sightings; get\ners — had sighted objects;\nFirm believers that\nthe Air Force to own up to\nroughly 100,000 persons in\nunidentified flying objects\nthe \"truth,\" and to expose\nall.\nare for real and from a far-\nUFO charlatans who keep\nThe Air Force, which has\noff supercivilization met the\nseeing \"little green men.'\nbeen investigating UFO re-\npress yesterday amid a tor-\nKeyhoe and his col-\nports since 1948, has stead-\nrent of reports about new\nleagues, including scienists,\nfastly maintained there is\nobjects being sighted every-\nengineers, military per-\nno evidence any flying ob-\nwhom TISA\nsonnel and milots the\njost\nd\nk\n0\n0\ng\nu\nh\nS.\nSaucer Observers Upset\nOver Air Force Analysis\nDETROIT (UPI) - The U.S. the-scene investigation by tell- conditions that night-were such\nAir Force closed its books Satur- ing a press conference it ap- as to have produced this un-\ndav on the case of two \"visits\" peared \"very likely\". that usual and puzzling display.\" he\nCODE b\nis\nGRAND RAPIDS PRESS MAR. 26, 1966\nUFO Probe\nRaises Ire\nObservers Contest\nProf's Explanation\n(Continued from page 1)\nunlikely place for a visit from\nouter space,\" Hynek said.\n\"It was in both cases a very\nlocalized phenomenon,\" he said.\n\"I think that this is a most\nsignificant point. It would seem\nto me that the association of\nthe sightings with swamps, in\nth\nth\nth\nof\npl\nhe\nH\nda\nsl\nde\n\"\nD\nhe\nst\nti\nU\nda\nre\nfi\nti\nth\nbe\nof\nC(\nU\nth\nis\nti\nta\nH\nfi\nst\nC(\nF\nal\nse\nW\nfo\nin\nH\nC(\nst\nm\nSC\nW\nre\nSC\nis\nM\nfr\nle\nU\nh\nn\na\nto\nto\nTi\nhe\nte\nre\nL\nus\nth\nfo\nhi\nus\nti\nsh\ndown handleless.cup.\nNEW YORK TIMES, WED., MAR.23,1966\nTHE P\n87 Michigan Coeds\nthat of a football. This was\nroughly the same description\ngiven by a man and his son who\nand Official Sight\nreported that they saw an eerie\nobject land in a swamp Sunday\nMysterious Object\nnight 45 miles northeast of here\nnear Ann Arbor.\nThe Air Force announced it\nwas bringing in Dr. H. Allen\nHILLSDALE, Mich., March\nHynek chairman of Dearborn\n22 (UPI) A civil defense di-\nObservatory at Northwestern\nrector an assistant dean and 87\nUniversity, Evanston, Ill., and\ncoeds reported a glowing ob-\nscientific consultant to the Air\nj\nt\nh\nC\nn\n1\nV\n0\nes d. It 1- S e le 0- :- 1- it d y\na\na\ne-\nI\nWashington Post 3-27-66\nDon't Sneer at UFOs\nBy Roscoe Drummond\ntrained observers) reported gent life on other planets.\nseeing \"flying saucers\" in\nMany scientists think other\nYOU CAN'T dismiss the\nseven states, from Maine to\nplanets could not sustain\npossibility that some of the\nTexas to Colorado.\nsuch life. But we don't really\nunidentified flying objects,\nLast year, project Blue know,\nwhich so many people have\nsighted in en many places\nBook, the small Air Force One fact about the UFOs\nWASH. POST, MAR.23, 1966\nWEONESDAY\nFirst UFOs\nOf Season\nAre Sighted\nSpring's first flying saucers\nhave sprouted right alongside\nthe forsythia.\nScores of people in Michigan\nhave reported strange flying\nNEW YORK Times\n11 TUES., MAR 22,1966\n40 in Michigan Say\nA Mysterious Craft\nHovered in Swamp\nANN ARBOR, Mich., March\n21 (UPI) At least 40 persons,\nincluding 12 policemen, said to-\nday that they saw a strange\nflying object guarded by four\nswamp.\nUFO's\nThe Detroit News\nEntertainment\nStage\nCLASSIFIED\nMovies\nTV-Radio\nColumns\nHobbies\nThe Passing Show and REAL MICHIGAN'S LARGEST ESTATER WANT AD MEDIUM\nBooks\nArt\nSUNDAY, APRIL 3, 1966\nSECTION H\nThis picture, purportedly of a flying saucer, was taken Dec. 26, 1965, at Cappoquin in County Waterford, Ireland. Large, bright area was described as plume of saucer at left-hand tip.\nARE THEY FACT, FICTION OR ILLUSION?\nThose Fantastic Flying Saucers\nScientists in 3 Special Fields Explain\nConstructed\nMichigan's Eerie UFO Sightings\nin France,\nthis concept\nof a flying\nof a number of fairly common objects,\nsaucer ma-\nBy JEAN PEARSON\nchine was un-\nDetroit News Science Writer\nsuch as a dog standing on grass, a bird in\nveiled in\nThe House Republican leader has called\nthe sky, a pile of bricks and a fire hydrant.\nJuly, 1955,\nfor a congressional investigation.\nHe projected them on the screen for a\nbut there are\nA national organization for the investi-\ngroup of viewers who hadn't seen the pic-\nno published\ntures before. Purposely, he made the pro-\ngation of aerial phenomena, with hig h-\nreports of it\njected image very blurred at first. Then\nranking, retired military officers and pro-\nflying. It has\nslowly, in stages, he put it into focus.\na diameter\nfessors on its governing board, has urged\nGiven a blur, the viewers immediately\nof almost 27\na nationwide tracking network.\ntried to determine what it was they were\nfeet.\nPeople are puzzled.\nlooking at. Once they had reached a con-\nAre the UFOs real, illusions or just\nclusion that seemed to satisfy, they clung\nnatural events people can't explain? Is the\nto it.\nobjects\ntend\nto\nwork\nagainst\nthe\nswamp\nat\na\nWashington Post 3-27-66\nDon't Sneer at UFOs\nBy Roscoe Drummond\ntrained observers) reported gent life on other planets.\nYOU CANT dismiss the\nseeing \"flying saucers\" in\nMany scientists think other\npossibility that some of the\nseven states, from Maine to\nplanets could not sustain\nunidentified flying objects,\nTexas to Colorado,\nsuch life. But we don't really\nwhich so many people have\nLast year, project Blue\nknow.\nsighted in so many places,\nBook, the small Air Force\nOne fact about the UFOs\nare real.\nunit created to keep tabs on\ngives me pause. There have\nThere are, of course, UFO\nthese things, received 886 re-\nbeen no really solid reports\nbuffs who seem to want to\nports of UFO sightings.\nof creatures being seen get-\nargus F100 was\nhave been zip-\non time exposure at 12.5 and\nrough southeastern\nwas loaded with last 11m when\nskies, a Monroe\nhe took the picture at about\ncame up with what\n11 30 p.m. Friday\nwas a picture of\nThe News photographers con-\nceded that the darkness in the\nchwine, 16, who lives\npicture \"might be the indica-\nBeach, three miles\nCon of something moving quite\nMonroe, produced a\nswiftly OD a time exposure. or\nwith a blob on it\nthe blob could be a water spot\nhis camera \"saw\"\non the negative or a wrinkle in\npointed it at a \"flying\nthe film.\nhis home Friday\nMrs. Richwine said the ob-\nject's appearance was preceded\nNews photographers\nby four glowing shapes about\ncould be due to a\n10:30 p.m. Friday, She saw\nthe\nfilm.\nthem from her front window,\nand his mother. Mrs.\nThis is what Paul Richwine's camera saw when\nshe said.\nRichwine, insist\nhe pointed it at the unidentified flying object.\nSee SAUCER-Page 13A\nWash Post\n3-29-66\nTruth About Flying Objects\nHidden by AF, Faithful Say\nBy Howard Simons\nwhose major aims to eva-\nfied pilots and missle track-\nWashington Post Biall Writer\nluate all UFO sightings; get\ners had sighted objects;\nFirm believers that\nthe Air Force to own up to\nroughly 100,000 persons in\nunidentified flying objects\nthe \"truth,\" and to expose\nall\nare for real and from a far-\nUFO charlatans who keep\noff supercivilization met the\nseeing \"little green men.'\nThe Air Force, which has\nbeen investigating UFO re-\npress yesterday amid a tor-\nKeyhoe and his col-\nrent of reports about new\nports since 1948, has stead-\nleagues including\nomena,\nan\norganization\nDeputy Sheriff 'Shoots' a UFO Over Michigan\nANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP)-A\ndistinct steaks of light in the\nMichigan deputy sheriff said an\nsky high above street lights\nunidentified flying object sight.\nleading into Milan No details of\ned over Southern Michigan last\nthe objects are visible in the\nweek was trapped-on film-\nphotographs blown up to 8 by 10\nand still another UFO was\ninches from the tiny flim.\nreported yesterday.\nDr. J. Allen Hynek, a North-\nState Flying Object Reports\nBring Plea for Federal Sift\nANN ARBOR (AP)-A Mich-\nigan congressman planned Tues-\nday to ask the Defense Depart-\nment to investigate reports of\nunidentified flying objects sight,\ned near Ann Arbor.\nNEW YORK TIMES\nWASH. POST,MAR.23 1966\nWERNESDAY\nFirst UFOs\nNEW YORK TIMES, WED., MAR.231966\nTUES., MAR 22,1966\nOf Season\nTHE :\n40 in Michigan Say\nAre Sighted\n87 Michigan Coeds\nthat of & football. This was\nroughly the same description\nA Mysterious Craft\ngiven by a man and his son who\nSpring's first flying saucers\nand Official Sight\nreported that they saw an eerie\nobject land in a swamp Sunday\nHovered in Swamp\nhave sprouted right alongside\nMysterious Object\nnight 45 miles northeast of here\nnear Ann Arbor.\nthe forsythia.\nThe Air Force announced it\nScores of people in Michigan\nHILLSDALE, Mich., March\nwas bringing in Dr. H. Allen\nANN ARBOR, Mich., March\nhave reported strange flying\n22 (UPI)-A civil defense di-\nHynek chairman of Dearborn\n21 (UPI)-At least 40 persons,\nincluding 12 policemen, said to-\nobjects. since the weekend,\nObservatory at Northwestern\nrector an assistant dean and 87\nUniversity, Evanston, Ill, and\nand a former fighter pilot says\ncoeds reported a glowing ob-\nday that they saw a strange\nscientific consultant to the Air\nject fly past a college dormi-\nflying object guarded by four\nhe saw several over his Be-\ntory and hover in a swamp for\nForce's Project Blue Book pro-\nsister ships land in a swamp\nthesda home Saturday night.\nhours.\ngram to track down the reports\nof unidentified fiving objects\nWASH. POST. SUN, MARCH 27, 1966\nDon't Sneer at UFOs\nBy Roscoe Drummond\ntrained observers) reported gent life on other planets.\nseeing \"flying saucers\" in\nMany scientists think other\nYOU CANT dismiss the\nseven states, from Maine to\nplanets could not sustain\npossibility that some of the\nTexas to Colorado.\nsuch life. But we don't really\nunidentified flying objects,\nLast year, project Blue know.\nwhich so many people have\nBook, the small Air Force\nOne fact about the UFOs\nsighted in so many places,\nunit created to keep tabs on gives me pause. There have\nare real.\nThere\nare\nof\nUFO\nthese things, received 886 no been no really solid reports\ncourse\nfor\nof the strange night\nthat have been zip-\nE100 was\nthrough southeastern\non time exposure at 12.5 and\nwas maded with Last film when\nhigan skies, a Monroe\nhe took the picture 21 about\nboy came up with what\n30 pm Friday\nsaid was a picture of\nThe News photographers con-\nceded that the darkness in the\nRichwine, 16, who lives\npicture \"might be the indica-\n/oodland Beach, three miles\ntion of something moving quite\nof Monroe, produced a\nswiftly on at time exposure, or\nof film with at blob on it\nthe blob could be 1 water spot\nhe says his camera \"saw\"\non the negative or a wrinkle in\nhe pointed it at a \"flying\nthe film\nover his home Friday\nMrs. Richwine said the ob-\nject's appearance was preceded\nNews photógraphers\nby four glowing shapes about\nthe blob could be due to a\n10:30 p.m. Friday She saw\nin the film.\nthem from her front window,\nPaul and his mother, Mrs.\nThis is what Paul Richwine's camera saw when\nshe said.\niannice Richwine, insist\nhe pointed it at the unidentified flying object.\nSee SAUCER-Page 13A\nWash Post\n3-29-66\nTruth About Flying Objects\nHidden by AF, Faithful Say\nBy Howard Simons\nwhose major aims to eva-\nWashington Post Staff Writer\nfied pilots and missle track-\nluate all UFO sightings: get\ners-had sighted objects:\nFirm believers that\nthe Air Force to own up to\nroughly 100,000 persons in\nunidentified flying objects\nthe \"truth,\" and to expose\nall.\nare for real and from a far-\nUFO charlatans who keep\noff supercivilization met the\nseeing \"little green men.\nThe Air Force, which has\npress yesterday amid a tor.\nbeen investigating UFO re-\nKeyhoe\nand\nhis\ncol.\nDorts\nsince\n1049\nrent\nof\nState Flying Object Reports\nBring Plea for Federal Sift\nANN ARBOR (AP)-A Mich-\nigan congressman planned Tues-\nday to ask the Defense Depart-\nment to investigate reports of\nunidentified flying objects sight.\nad ness Ann Arbor\nDeputy Sheriff 'Shoots' a UFO Over Michigan\nANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP)-A\ndistinct steaks of light in the\nMichigan deputy sheriff said an\nsky high above street lights\nunidentified flying object sight-\nleading into Milan. No details of\ned over Southern Michigan last\nthe objects are visible in the\nweek was trapped-on film-\nphotographs blown up to 8 by 10\nanother URO was\nFirst UFOs\nNEW YORK TIMES WED., MAR:251962\nTUES., MAR 22,1966\nOf Season\nTHE r\n40 in Michigan Say\nAre Sighted\n87 Michigan Coeds\nthat of & football. This was\nroughly the same description\ngiven by a man and his son who\nA Mysterious Craft\nSpring's first flying saucers\nand Official Sight\nreported that they saw an eerie\nobject land in a swamp Sunday\nHovered in Swamp\nhave sprouted right alongside\nMysterious Object\nnight 45 miles northeast of here\nthe forsythia.\nnear Ann Arbor.\nThe Air Force announced it\nScores of people in Michigan\nhave reported strange flying\nHILLSDALE, Mich., March\nwas bringing in Dr. H. Allen\nANN ARBOR, Mich., March\n22 (UPI)-A civil defense di-\nHynek chairman of Dearborn\n21 (UPI)-At least 40 persons,\nobjects since the weekend,\nrector an assistant dean and 87\nObservatory at Northwestern\nincluding 12 policemen, said to-\nand a former fighter pilot says\ncoeds reported a glowing ob-\nUniversity, Evanston, III., and\nday that they saw a strange\nject fly past a college dormi-\nscientific consultant to the Air\nhe saw several over his Be-\nflying object guarded by four\ntory and hover in a swamp for\nForce's Project Blue Book pro-\nthesda home Saturday night.\nhours.\ngram to track down the reports\nsister ships land in a swamp\nTheir description of the ob-\nof unidentified flying objects.\nhere Runday night\nThe Air Force, which has in-\nlook\nDr. Hynek set up his head-\nWashington Post 3-27-66\nDon't Sneer at UFOs\nBy Roscoe Drummond\ntrained observers) reported gent life on other planets.\nYOU CANT dismiss the\nseeing \"flying saucers\" in\nMany scientists think other\npossibility that some of the\nseven states, from Maine to\nplanets could not sustain\nunidentified flying objects,\nTexas to Colorado.\nsuch life. But we don't really\nwhich so many people have\nLast year, project Blue\nknow,\nsighted in so many places,\nBook, the small Air Force\nOne fact about the UFOs\nare real.\nunit created to keep tabs on\ngives me pause. There have\nThere are, of course, UFO\nthese things, received 886 re-\nbeen no really solid reports\nbuffs who seem to want to\nports of UFO sightings.\nof creatures being seen get.\nbelieve everything and dis-\nDuring the last two years,\nting off landed saucers. To\ncount logical explanations.\nthe National Investigations\nventure from one planet to\nBut Air Force officials se\nCommittee on Aerial Phe- another involves great intel.\nPhoto Adds New Wrinkle to Saucers\nDOUGLAS\nBRADFORD\nAir\nForce\nofficials\nand\non\nthe\nthrough the coun\nthe\ncamera\nre\nlooking for some\ncorded a Lnear\nof the strange night\nPaul Argus F100 was\nthat have been zip-\non time exposure at 12.8 and\nthrough southeastern,\nwas loaded with fast film when\nhigan skies, a Monroe\nhe took the picture at about\nboy came up with what\n11:30 pm Friday\nsaid was a picture of\nThe News photographers con-\nceded that the darkness in the\npicture might be the indica-\nRichwine, 16. who lives\nLon of something moving quite\n/oodland Beach, three miles\nswitth on a time exposure or\nof Monroe, produced a\nthe blob could De a waler spot\nof film with a blob on it\non the negative or a wrinkle in\nhe says his camera \"saw\"\nthe film\nhe pointed it at a \"flying\nMr. Richwine said the on-\nover his home Friday\nject's appearance was preceded\nby four glowing shapes about\nNews photographers\n10:30 pm. Friday She saw\nthe blob could be due to a\nthem from her front window,\nin the film\nThis is what Paul Richwine's camera saw when\nshe said\nPaul and his mother, Mrs\niannice Richwine, insist\nhe pointed it at the unidentified flying object.\nSee SAUCER-Page 13A\nWash Post 3-29-66\nTruth About Flying Objects\nHidden by AF, Faithful Say\nBy Howard Simons\nwhose major aims to eva- fied pilots and missle track-\nWashington Post Staff Writer\nluate all UFO sightings; get\ners - had sighted objects:\nFirm believers that\nthe Air Force to own up to\nroughly 100,000 persons in\nunidentified flying objects\nthe \"truth.\" and to expose\nall,\nare for real and from a far-\nUFO charlatans who keep\nThe Air Force, which has\noff supercivilization met the\nseeing \"little green men.\nbeen investigating UFO re-\npress yesterday amid a tor-\nKeyhoe and his col-\nports since 1948, has stead-\nCommittee on Aerial Phen. competent other than for surveillance\nDeputy Sheriff 'Shoots' a UFO Over Michigan\ndistinct steaks of light in the\nANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP)-A\nsky high above street lights\nMichigan deputy sheriff said an\nleading into Milan No details of\nunidentified Dying object sight-\nthe objects are visible in the\ned over Southern Michigan last\nphotographs blown up to 8 by 10\nweek was trapped-on film-\ninches from the tiny flim.\nand still another UFO was\nDr. J. Allen Hynek, a North\nState Flying Object Reports\nBring Plea for Federal Sift\nANN ARBOR (AP) A Mich-\nigan congressman planned Tues,\nday to ask the Defense Depart-\nment to investigate reports of\nunidentified flying objects sight.\ned near Ann Arbor.\nU.S. Rep. Weston Vivian, D-\nMich., left for Washington, D.C.,\nFirst 1 FOs\nOf Season\nTHE\n40 in Michigan Say\nA Mysterious Craft\nAre Sighted\n87 Michigan Coeds\nthat of & football. This was\nroughly the same description\nSpring's first flying saucers\nand Official Sight\ngiven by a man and his son who\nreported that they saw an eerie\nHovered in Swamp\nobject land in & swamp Sunday\nhave sprouted right alongside\nMysterious Object\nnight 45 miles northeast of here\nthe forsythia.\nnear Ann Arbor.\nANN ARBOR, Mich., March\nScores of people in Michigan\nThe Air Force announced 11\n21 (UPI) -At least 40 persons,\nHILLSDALE, Mich., March\nwas bringing in Dr. H. Allen\nhave reported strange flying\n22 (UPI)-A civil defense di-\nHynek chairman of Dearborn\nincluding 12 pollcemen, said to-\nobjects' since the weekend,\nrector an assistant dean and 87\nObservatory at Northwestern\nday that they saw & strange\nand a former fighter pilot says\ncoeds reported & glowing ob-\nUniversity, Evanston, Ill., and\nflying object guarded by four\nject fly past a college dormi-\nscientific consultant to the Air\nhe saw several over his Be-\nsister ships land in a swamp\nthesda home Saturday night.\nhours. tory and hover in a swamp for\nForce's Project Blue Book pro-\ngram to track down the reports\nnear here Sunday night.\nDescriptions of the unidenti-\nThe Air Force, which has in-\nTheir description of the ob-\nof unidentified flying objects.\nject seen here last\nDr. Hynek set up his head\nce\nee-\nve\nes\nnd\nd.\n11-\nor\nit\n11-\nbe\nIt\nWashington Post 3-27-66\nDon't Sneer at UFOs\nBy Roscoe Drummond\ntrained observers) reported\ngent life on other planets.\nYOU CANT dismiss the\nseeing \"flying saucers\" in\nMany scientists think other\npossibility that some of the\nseven states, from Maine to\nplanets could not sustain\nunidentified flying objects,\nTexas to Colorado.\nsuch life. But we don't really\nwhich so many people have\nLast year, project Blue know.\nsighted in so many places,\nBook, the small Air Force\nOne fact about the UFOs\nare real.\nunit created to keep tabs on\ngives me pause. There have\nThere are, of course, UFO\nthese things, received 886 re. been no really solid reports\nbuffs who seem to want to\nports of UFO sightings.\nDuring the last\nof creatures being seen get.\nArgus F100 was\nisitors that have been zip\non una exposure at 12.8 and\nping through\nwas leaded with last film when\nMichigan skies, a Munroe\nhe took he picture at about\narea boy came up with what\n11.30 pm Friday\nhe said was a picture of\nThe News photographers con-\none.\nceded that the darkness in the\nPaul Richwine, 16. who lives\npicture might be the indica-\nn Woodland Beach, three miles\ntion of something moving quite\nnorth of Monroe, produced a\nswiftiv on a time exposure, or\npiece of film with a blob on it\nthe blob could be a water spot\nthat he says his camera \"saw\"\non the negative or a wrinkle in\nwhen he pointed it at a \"flying\nthe film.\nsaucer\" over his home Friday\nMrs. Richwine said the ob-\nnight.\nject's appearance was preceded\nDetroit News photographers\nby four glowing shapes about\nsay the blob could be due to a\n10:30 p.m. Friday She saw\nwrinkle in the film.\nthem from her front window,\nBut Paul and his mother, Mrs\nThis is what Paul Richwine's camera saw when\nshe said.\nMariannice Richwine, insist\nhe pointed it at the unidentified flying object.\nSee SAUCER-Page UA\nWash Post 3-29-66\nTruth About Flying Objects\nHidden by AF, Faithful Say\nBy Howard Simons\nwhose major aims to eva-\nfled pilots and missle track-\nWashington Post Stalf Writer\nluate all UFO sightings; get\ners had sighted objects:\nFirm believers that\nthe Air Force to own up to\nroughly 100,000 persons in\nunidentified flying objects\nthe \"truth.\" and to expose\nall.\nare for real and from a far.\nUFO charlatans who keep\nThe Air Force, which has\noff supercivilization met the\nseeing \"little green men.\nbeen investigating UFO re-\npress yesterday amid a tor.\nKeyhoe and his col-\nports since 1948, has stead-\nrent of reports about new\nleagues, including scienists,\nfastly maintained there is\nobjects being sighted every-\nengineers\nmilitary\nDeputy Sheriff 'Shoots' a UFO Over Michigan\nANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP)-A\ndistinct steaks of light in the\nMichigan deputy sheriff said an\nsky high above street lights\nunidentified flying object sight-\nleading into Milan, No details of\ned over Southern Michigan last\nthe objects are visible in the\nweek was trapped-on film-\nphot graphs blown up to 8 by 10\nand still another UFO was\ninches from the tiny flim.\nreported yesterday.\nDr. J. Allen Hynek, a North\nState Flying Object Reports\nBring Plea for Federal Sift\nANN ARBOR (AP)-A Mich-\nigan congressman planned Tues-\nday to ask the Defense Depart-\nment to investigate reports of\nunidentified flying objects sight-\ned near Ann Arbor.\nU.S. Rep. Weston Vivian, D.\nOF Season\n40 in Michigan Say\nAre Sighted\n87 Michigan Coeds\nthat of & football, This was\nA Mysterious Craft\nroughly the same description\nSpring's first flying saucers\nand Official Sight\ngiven by a man and his son who\nreported that they saw an eerie\nHovered in Swamp\nhave sprouted right alongside\nMysterious Object\nobject land in a swamp Sunday\nthe forsythia.\nnight 45 miles northeast of here\nnear Ann Arbor.\nScores of people in Michigan\nThe Air Force announced it\nANN ARBOR, Mich., March\nhave reported strange flying\nHILLSDALE, Mich March\nwas bringing in Dr. H. Allen\n21 (UPI)-At least 40 persons,\n22 (UPI)-A civil defense di-\nHynek chairman of Dearborn\nobjects since the weekend,\nincluding 12 policemen, said to-\nrector an assistant dean and 87\nObservatory at Northwestern\nday that they saw & strange\nand a former fighter pilot says\ncoeds reported a glowing ob-\nUniversity, Evanston, III., and\nhe saw several over his Be-\nject fly past a college dormi-\nscientific consultant to the Air\nflying object guarded by four\nthesda home Saturday night,\nhours. tory and hover in a swamp for\nForce's Project Blue Book pro-\nsister ships land in a swamp\ngram to track down the reports\nnear here Sunday night.\nThe Air Force, which has in-\nTheir description of the ob-\nof unidentified flying objects.\nDescriptions of the unidenti-\nvestigated more than 10,000\nject seen here last night tallied\nDr. Hynek set up his head-\nquarters at Selfridge\nWashington post 3-27-66\nDon't t Sneer at UFOs\nBy Roscoe Drummond\ntrained observers) reported gent life on other planets.\nYOU CAN'T dismiss the\nseeing \"flying saucers\" in\nMany scientists think other\npossibility that some of the\nseven states, from Maine to\nplanets could not sustain\nunidentified flying objects,\nTexas to Colorado.\nsuch life. But we don't really\nwhich so many people have\nLast year, project Blue\nknow.\nsighted in 80 many places,\nBook, the small Air Force\nOne fact about the UFOs\nare real.\nunit created to keep tabs on\ngives me pause, There have\nThere are, of course, UFO\nthese things, received 886 re-\nbeen no really solid reports\nbuffs who seem to want to\nports of UFO sightings.\nof creatures being seen get.\nbelieve everything and dis-\nDuring the last two years,\nting off landed saucers. To\ncount logical explanations.\nthe National Investigations\nventure from one planet to\nWash Post 3-29-66\nTruth About Flying Objects\nHidden by AF, Faithful Say\nBy Howard Simons\nwhose major aims to eva-\nfied pilots and missle track-\nWashington Post Staff Writer\nluate all UFO sightings; get\ners-had sighted objects;\nFirm believers that\nthe Air Force to own up to\nroughly 100,000 persons in\nunidentified flying objects\nthe \"truth,\" and to expose\nall.\nare for real and from a far-\nUFO charlatans who keep\nThe Air Force, which has\noff supercivilization met the\nseeing \"little green men.'\nbeen investigating UFO re-\nPhoto Adds New Wrinkle to Saucers\nBy DOUGLAS BRADFORD\nthat they saw the strange glow. The object in the picture|can account for the fact that\nWhile Air Force officials\ning objects cavorting in the sky doesn't seem to have much ma- the thing they saw Was bright\nand that the dark area on the\nterial substance.\nprowled through the coun-\nand shiny with flashing colored\npicture represents one of them.\nNeither Paul nor his mother\ntryside looking for some\nlights while the camera re-\nsien of the strange night\ncorded a dark unear\nDeputy Sheriff 'Shoots' a UFO Over Michigan\nANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP)-A\ndistinct steaks of light in the\nMichigan deputy sheriff said an\nsky high above street lights\nunidentified flying object sight-\nleading into Milan, No details of\ned over Southern Michigan last\nthe objects are visible in the\nweek was trapped-on film-\nphotographs blown up to 8 by 10\nand still another UFO was\ninches from the tiny flim\nState Flying Object Reports\nBring Plea for Federal Sift\nI\nANN ARBOR (AP)-A Mich\nigan congressman planned Tue\nday to ask the Defense Departs\nment to investigate reports of\nunidentified flying objects sight\nen near Ann Arboe\nU.S. Rep Weston Vivian TI\nMich laft for Washington DO\nFirst UFOs\nTimes\nOf Season\nTHE =\n40 in Michigan Say\nA Mysterious Craft\nAre Sighted\n87 Michigan Coeds\nthat of & football. This was\nroughly the same description\ngiven by a man and his son who\nHovered in Swamp\nSpring's first flying saucers\nand Official Sight\nreported that they saw an eerie\nhave sprouted right alongside\nobject land in a swamp Sunday\nthe forsythia.\nMysterious Object\nnight 45 miles northeast of here\nnear Ann Arbor.\nANN ARBOR, Mich., March\nScores of people in Michigan\nThe Air Force announced it\n31 (UPI)-At least 40 persons.\nwas bringing in Dr. H. Allen\nhave reported strange flying\nHILLSDALE, Mich., March\nHynek chairman of Dearborn\nincluding 12 policemen, said to-\nobjects since the weekend,\n22 (UPI)-A civil defense di-\nObservatory at Northwestern\nday that they saw a strange\nrector an assistant dean and 87\nand a former fighter pilot says\nUniversity, Evanston, III., and\nflying object guarded by four\ncoeds reported a glowing ob-\nscientific consultant to the Air\nsister ships land in a swamp\nhe saw several over his Be-\nject fly past a college dormi-\nForce's Project Blue Book pro-\nnear here Sunday night.\nthesda home Saturday night.\ntory and hover in a swamp for\ngram to track down the reports\nhours.\nof unidentified fiving objects.\n2 Portland, Maine, Evening Express, Saturday, Jan. 22, 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers' ...\nEvidence Indicates AF Misleading\nPublic On UFOs\nBy BULKLEY GRIFFIN\nas balloons, stars and aircraft.\nis this: no energetic and thor-\nintelligence of our citizens. is\nter. affirmed half a dozen years\nYet to an augmenting number\n(Last of six articles)\nThe logical assumption,\nough effort to investigate the\none that has been heard at the\nago that he did not believe in\nof competent observers the evi-\nbacked by much circumstantial\nunidentified flying object phe-\nCapitol off and on for ap-\nthe Air Force explainings-away:\ndence grows stronger that some\nWASHINGTON. D.C. -This\nevidence, is that the Air Force\nnomenon is being made by the\nproaching 20 years. Some spec-\nbut he did not indicate he\nof the UFOs are real and really\nis the final one of half a dozen\nis deliberately misleading the\nAir Force or ever has been\nulate it may be the reason the\nthought he knows the truth of\nunknown So very many im-\narticles on the unidentified\npublic.\nmade by it. And this charge\nAir Force has given to the\nthe matter.\npressive sightings can't be ex-\n2 Pertland, Maine, Evening Express, Monday, Jan. 17, 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nAir Force Explainings-Away Of UFOs\nDeepens Mystery\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nan apparent Air Force lack of\nand curious than ever about\nof the UPO performance. On\n\"Reports poured in\" from\n\"The Air Force contends\nthe office of Congressman John\nenthusiasm especially at high\nthese strange, usually lighted.\nTuesday. Aug 3. The New York\n21 cities and towns. continued\nmost of the sightings were\nJarman (D) of the Oklahoma\nthe first of a series about\nlevels - to do a thorough job\nobjects in the sky. The Air\nTimes and other newspapers\nthe AP dispatch The 21 are\nprobably stars or planets\nCity Congressional District and\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\nof investigating sightings.\nForce and the burdened Project\ncarried an Associated Press\nnamed. Seven are listed in Tex-\nIt was the fourth consecutive\nto the National Investigations,\njects) by Bulkley S. Griffin,\nBlue Book have often resorted\ndispatch from Oklahoma City,\nas. three in New Mexico, five\nnight of UFO sightings\nA\nCommittee on Aerial Phenom-\nexecutive editor of the Evening\nHEADQUARTERS of the Air\nto the expedient of lumping a\ndated Aug. 2. It began:\nin Oklahoma and six in Kan-\nlot of people took issue with\nena (NICAP) in Washington a\nExpress Washington Bureau.\nnumber of sightings together\n\"Authorities in Texas, New\nsas.\nForce investigation and conclu-\nthe Air Force's claim that they\nsummary of the teletype re-\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nPortland, Maine, Evening Express, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 1966\nHighway Patrol Report Fires Controversy Over UFOs\nSecond. no radar sighting is\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nBlue Book. the latter the name\nOklahoma City stated flatly\ned four of the obqects\nOkla-\non the highway patrol wire on\nadmitted. This is despite the\nthe second of a series about\nfor the Air Force investigation\nthat Tinker and Carswell both\nhoma Highway Patrol Units 30\nAugust 1st\". it is stated in the\nHighway Patrol's report of\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\nof UFOs.\nhad the UFO on radar.\nand 40 have also made visual\nsummary from the Department\nTinker and Carswell Air Force\nAt 3:30 p.m. Aug 2. Project\nThe next night saw the URO\nsightings. Reports have come\nof Public Safety. On Aug 2. the\nBases having a fix on a July\njects) by Bulkley S. Griffin,\nBlue Book issued a statement\nreports crowding the Highway\nfrom ( three ) individuals\".\nteletype carried its first UFO\n31 object. and Tinker having\nPortland, Maine, Evening Express, Wednesday, Jan. 19. 196\nThose 'Flying Saucers'.\nNew Hampshire Sighting One Of Most Frightening\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nThe sequence of events near\nlights came from behind a\ncause of this sighting. The\n\"Preliminary analysis re-\nFOWLER TALKED with wit-\nExeter began at one o'clock in\ngroup of trees near us. They\nthe third of a series about\nthree observers seem to be sta-\nreals object not explainable in\nnesses and others and said he\nthe morning of last Sept. 3\nwere extremely bright and\nbie, reliable persons, especially\nconventional terms. Object\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\nwas told that Pease AFB of-\nwhen Exeter Police Officer Eu-\nflashed one at a time.\nthe two patrolmen. I viewed\ncaused reduction in farm\njeets) by Bulkley S. Griffin,\ngene P. Bertrand Jr., 30. cruis-\nficers had asked the police and\nthe area of the sighting and\nedws' milk from two and one-\ning in his police car. came\n\"At one time they came se\nfound nothing in the area that\nhalf cans to one can can.\na local newspaper correspon-\ndent not to mention the sight-\nto\nDisturbed bull in field. Caused\nIngs. The request was put to\nin\nO\nE\nA\net\nlis\nn\nI\n1\n\"When we had gone about se\nfeet a group of five bright red\n2\nPortland, Maine, Evening Express, Friday, Jan. 21, 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nWhat Sheriffs Saw Wasn't Star, UFO Prober Admits\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\none from the start, as will be\nwriter was discussing this\nExeter. N. H., case reported be-\nand appeared to be triangular\nwas wearng a long-sleeved shirt\n\"After talking with both of\nthe fifth of a series about\nseen from the testimony of the\nsighting at the headquarters of\ning followed.\nshaped with a bright purple\nand a coat, he later said that\nficers involved in the sighting\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\ntwo deputy sheriffs. Recently,\nProject Blue Book and pointed\nlight on the left and the small-\nhe felt the heat apparently ema-\nthere is no doubt in my mind\njeets) by Bulkley S. Griffin,\nMaj. Hector Quintanilla. in\nout that a Tinker AFB radar\nCHIEF DEPUTY Sheriff Billy\ner. less bright, blue light on the\nnating from the object.\"\nexecutive editor of the Evening\ncommand of Project Blue Book,\nsquadron sergeant had referred\nE. McCoy and Deputy Sheriff\nright end. The bulk of the ob-\nthat they definitely saw some\nExpress Washington Bureau.\nstated he has withdrawn this\nto two stationary objects and\nRobert W Goode were on\njeet appeared to be dark grey\nunusual object or phenomenon.\nTHE OFFICERS rushed away\nconclusion after talking over the\ntwo moving in the formation.\nroutine patrol near Damon. Tex.\nin color with no other distin-\nHowever my investigation fall-\ntoward Damon \"as fast as we\nWASHINGTON. D. C. - The\nphone with Deputy Sheriff Mc-\nProject Blue Book proposed\n-which is around 40 miles south-\nguishing features. It appeared\ned to uncover any facts that\ncould go\". traveling \"at speeds\ncase of the two Texas deputy\nCoy. The star-verdict didn't\nthat the two stationary objects\neast of Houston - when they\nto be about 200 feet wide and\npermitted me. with my meager\nup to 110 miles an hour\". said\nknowledge of such things. to\n2 Portland. Maine, Evening Express, Thursday, Jan. 20, 196'\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nAF Brushes Off Flood Of Sightings In Southwest\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nstops on the possibilities of eiti-\nlike and how they act. They are\npatrol officers that had sightings\nhour from people reporting\nand stood still. then went east It deesn't announce - is not\nthe fourth of a series about\nzens making mistakes and in-\nalso pretty well acquainted\nmust have totaled two dozen\nUFOs\". This report refers to\nand suddenly disappeared from\nreally trying to discover what\nUFOs (unidentified flying eb-\ncluding a statement from the\nwith stars. which at the me-\nand more. Yet the formal Aug.\njust one hour of the several-day\nsight The first ones were orange\nthe UFOs are. Or, If the Air\nofficial of a planetarium in Ok-\nment may be supplanting bal-\n20 report from Tinker shows in-\nsighting period.\nlights. the ones that joined them\njects) by Bulkley 8. Griffin.\nForce already knows. it is pain-\nlahoma City whose text was\nleens as the favorite explana-\nterviews with but two civilians\nChances are, It is said. that\nhad red and green lights like\nstakingly keeping its information\nexecutive editor of the Evening\nthat \"the average person is un-\ntion put forth by Project Blue\nand two police officers.\nthe Air Force handling of the\nairplanes. PD (police depart-\nfrom the public. Chief blame for\nExpress Washington Bureau.\neducated as to what the sky nor-\nBook.\nMaj. Hector Quintanilla. in\nUFO problem may be allowed\nment) Cushing also observed the\nthis lack of action must rest on\nmally looks like\".\ncommand of Project Blue Book.\nto drag along by an apathetic\nsame things\".\nthe government.\nWASHINGTON, D. C.-A good\nThe Tinker AFB report did\nsays the Air Force seeks inter-\npublic. Yet one may specu-\nBut another culprit, the sci-\ntwo weeks after the flood of un-\nInterviews with military ex-inot\nneed to avoid mention of\nviews with persons who call up\nlate on what an honest and en-\nOr the \"appreximately 30\nentific community must hear!!\n2 Portland, Maine, Evening Express, Saturday, Jan. 22, 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'..\nEvidence Indicates AF Misleading\nPublic On UFOs\nBy BULKLEY GRIFFIN\nas balloons. stars and aircraft.\nis this: no energetic and thor-\nintelligence of our citizens. is\nter. affirmed half a dozen years\nYet to an augmenting number\n(Last of als articles)\nThe logical assumption,\nough effort to investigate the\none that has been heard at the\nago that he did not believe in\nof competent observers the evi-\nbacked by much circumstantial\nunidentified flying object phe-\nCapitol off and on for ap-\nthe Air Force explainings-away:\ndence grows stronger that some\nWASHINGTON D.C. -This\nevidence. is that the Air Porce\nnomenon is being made by the\nproaching 20 years. Some spec-\nbut he did not indicate he\nof the UFOs are real and really\nis the final one of half a dozen\nis deliberately misleading the\nAir Force or ever has been\nulate it may be the reason the\nthought he knows the truth of\nunknown So very many im-\narticles on the unidentified\npublic.\nmade by it. And this charge\nAir Force has given to the\nthe matter.\npressive sightings can't be ex-\nflying objects (UFOs). the Uni-\nIn this campaign the Air\nholds true respecting any other\nchairmen of the two congres-\nplained away. it is said.\nted States Air Force. which has\nForce. backed by normal pub-\ngovernment agency and res-\nsional space committees in its\nAn increasing number of good\n\"From the United States,\nthe official job of investigating\nlic respect for the military and\npecting what has been termed\nunderstood endeavor to hold\nobservers hold that a sizable\nfrom Argentina, Uruguay. Por-\nthe sightings. and the public.\nfor authoritative statements.\nthe nation's scientific commu-\noff a congressional investign-\nminority of the sightings -\ntugal, France. Antarctica and\nnity\n2 Pertland, Maine, Evening Express, Monday, Jan. 17, 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nAir Force Explainings-Away Of UFOs\nDeepens Mystery\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nan apparent Air Force lack of\nand curious than ever about\nof the UPO performance. On\n\"Reports poured in\" from\n\"The Air Force contends\nthe office of Congressman John\nthe first of a series about\nenthusiasm especially at high\nthese strange. usually lighted.\nTuesday. Aug 3. The New York\n21 cities and towns. continued\nmost of the sightings were\nJarman (D) of the Oklahoma\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\nlevels to do a thorough job\nobjects in the sky. The Air\nTimes and other newspapers\nthe AP dispatch The 21 are\nprobably stars or planets\nCity Congressional District and\nof investigating sightings.\nForce and the burdened Project\ncarried an Associated Press\nnamed. Seven are listed in Tex-\nIt was the fourth consecutive\nto the National Investigations\njeets) by Bulkley S. Griffin.\nBlue Book have often resorted\ndispatch from Oklahoma City,\nas. three in New Mexico, five\nnight of UFO sightings\nA\nCommittee on Aerial Phenom-\nexecutive editor of the Evening\nHEADQUARTERS of the Air\nto the expedient of lumping a\ndated Aug. 2. It began:\nin Oklahoma and six in Kan-\nlot of people took issue with\nena (NICAP) in Washington a\nExpress Washington Bureau.\nForce investigation and conclu-\nnumber of sightings together\n\"Authorities in Texas, New\nsas.\nthe Air Force's claim that they\nsummary of the teletype re-\nNo wrote the stories after vis-\nsions on unidentified flying ob-\n- not naming any particular\nMexico. Oklahoma and Kansas\nwere stars or planets.\"\nports sent into the Oklahoma\nMine\nthe\nUPO\nwere deluged last night and\nTHE UNITED PRESS Inter-\nHighway\nPatrol\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nPortland, Maine, Evening Express, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 1966\nHighway Patrol Report Fires Controversy Over UFOs\nSecond. no radar sighting is\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nBlue Book. the latter the name\nOklahoma City stated flatly\ned four of the obqects\nOkla-\non the highway patrol wire on\nadmitted. This is despite the\nthe second of a series about\nfor the Air Force investigation\nthat Tinker and Carswell both\nhoma Highway Patrol Units 30\nAugust 1st\". it is stated in the\nHighway Patrol's report of\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\nof UFOs\nhad the UFO on radar.\nand 40 have also made visual\nsummary from the Department\nTinker and Carswell Air Force\nAt 3:30 p.m. Aug 2. Project\nThe next night saw the URO\nsightings. Reports have come\nof Public Safety. On Aug. 2. the\nBases having a fix on a July\njects) by Bulkley S. Griffin,\nBlue Book issued a statement\nreports crowding the Highway\nfrom ( three individuals\".\nteletype carried its first UFO\n31 object, and Tinker having\nexecutive editor of the Even-\nassuming to explain the aval-\nPatrol teletype. Some quota-\nNames of two civilians are giv-\nreport of that day at 2 p.m.\na fix on up to four objects the\ning Express Washington Be-\nanche of UFO sightings that\ntions of messages will be given.\nen: third was a police officer\nregarding a sighting at 12:50\nnight of Aug. 1-2: and despite\nreau. He wrote the stories aft-\nhad hit the Southwest - but\nAt 9:19 p.m. the Highway\nfrom Tulsa. not named.\np.m. near Cushing Other re-\nnational wire services reports\nprobably had hit Oklahoma\nPatrol tower sent out this mes-\nports followed through the aft-\nof these radar sightings and\ner visiting the UFO office of\nthe heaviest - starting July 31.\nsage: \"Since 8 p.m. the tower\n\"TINKER AIR FORCE Base\nernoon and night.\nof a Wichita Weather Station\nPortland. Maine, Evening Express, Wednesday, Jan. 19, 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nNew Hampshire Sighting One Of Most Frightening\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nThe sequence of events near\nlights came from behind a\ncause of this sighting. The\n\"Preliminary analysis re-\nFOWLER TALKED with wit-\nExeter began at one o'clock in\ngroup of trees near us They\nthree observers seem to be sta-\nveals object not explainable in\nthe third of a series about\nnesses and others and said he\nthe morning of last Sept. 3\nwere extremely bright and\nbie, reliable persons, especially\nconventional terms. Object\nwas told that Pease AFB of-\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\nwhen Exeter Police Officer Eu-\nflashed one at a time.\nthe two patrolmen. I viewed\ncaused reduction in farm\nficers had asked the police and\njeets) by Bulkley S. Griffin,\ngene P. Bertrand Jr., 30. cruis-\nthe area of the sighting and\nedws' milk from two and one-\na local newspaper correspon-\nexecutive editor of the Even-\ning in his police car. came\n\"At one time they came se\nfound nothing in the area that\nhalf cans to one can can.\ndent not to mention the sight-\nupon an auto drawn up by the\nclose I fell to the ground and\ncould be the probable cause.\nDisturbed bull in field. Caused\nIng Express Washington Bu-\nings. The request was put to\nside of the road and in It an\nstarted to draw my gun. The\nPease AFB had five B47 air-\ndog to bark.\" This sighting,\nthe police on the ground peo-\nreau.\nhysterical woman. who accord-\nlights were so bright I was un-\ncraft flying in the area during\nby the way. is one of the very\nple would be alarmed If told\ning to the officer's report to\nable to make out any form.\nthis period but do not believe\nfew that Project Blue Beek\nthe facts It is stated\nWASHINGTON. D C-One\nthe investigative officer from\n\"There was no sound or vi-\nthey had any connection with\nhas marked \"unidentified.\"\nMaj. Quintanilla informed\nof the more impressive sight-\nPease Air Force Base, N. H.,\nbration but the farm animals\nthis sighting\nof this charge. said that \"I\nings of an Unidentified Flying\n\"stated she was too upset to\nwere upset in the area and\nHowever. Project Blue Book\nThe Exeter UPO produced a\nwould not allow any suppres-\nObject (UFO) occurred near\ndrive.\" She stated a light had\nmaking a let of noise. When\nlists low-flying airplanes as\nfairly familiar charge. name-\nsion of news.\" However It is\nM\nW\nlast\nSeptember\nthe\nMedia\ncoming\nprobably\nly that the Air Force sought\ns\n2\nPortland, Maine, Evening Express, Friday, Jan. 21, 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nWhat Sheriffs Saw Wasn't Star, UFO Prober Admits\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\none from the start. as will be\nwriter was discussing this\nExeter. N H.. case reported be-\nand appeared to be triangular\nwas wearng a long-sleeved shirt\n\"After talking with both of-\nthe fifth of a series about\nseen from the testimony of the\nsighting at the headquarters of\ning followed.\nshaped with a bright purple\nand a coat. he later said that\nficers involved in the sighting\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\ntwo deputy sheriffs Recently.\nProject Blue Book and pointed\nlight on the left and the small-\nhe felt the heat apparently ema-\njects) by Bulkley S. Griffin.\nMaj. Hector Quintanilla. in\nout that a Tinker AFB radar\nCHIEF DEPUTY Sheriff Billy\ner. less bright, blue light on the\nthere is no doubt in my mind\nnating from the object.\"\nexecutive editor of the Evening\ncommand of Project Blue Book,\nsquadron sergeant had referred\nE McCoy and Deputy Sheriff\nright end. The bulk of the ob-\nthat they definitely saw seme\nExpress Washington Bureau.\nstated he has withdrawn this\nto two stationary objects and\nRobert W Goode were on\nject appeared to be dark grey\nunusual object or phenomenon.\nTHE OFFICERS rushed away\nconclusion after talking over the\ntwo moving in the formation.\nroutine patrol near Damon. Tex.\nin color with no other distin-\nHowever my investigation fall-\ntoward Damon \"as fast as we\nWASHINGTON D C - The\nphone with Deputy Sheriff Mc-\nProject Blue Book proposed\n-which is around 40 miles south-\nguishing features. It appeared\ned to uncover any facts that\ncould go\". traveling \"at speeds\ncase of the two Texas deputy\nCoy The star-verdict didn't\nthat the two stationary objects\neast of Houston - when they\nto be about 200 feet wide and\npermitted me. with my meager\nup to 110 miles an hour\". said\nsheriffs whose patrol car was al-\nseem to fit. So Blue Book now\nwere stars - the brightest of\nsaw a bright purple light. which\n40-50 feet thick in the middle\nknowledge of such things, to\nMcCov Arrived in Damon they\n2 Portland. Maine, Evening Express, Thursday, Jan. 20, 196'\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nAF Brushes Off Flood Of Sightings In Southwest\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nstops on the possibilities of citi-\nlike and how they act. They are\npatrol officers that had sightings\nhour from people reporting\nand stood still. then went east it doesn't announce - is not\nthe fourth of a series about\nzens making mistakes and in-\nalso pretty well acquainted\nmust have totaled two dozen\nUFOs\". This report refers to\nand suddenly disappeared from\nreally trying to discover what\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\ncluding a statement from the\nwith stars, which at the me-\nand more Yet the formal Aug.\njust one hour of the several-day\nsight. The first ones were orange\nthe UFOs are. Or. if the Air\nofficial of a planetarium in Ok-\nment may be supplanting bai-\n20 report from Tinker shows in-\nsighting period.\nlights, the ones that joined them\njacts) by Bulkley 8. Griffin.\nForce already knows. it is pain-\nlahoma City whose text was\nleons as the favorite explana-\nterviews with but two civilians\nChances are, It is said. that\nhad red and green lights like\nstakingly keeping its information\nexecutive editor of the Evening\nthat \"the average person is un-\nthem must forth hv Project Blue\nand two police officers\nthe Air Force handling of the\nairplanes PD police depart.\nfrom the public Chief\n2\nPortland, Maine, Evening Express, Friday, Jan. 21, 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nWhat Sheriffs Saw Wasn't Star, UFO Prober Admits\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\none from the start, as will be\nwriter was discussing this\nExeter. N H., case reported be-\nand appeared to be triangular\nwas wearng a long-sleeved shirt\n\"After talking with both of\nthe fifth of a series about\nseen from the testimony of the\nsighting at the headquarters of\ning followed.\nshaped with a bright purple\nand a coat. he later said that\nficers involved in the sighting\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\ntwo deputy sheriffs. Recently.\nProject Blue Book and pointed\nlight on the left and the small-\nhe felt the heat apparently ema-\nthere is Be doubt in my mind\njects) by Bulkley S. Griffin.\nMaj. Hector Quintanilla. in\nout that a Tinker AFB radar\nCHIEF DEPUTY Sheriff Billy\ner. less bright, blue light on the\nnating from the object.\"\nexecutive editor of the Evening\ncommand of Project Blue Book.\nsquadron sergeant had referred\nE McCoy and Deputy Sheriff\nright end. The bulk of the ob-\nthat they definitely saw some\nExpress Washington Bureau.\nstated he has withdrawn this\nto two stationary objects and\nRobert W Goode were on\nject appeared to be dark grey\nunusual object or phenomenon.\nTHE OFFICERS rushed away\nHowever mv investigation\n2 Portland. Maine, Evening Express, Thursday, Jan. 20, 196'\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nAF Brushes Off Flood Of Sightings In Southwest\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nstops on the possibilities of citi-\nlike and how they act. They are\npatrol officers that had sightings\nhour from people reporting\nand stood still. then went east it doesn't announce\nI\nis\nthe fourth of a series about\nzens making mistakes and in-\nalso pretty well acquainted\nUFOs\". This report refers to\nnot\nmust have totaled two dozen\nand suddenly disappeared from\nreally trying to discover what\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\ncluding & statement from the\nwith stars. which at the me-\nand more Yet the formal Aug.\njust one hour of the several-day\nsight. The first ones were orange\nthe UPOs are. Or, If the Air\nofficial of a planetarium in Ok-\nment may be supplanting bal-\n20 report from Tinker shows in-\nsighting period.\nlights, the ones that joined them\njects) by Bulkley S. Griffin.\nForce already knows. It is pain-\nlahoma City whose text was\nleens as the favorite explana-\nterviews with but two civilians\nChances are, It is said. that\nhad red and green lights like\nstakingly keeping its information\nexecutive editor of the Evening\nthat \"the average person is un-\ntion put forth by Project Blue\nand two police officers\nthe Air Force handling of the\nairplanes. PD (police depart-\nfrom the public. Chief blame for\nExpress Washington Bureau.\neducated as to what the sky nor-\nBook.\nMaj. Hector Quintanilla. in\nUFO problem may be allowed\nment) Cushing also observed the\nthis lack of action must rest on\nmally looks like\".\ncommand of Project Blue Book.\nto drag along by an apathetic\nsame things\".\nthe government.\nWASHINGTON. D. C.-A good\nThe Tinker AFB report did\nsays the Air Force seeks inter-\npublic. Yet one may specu-\nBut another culprit, the sci-\ntwo weeks after the flood of un-\nInterviews with military ex-\nnot need to avoid mention of\nviews with persons who call up\nlate on what an honest and en-\nOr the \"appreximately 30\nentific community. must bear\nidentified flying object (UFO)\nperts are given which mention\nparticular sightings The Okla-\nand whose names they learn.\nergetic investigation might do.\ncalls\" to the Shawnee police\nblame according to an August\nsightings last August over Okla-\nunusually bright stars at this\nhoma Highway Patrol teletype\n\"We are not interested in per-\nFor one thing. it would investi-\ndepartment reporting four or\narticle by Robert C. Cowen. nat-\nPortland, Maine, Evening Express, Wednesday, Jan. 19. 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'.\nNew Hampshire Sighting One Of Most Frightening\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nThe sequence of events near\nlights came from behind a\ncause of this sighting. The\n\"Preliminary analysis re-\nExeter began at one o'clock in\ngroup of trees near us. They\nFOWLER TALKED with wit-\nthe third of a series about\nthree observers seem to be sta-\nreals object not explainable in\nthe morning of last Sept. 3\nwere extremely bright and\nnesses and others and said he\nbie, reliable persons, especially\nconventional terms. Object\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\nwhen Exeter Police Officer Eu-\nflashed one at a time.\nwas told that Pease AFB of-\nthe two patrolmen. I viewed\ncaused reduction in farm\njeets) by Bulkley S. Griffin,\ngene P. Bertrand Jr., 30. cruis-\nficers had asked the police and\nthe area of the sighting and\nedws' milk from two and one-\nexecutive editor of the Even-\ning in his police car. came\n\"At one time they came se\nfound nothing in the area that\nhalf cans to one can can.\na local newspaper correspon-\nupon an auto drawn up by the\nclose I fell to the ground and\ndent not to mention the sight-\nIng Express Washington Bu-\ncould be the probable cause.\nDisturbed bull in field. Caused\nside of the road and in It an\nstarted to draw my gun. The\nIngs. The request was put to\nPease AFB had five B47 air-\ndog to bark.\" This sighting,\nreas.\nhysterical woman. who accord-\nlights were so bright I was un-\nthe police on the ground peo-\ncraft flying in the area during\nby the way. is one of the very\ning to the officer's report to\nable to make out any form.\nple would be slarmed If told\nthis period but do not believe\nfew that Project Blue Beek\nWASHINGTON, D C-One\nthe facts It is stated\nthe investigative officer from\n\"There was no sound or vi-\nthey had any connection with\nhas marked \"unidentified.\"\nof the more impressive sight-\nMai. Quintanilla informed\nPease Air Force Base. N. H.,\nbration but the farm animals\nthis sighting.\"\nings of an Unidentified Flying\nof this charge. said that \"I\n\"stated she was too upset to\nwere upset in the area and\nHowever. Project Blue Book\nThe Exeter UFO produced a\nObject (UPO) occurred near drive.\" She stated a light had\nwould not allow any suppres-\nmaking a let of noise. When\nlists low-flying airplanes as\nfairly familiar charge, name-\nExeter. N. H., last September. been following her and had\nsion of news.\" However It is\nthe lights started coming near\nprobably responsible for this\nly that the Air Force sought\nIt\nextend-\nan impression in Washington\nto suppress news of the sight-\nofficers\ndeal\nhigher\nfeet a group of five bright red\n2 Pertland, Maine, Evening Express, Monday, Jan. 17, 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nAir Force Explainings-Away Of UFOs\nDeepens Mystery\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nan apparent Air Force lack of\nand curious than ever about\nof the UFO performance. On\n\"Reports poured in\" from\n\"The Air Force contends\nthe office of Congressman John\nthe first of a series about\nenthusiasm especially at high\nthese strange, usually lighted.\nTuesday. Aug 3. The New York\n21 cities and towns. continued\nmost of the sightings were\nJarman (D) of the Oklahoma\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\nlevels to do a thorough job\nobjects in the sky. The Air\nTimes and other newspapers\nthe AP dispatch The 21 are\nprobably stars or planets\nCity Congressional District and\nof investigating sightings.\nForce and the burdened Project\ncarried an Associated Press\nnamed. Seven are listed in Tex-\nIt was the fourth consecutive\njeets) by Bulkley S. Griffin.\nto the National Investigations\nBlue Book have often resorted\ndispatch from Oklahoma City,\nas. three in New Mexico. five\nnight of UFO sightings\nA\nexecutive editor of the Evening\nCommittee on Aerial Phenom-\nHEADQUARTERS of the Air\nto the expedient of lumping a\ndated Aug. 2. It began:\nin Oklahoma and six in Kan-\nlot of people took issue with\nExpress Washington Bureau.\nena (NICAP) in Washington a\nForce investigation and conclu-\nnumber of sightings together\n\"Authorities in Texas, New\nsas.\nHe wrote the stories after vis-\nthe Air Force's claim that they\nsummary of the teletype re-\nsions on unidentified flying ob-\n- not naming any particular\nMexico. Oklahoma and Kansas\nwere stars or planets.\"\nIting the UFO office of the\nports sent into the Oklahoma\njects they call the enterprise\none - and furnishing a gener-\nwere deluged last night and\nTHE UNITED PRESS Inter-\nHighway Patrol Communica-\nU.S. Air Force.\nProject Blue Book - is at\nalized catch-all explanation.\nearly today (Aug. 2) by reports\nnational. in a dispatch in the\nIt can be mentioned in pass-\ntions Network Center. July 31-\nWright - Patterson Air Force\nof unidentified objects seen\nevening of Aug. 2. named eight\ning that radar does not pick\nAug. 5, from the various high-\nWASHINGTON. D.C. The\nBase near Dayton. Ohio. In\nThis is what It did respec-\nflying in the sky.\nstates. \"Reports of sightings by\nup stars or planets.\nAir Force handling of the uni-\nting an extraordinary num-\n\"The Sedgwick County sher-\nway patrol headquarters over\ncharge of Project Blue Book is\neye poured in from Kansas,\nIn one UPI dispatch It is\nthe state.\ndentified flying objects (UFOs)\nber of sightings in the South-\niff's office at Wichita. Kansas.\nMai Hector Quintanilla\nTexas. Oklahoma. New Mexico,\nstated that \"Oklahomans prob-\nThis valuable document\n2 Portland, Maine, Evening Express, Saturday, Jan. 22. 1966\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nEvidence Indicates AF Misleading\nPublic On UFOs\nBy BULKLEY GRIFFIN\nas balloons. stars and aircraft.\nis this: no energetic and thor-\nintelligence of our citizens. is\nter. affirmed half a dozen years\nYet to an augmenting number\n(Last of six articles)\nThe logical assumption,\nough effort to investigate the\none that has been heard at the\nago that he did not believe in\nof competent observers the evi-\nbacked by much circumstantial\nunidentified flying object phe-\nCapitol off and on for ap-\nthe Air Force explainings-away.\ndence grows stronger that some\nWASHINGTON D.C. -This\nevidence. is that the Air Force\nnomenon is being made by the\nproaching 20 years. Some spec-\nbut he did not indicate he\nof the UFOs are real and really\nis the final one of half a dozen\nis deliberately misleading the\nAir Force or ever has been\nulate it may be the reason the\nthought he knows the truth of\nunknown So very many im-\narticles on the unidentified\npublic.\nmade by it. And this charge\nAir Force has given to the\nthe matter.\npressive sightings can't be ex-\nflying objects (UFOs). the Uni-\nIn this campaign the Air\nholds true respecting any other\nchairmen of the two congres-\nplained away. it is said.\nted States Air Force. which has\nForce. backed by normal pub-\ngovernment agency and res-\nsional space committees in its\nAn increasing number of good\n\"From the United States,\nthe official job of investigating\nlic respect for the military and\npecting what has been termed\nunderstood endeavor to hold\nobservers hold that a sizable\nfrom Argentina. Uruguay. Por-\nthe sightings. and the public.\nfor authoritative statements.\nthe nation's acientific commu-\noff a congressional investign-\nminority of the sightings -\ntugal. France. Antarctica and\nThose 'Flying Saucers'\nPortland. Maine, Evening Express, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 1966\nHighway Patrol Report Fires Controversy Over UFOs\nSecond. no radar sighting is\nEDITOR'S NOTE: This is\nBlue Book, the latter the name\nOklahoma City stated flatly\ned four of the obqects Okla-\non the highway patrol wire on\nadmitted. This is despite the\nthe second of a series about\nfor the Air Force investigation\nthat Tinker and Carswell both\nhoma Highway Patrol Units 30\nAugust 1st\" It is stated in the\nHighway Patrol's report of\nUFOs (unidentified flying ob-\nof UFOs.\nhad the UFO on radar.\nand 40 have also made visual\nsummary from the Department\nTinker and Carswell Air Force\nAt 3:30 p.m. Aug 2. Project\nThe next night saw the URO\nsightings. Reports have come\nof Public Safety. On Aug 2. the\nBases having a fix on a July\njeets) by Bulkley S. Griffin,\nBlue Book issued a statement\nreports crowding the Highway\nfrom three individuals\".\nteletype carried its first UFO\n31 object. and Tinker having\nexecutive editor of the Even-\nassuming to explain the aval-\nPatrol teletype. Some quota-\nNames of two civilians are giv-\nreport of that day at 2 p.m.\na fix on up to four objects the\nIng Express Washington Bu-\nanche of UFO sightings that\ntions of messages will be given,\nen: third was a police officer\nregarding a sighting at 12:50\nnight of Aug. 1-2: and despite\nreau. He wrote the stories aft-\nhad hit the Southwest but\nAt 9:19 p.m. the Highway\nfrom Tulsa, not named.\np.m. near Cushing Other re-\nnational wire services reports\nports followed through the aft-\ner visiting the UFO office of\nprobably had hit Oklahoma\nPatrol tower sent out this mes-\nof these radar sightings and\nthe heaviest starting July 31.\nsage: \"Since 8 p.m. the tower\n\"TINKER AIR FORCE Base\nernoon and night.\nof a Wichita Weather Station\nthe U.S. Air Force.\nTherefore. this article will\nhas received in the neighbor-\nhas had from one to four of\nAll this from just one state's\nradar sighting of several UFOs.\nseek to hit the high points of\nhood of 25 to 30 visual sight-\nthem on radar at a time. and\nhighway patrol teletype\nBy BULKLEY GRIFFIN\nthe sightings reported on the\nings, many by police officers\nthey advise they are flying very\nAt 3:30 p.m. on Aug. 2. Maj.\nRADAR DOES NOT pick up\nWASHINGTON. D.C. - Re-\nOklahoma Highway Patrol net-\nand highway patrol troopers\nhigh, at approximately 22,000\nHector Quintanilla. in charge\nstars and planets. as has been\nsearch into the matter of the\nwork beginning with July 31,\nof various unidentified flying\nfeet. which seems to coincide\nof Project Blue Book. issued\nstated. Purther, corroboration\nUnidentified Flying Objects\nup to the issuance of the Pro-\nobjects from the Purcell Area\nwith the visual sightings. all\nthe following staetment:\n(UFOs). the United States Air\nject Blue Book explanation.\nnorth thru the Norman area to\nof which are 'very high flying\nof visual sightings by a redar\nForce and the public, receives\nChandler and back through\nobjects'\".\n\"INITIAL STUDY of the\nsighting - as the Oklahoma"
}