Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
471801002
label
1966: Unidentified Flying Objects - Unanswered, September - December (folder B49-5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
471801002
contentType
document
title
1966: Unidentified Flying Objects - Unanswered, September - December (folder B49-5)
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Legislative Issues Files
subjects
Unidentified flying objects
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
471801002
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-12-01
month
12
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-09-01
month
9
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
fbad842912625c2c
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box B49, folder "1966: Unidentified Flying Objects
(folder 5)" of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the
United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives
collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in
the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are
presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject
to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
1966: Unidentified Flying Objects - Unanswered, September
- December (folder B49-5)
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
PHOTOC OPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
this would have be workd our
knowng he will be quited if he give We if P Dr. HyneR. Toll here
1:30 Mr. C telephmel June Pork Angele Wants &
P.O.Box 49
with M.H.
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
September 21, 1966
Congressman Gerald R. Ford
Congress of the United States
UFO
Office of the Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Dear Congressman Ford:
Please find enclosed a copy of a letter I sent to Dr. J. Allen Hynek who
is consultant to the Air Force regarding scientific investigations of UFOs.
I talked to your office assistant yesterday by phone expressing my wish to
co-operate with you and your office in obtaining public hearings on Unident-
ified Flying Objects. I also mentioned to your office assistant whose
name I am sorry I cannot recall at this moment, about a doctor bill that
was sent to me through the mail with an Air Force postal mark stamped on
the back of it indicating that my private mail has been channeled to
Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington State. As a citizen standing on my
constitutional rights 1 would desire that this matter be looked into. I
can understand this happening as a mistake, but as I have had considerabl
correspondence with official government agencies including Senator Wayne
Morse's office, as well as your own and also correspondence with civilian
aviation companies and private individuals concerning my personal efforts
in UFO research as well as the related subject concerning my efforts to
produce or invent an electro-magnetic aircraft propulsion system, etc.,
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
I thought I had better see that this incident became a matter of record
in case any future mistakes might come to pass.
In order for me to be of any future help to your office regarding UFOs
I would desire to be put in touch with someone locally in the State of
Washington who is connected with your office. When you read the enclosed
letter to Dr. Hynek, I hope you will understand that I believe I have need
of advice and protection from an official source such as your office before
going any further. Again I'm making an offer to be of assistance to your
office in your UFo investigation if you will but let me know in what way
I can be of assistance. In the 20 years experience that I have in the UFO
research field, etc., I have traveled a lot, saw a lot, and come in contact
with all manner of individuals, organizations, etc., involved in the UFO
confusion. So I think that there will be many individuals that could con-
tribute information that would be of help to you towards obtaining an open
hearing if they know they are talking to someone who will keep an open mind
to what they are saying, so when you're dealing with people regarding the
UFO subject please keep this thought in mind. Frankly, I think a lot of
these individuals of the lunatic fringe should be put in their proper
places to keep them from confusing the issue any further.
So please let me know if you have any further opinions or requests con-
cerning the enclosed information. But in closing I would like to say that
I am asking for protection from your office of my constitutional and
inventor's rights as a citizen. And I'm asking this of your office
because you are the Congressman who publicly asked for hearings on
-2-
Unidentified Flying Objects, etc. Besides I feel that if I was allowed
to look through Air Force UFO photographs of my own choosing, aided with
protection from your office I could probably help you quite a bit.
I would appreciate an early reply and please find my phone number and
address enclosed in case you have need of it.
Sincerely,
William D. Clendenorde,
William D. Clendenon, Jr.
Address: 409 South Laurel
Port Angeles, Wash.
Phone No. (Area Code 206) 457-7710
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
P.O.Box 49
Pert Angeles, Washington 98362
September 21, 1966
Dr. J. Allen Hynek
Department of Astronomy
Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois
Dear Dr. Hynek:
After speaking with you on the phone yesterday, 1 cut out the enclosed
newspaper clipping concerning your recent comments on clearing up as much
as possible the mystery of UFO phenomenon. It is the only paper I'm able
to purchase here at this time, 80 I don't know how the other newspapers
carried your story. However your story was well received out here on
radio and TV from all the reports I have heard.
As 1 expressed to you on the phone yesterday I am sure the general public
has never wanted to fight the Air Force or the Government concerning this
UFO subject, but when for 20 years citizens have looked to their Air Force
and Government for the truth regardless of what it may have been and in
turn received answers such B.B. "swamp gas", "chicken feeder", "weather
balloons", "temperature inversions", etc., it has only added to the con-
fusion and built up distrust and hostility towards Government agencies,
etc., involved to the point where it is now up to those Government agenci
and personnel to prove to the public that they are big enough to admit
where they were wrong in the way they handled their public relations
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD BRARY
concerning UFO phenomenon. Because of the above-mentioned Government
foul-up in UFO public relations media this has left the subject wide open
and at the mercy of con-artists, liars, and out-and-out kooks; and the
honest layman has been left in a state of confusion, mistrust towards
their Government, etc., 80 that the damage done in all areas is not going
to be easy to overcome. As I expressed to you on the phone yesterday,
once honest citizens find an official source that they can learn to trust
and actually realize some concrete action on clearing up the UFO confusion
as much as possible, 1 think you will find that you'll receive a great
deal of information and assistance to help towards clearing up the UFO
mystery which up to now has been held back in the past because of the
official skeptical conduct of various Government agencies, etc.
I think the statements you made, Dr. Hynek, as expressed in the enclosed
newspaper clipping have made a good start towards this and I feel safe in
saying that no layman has been any more disgusted and confused by the
official Government attitude towards the UFO phenomenon than I have.
And by now I am sure there are those personnel in various Government
agencies who know this, but if in any future dealings with any govern-
ment personnel or agencies 1 may have on the UFO subject I find that I
am being dealt with honestly and fairly in all respects, I think they
will find that I will co-operate with them fully within reason.
And because of the UFO sightings, etc., 1 have had over the last 20 years
along with the technical clues I have dug up at my own expense, etc., and
the fact that 1 am in a layman's position, I am extending an offer to you
-2-
and the United States Government to assist in any way possible in helping
towards better public relations and a clearing up of the UFO phenomenon
for the benefit of all concerned. If I can be of any assistance in
helping rid the field of con-men, out-and-out liars, etc., I would gladly
do 80 in order to help clear myself in regard to having been called all
kinds of things such as a nut, a liar, etc., for all I have done is tried
to tell the truth about the things I have experienced and found out in
the UFO field, and this has been all at my own expense on a private basis,
so you see by the changing attitude that it appears is being made
officially concerning public relations, etc., regarding the UPO subject,
I am willing to be one of the first to lessen the pressure I have put on
various Government agencies concerning the UFO phenomenon. But as a
citizen if I feel that various Government agencies are acting unconsti-
tutionally towards their citizens and myself personally on any subject
then I intend to stand on my constitutional rights and exercise all legal
means of putting things in their proper prospective. In other words,
when I continue to see at various times over a 20 year period vehicles
operating within our atmosphere that are circular in shape with steam-
like vapor and various colored lights emitting from them as well as other
side-effects and my Government continues to ridicule and ignore the in-
formation that honest citizens are trying to convey to the proper author
ities then I want to know why we are being lied to because any time
politicians feel like declaring war they do so at the citizen's expense,
and there is nothing any worse than that.
So I do not go along with the theory that the public would panic if they
were informed that we have been contacted by some heretofore unknown
civilization, etc. The only ones that 1 personally can see that secrecy
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
in the UFO phenomenon might benefit would be various religions, govern-
ments, and individuals in powerful positions that would be forced to
explain many things that they would rather not have explained. In other
words, the general public under certain conditions is not always 80
easily fooled as some politicians, etc., would like to think.
So again if I can be of any assistance in helping to officially clear up
any part of the UFO phenomenon I will gladly do so, but if I find any
form of hostility or actions of untruth I'll fight it when and where I
find it in order to protect the efforts in my personal case regarding
UFOs, etc., as well as to help protect our constitutional rights, etc.
Now then, Dr. Hynek, I am willing to send you drawings and information
concerning the propulsion system I have been working on and explain to
you fully it's relationship to UFOs and the circumstances surrounding
my whole personal case in this subject, but (1) I want my constitutional
rights as a citizen fully protected (2) I want my inventor's rights
fully protected (3) in order to do justice to all concerned with the
information I have personally accumulated 1 desire a place of personal
interview in a relaxed atmosphere with enough period of time allowed 80
that my story may be conveyed in its entirety and that I may be able by
the use of photographs, drawings, etc., to explain the technical clues
I have accumulated regarding the type of UFO vehicle 1 have personally
seen on different occasions over the last 20 years.
-3-
When you read this letter you are bound to see the various mistakes that
I've probably made in the writing of it, but I'll bet you'll understand
what the letter tells you and it would hold up in a court of law if so
needed. What I'm getting at is this, I am a layman but if 1 were allowed
the assistance of qualified professional technical personnel with the
basic technical knowledge I have as an amateur put together I could
certainly help my country clear up at least a piece of this UFO mystery.
For instance you represented the Air Force in public and called the
Adamski UFO photograph a chicken feeder. A later statement made by the
Air Force in a letter to Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon (which I have in
my possession) referred to the same photograph as that of a tobacco
humidifier. This tells me, though I'm a layman, that the Air Force doesn't
know what the hell it is! I say it's possibly a UFO because one that
appeared to be identical to the object in the above-mentioned photograph
flew over my backyard low and slow several years ago. And I was standing
directly under it as it passed overhead. Also I have seen other photogra
of UFOs that have been taken by different individuals at different times,
places, and angles that appeared to be very similar to the above-mentione
Adamski UFO photo.
Now what I'm driving at is this, if various Government personnel as well
as private individuals are in confusion over this one photograph, which
they certainly are, then I think it justifies paying attention in an open
minded, honest, professional, scientific manner to the technical findings
that I have found through my own personal research program which made use
of from time to time the same above-mentioned Adamski photograph for
research purposes, etc.
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
If my propulsion system 1 have put together indicates even at least a
75% possibility of working including producing the various side-effects
of lights, odors, no apparent sound to the human ear, right angle turns,
hovering, etc., including the steam-like vapor seen in connection with
UFOs at various times, then I would say that the basic findings I have
come up with would justify a professional scientific research program
to further develop the propulsion system I have been working on, etc.
And at the same time this would help us to learn more concerning the type
of aircraft such as the UFOs appear to be. It would also help us to learn
more in regard to where they come from, who is operating them, etc.
You stated in the enclosed clipping a need for a scientific investigation
to dispel 20 years of confusion. I agree with that a 100%. And the 20 years
of experience and personal research on my part would certainly give the
United States Government a hell of a good start to do just that. So I
would like to know as a taxpaying citizen why in the hell we aren't doing
it! Please understand, Dr. Hynek, I fully realize your personal position
in this whole matter. I hope you in turn will understand my position as
well. Now I ask you what more could a citizen offer? So think over what
I have said, Dr. Hynek, and let me know something as soon as possible.
Sincerely yours,
WilliamD.
William D. Clendenon, Jr.
UFU
HARRY
B
FUCHS
242 Prospect Street
Farmingdale, N. Y. II735
September 26, I966
MD
On the Record
I am the
Rep. Gerald R. Ford
pioneer inventor of push button wireless
United States House of Representatives
tuning (p. 765, March 1918 Electrical Ex-
perimenter), inventor of the method for
Washington, D. C.
controlling multiple functions in space-
time relationship by means of a single
Dear Rep. Ford:
press-button or equivalent (Pat. No. 1,967,-
816), inventor of the pulse-time switching
basic concept (Claim 4, Pat. No. 1,967,-
Re:- - "Aboard A Flying Saucer", Oct. 4, LOOK.
817). The automatic automobiles in the
year 2007 operated by an electromagnetic
field through induction from an under-
The phenomenon of the "shiny circles scattered
ground cable, predicted in the book "Rus-
on the car trunk's surface" that caused a sharp
sian Science in the 21st Century" pub-
lished by McGraw-Hill, was invented by
reaction of the needle in the compass placed thereon,
me in 1917 (p. 398, Oct. 1917 Electrical
is related to the new science of Astrogeophysics
Experimenter), and the prediction in the
same book of knifeless surgery is already
reported in the Benton letter in the Sept. I9, I966
described in my biography in Vol. 5, Who's
issue of Technology Week. The force field within
Who in Commerce & Industry, published in
the said "shiny circles" is analgous with the force
1946, which also documents my basic con-
cept for protection from nuclear explosions
field within cylinder 3 of the apparatus illustrated
that was successfully tested by the U.S.
in my paper "Research On Gravitation" attached hereto,
Army in 1955. Furthermore, the basic
unifying law of the symmetry in nature, as
which persists for days after cylinder 3 has ceased
well as the derivation of our alpha-numeri-
to rotate.
cal system from phases of a circle, and the
bilateral symmetrical relationship between
the sine waveform and the origin of
The scientifically-superior alien humanoids are
algebra are proved in my essay "God's
disturbed by the nuclear explosions on our planet
Circle" (Reg. No. A 93605 Library of
Congress). There are many more of my
which could rupture the atmospheric envelope enclosing
masterpieces.
our planet (Science News Letter, 89:II7, Feb. I9, I966),
and which might alter the spatial configuration of the
Another basic factor influencing our
scientific and technological aspirations is
planets in our galaxy, as postulated in the analogous
the newly attained knowledge that casts
Mayer's floating magnets. Either eventuality would
doubt on the validity of established con-
destroy life on our planet regardless of politics or
cepts. For example, the law of the con-
servation of mass and energy is not con-
religious beliefs and practices.
clusive in view of momentum and entropy
which are conserved only under certain
conditions, and at persistence of wave-
forms wherein particles thereof are always
changing and in which mass and energy
Very HB/min truly yours,
disappear or come into existence. These
phenomena are important in filtering out
Harry Bricker Fuchs
and storing anti-matter particles and in
anti-gravitational devices.
Harry Bricker Fuchs
missiles and rockets, 1966
The basic unifying law of the
symmetry in nature is explained
5
very simply in my essay "GOD's
CIRCLE", Registration No. A93605
Library of Congress, wherein it
is disclosed that all living forms
in the Universe develop symmet-
rically from a nucleus on a zero
line of force in geometro-dynamic
space-time progression and that
our alphabetical and mumerical
7
symbols are interchangable des-
criptive angular segments of a
circle or zero in geometro-dyna-
3
mic space-time progression as
illustrated on p. 4 and 5 of my
essay. My "Trendletter" on p.
12-14 of the June-July 1961 issue
of Industrial Research magazine
4
INVENTOR Harry Fuchs in his laboratory.
notes the relation to the develop-
ment of energy at the backward
flow of time,
MODERN INDUSTRY 1943
On the Record
PRESS RELEASE
I am the
pioneer inventor of push button wireless
tuning (p. 765, March 1918 Electrical Ex-
RESEARCH ON GRAVITATION
perimenter), inventor of the method for
controlling multiple functions in space-
time relationship by means of a single
Attention: Inventors & Scientists, Worldwide
press-button or equivalent (Pat. No. 1,967,-
FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
816), inventor of the pulse-time switching
basic concept (Claim 4, Pat. No. 1,967,-
In his address delivered at the Physical
817). The automatic automobiles in the
Society in Berlin, on the occasion of Max
year 2007 operated by an electromagnetic
Planck's 60th birthday, Einstein said:- "There
field through induction from an under-
ground cable, predicted in the book "Rus-
is no logical path to the universal elementar
sian Science in the 21st Century" pub-
laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic
lished by McGraw-Hill, was invented by
understanding of experience". And in an address
me in 1917 (p. 398, Oct. 1917 Electrical
Experimenter), and the prediction in the
in London on the theory of relativity, Einstein
same book of knifeless surgery is already
said:- "The fundamental principle here is that
described in my biography in Vol. 5, Who's
Who in Commerce & Industry, published in
the justification for a physical concept lies
1946, which also documents my basic con-
exclusively in its clear and unambiguous relat-
cept for protection from nuclear explosions
ion to facts that can be experienced". Accord-
that was successfully tested by the U.S.
Army in 1955. Furthermore, the basic
ingly, this paper on the control of gravitat-
unifying law of the symmetry in nature, as
ion relates to facts, born of intuition, that
well as the derivation of our alpha-numeri-
cal system from phases of a circle, and the
can be experienced.
bilateral symmetrical relationship between
the sine waveform and the origin of
Both DuFay and Symmer theorized on the
algebra are proved in my essay "God's
Circle" (Reg. No. A 93605 Library of
neutral state of electric charges, which was
Congress). There are many more of my
postulated later by Bohr's stationary-state
masterpieces.
electrons. Excitation separates mass into
Another basic factor influencing our
positive and negative electric energy quanta;
scientific and technological aspirations is
whereupon the frictional excitation of the
the newly attained knowledge that casts
doubt on the validity of established con-
Earth's liquid core generates the attracting
cepts. For example, the law of the con-
and all-pervading unipolar electric charge on
servation of mass and energy is not con-
clusive in view of momentum and entropy
the Earth's surface, known as gravitation. To
which are conserved only under certain
simulate this action I constructed numerous
conditions, and at persistence of wave-
forms wherein particles thereof are always
models, one of which is sketched hereon, where-
changing and in which mass and energy
in the fibrous pad I secured to post 2 friction-
disappear or come into existence. These
ally engages the plastics cylinder 3 adapted
phenomena are important in filtering out
and storing anti-matter particles and in
to rotate in bearing 4 upon actuation by my
anti-gravitational devices.
vibratory motor (not shown). Extension 5
pivotally supports the wire 6 having secured thereto the disc 7 which
may be of ferrous or non-ferrous metal, or of cardboard. The thread 8
secured to extension 5 supports pith-ball 9 suspended within cylinder 3.
Upon the rotation of cylinder 3, pad I generates electricity thereon and
therein, whereupon the violent swings of pith-ball 9 simulates excitation
of the Earth's liquid core; and the simultaneous attraction of disc 7 to
the surface of cylinder 3 simulates the Earth's gravitational attraction.
Upon interposing a strip of sheet metal. or cardboard, or wire gauze, or
open-mesh fabric, between cylinder 3 and disc 7 the gravitational attract-
ion is canceled and disc 7 is repelled into a hovering motionless state
having a slight wobble, while cylinder 3 continues to rotate and pith-ball
9 continues to swing, thereby providing the basic concept for the design
and construction of gravitation-canceling craft for interplanetary explor-
ation. Interposing strips of some commercial plastics does not cancel
the said gravitation, and indicates a different molecular oscillation
rate capable of absorbing very short wave electromagnetic radiation. This
line of research was begun by me in I940 as a tubeless electronic switch
in a magnetic field to simulate distortion of the Earth's magnetic field,
as illustrated in MODERN INDUSTRY of August I5, I943, and in July I943
ELECTRONICS, p. I96.
Gravitational attraction comprises unipolar electric energy quanta
on a mass, which are generated by the excitation of stationary-state part-
icles within the mass, as postulated by Bohr. Therefore, gravitation-
canceling spacecraft for interplanetary exploration should be discoidal
shells having a centrally-disposed jet engine discharging an accelerate
electron stream focused by metal gauze lenses to repel and cancel the
gravitational charge. Coreless transformers will charge capacitors to
PHOTOCOPYCRUM GERALD FORD
electrify parts of the discoidal shell to effect periodic discharges
therefrom to attenuate the friction of the ambient medium on the skin
of the discoidal shell and minimize sonic booms. Sharp turns of the
propelled discoidal shell spacecraft will be effected by swivelling the
focused electron stream.
The curvature of space is analogous with the curvature of Mayer's
floating-magnet geometric configurations responsive to a strong unipolar
source of attracting energy; and therefore comparable with electrons
orbiting around a central nucleus and planets orbiting around a central
sun. Even our alpha-numerical symbols are derived from phases of seg-
mental curvatures as illustrated in my fundamental monograph GOD'S CIRCLE
noted in the attached printed column. Algebra is derived from curvatures
symbolizing alternating polarities as expounded in my said monograph,
of which Descartes coordinates and the principle of inversion are deriv-
atives. The geometry of Pythagoras and Euclid relate to straight lines
extending from central nucleii to their outer circumferential curvatures.
The machined metal cube of meteorite iron and nickel, fabricated more
than 300,000 years ago, and now in the Salzburg Museum in Austria,
indicates that we are not the only scientifically-competent humanoids
in the Universe.
Copyright: Harry Bricker Fuchs
1966
6II-62I Broadway, New York, N. Y. I00I2, U.S.A.
EINAR E. PETERSON
BOX 291, SKÄLDERVIKEN
Awarden Septem for 12-1966
UFO fate
am. John G Fuller.
Have read your article in "True, The
Dear John
MA
Chan's anagasive", august 1966, about
Unidentified Thing Object," also ather
is interesting, ahuast frighteming,
writings on the subject yes! It ture
you suggest three explanations of
the phonomenon, amyone of the
there away be the answer,
As an bible- student, of svill have
add one shore probable eyplana-
- tion untill some carone positive
proof presents itself.
So here J have you with the
thought of what the Bible is
saying, particular Daniel and
Revilation (see Rov. 13:12) in fact
the entire Bible is prophetic
Sincerely yours
Buear,
P.S.
This is an letter send to tur,
John G. Fuller, as his writings
about U. F.O. also corrution
your wave I'an sending this
letter to you for that Mason.
Deview, Nition
by yours
UFO
45 Congress St.
Bradford, Pa. 16701
October 5, 1966
Honorable William Stanton
1625 Longworth Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Stanton:
Thank you for sending me your letter from Colonel Hayden P. Mims.
I have typed a rebuttal, a copy of which is enclosed. If you have time to
peruse this, you will see how confused the Air Force is about the April 17
sighting. Colonel Mims' letter apparently is the result of a telephone
call to Major Quintanilla; what suggests this is the phrase, "90-degree arc",
which could be a misunderstanding by Colonel Mims of one of the major's
locutions used to describe a vertical ascent: "90-degree climb." Spaur
was unequivocal and emphatic about the UFO's climbing vertically at the
terminus of the sighting.
Colonel Mims' letter disturbs me a great deal, not only because of
its large quantity of misinformation, but befause of its clearly indicating
the Air Force's lack of seriousness about this sighting, and their apparent
belief that it can be easily brushed off. It may be gratuitous of me, but
I still believe there is not a concerted effort to mislead you; it simply
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
seems that no one in Blue Book has examined the evidence.
Of course, whether it is the Air Force's intention or not, you have
been seriously misled.
I realize that, the more this issue is pushed, the more reluctant
the Air Force will be to give the situation a fair appraisal. Nevertheless,
I believe it is still worthwhile to work for a fair appraisal. I shall
continue my efforts toward this goal, and would appreciate any support you
have time to offer.
Sincerely yours,
William B. Whitel
William B. Weitzel, Chairman
Pittsburgh Subcommittee, NICAP
Enclosures: August 23 NICAP summary, USAF disposition of April 17 case
August 30 letter to Colonel Florian A. Holm (unanswered)
September 13 letter to Colonel Holm (unanswered)
October 4 comments on letter from Colonel Mims
October 4 letter to Colonel R. R. Hippler
Copy sent to: Sheriff Ross Dustman
Mr. James Bersie
Dr. James McDonald
UFO
45 Congress St.
Bradford, Pa. 16701
October 5, 1966
Mr. James Bersie
Office of the Minority Leader
House of Representatives
NHT
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Bersie:
The purpose of this letter is to bring you up to date on developments
in NICAP's efforts to effect a re-evaluation of the April 17 UFO sighting,
called by the Air Force "The Ravenna Case.'
Of chief interest is the letter sent recently to Congressman Stanton
from Colonel Hayden P. Mims, in reply to Mr. Stanton's request to Major
Quintinalla for a reclassification of the sighting to *unknown. I have
also enclosed a rebuttal to Colonel Mims' letter, as that letter contains
much misinformation and misleading emphases on certain aspects of the
sighting.
In general, it appears that the Air Force is unwilling to examine
the testimony offered by witnesses who corroborated Deputy Spaur's obser-
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
vations. This would tend to cast considerable doubt on the seriousness
of the Air Force's intentions to have UFO investigations conducted in a
thorough and scientific manner.
I trust the enclosed information will be of interest.
Sincerely yours,
William B. Weitzel
William B. Weitzel, Chairman
Pittsburgh Subcommittee, NICAP
Enclosures: August 16 editorial from Ravenna Record-Courier
August 17 article from Record-Courier
August 23 NICAP summary, USAF disposition of the April 17 case
August 26 letter from Record-Courier
August 30 letter to Colonel Florian A. Holm (unanswered)
September 13 letter to Colonel Holm (unanswered)
September 30 letter from Colonel Mims to Congressman Stanton
October 4 comments on Colonel Mims' letter by William Weitzel
October 4 letter to Colonel R. R. Hippler
October 5 letter to Colonel George Freeman
October 5 letter to Congressman Stanton
RECORD-COURIER
Ramenna, Ohior
R. C. Dix, Publisher
A. R. Sicuro (Ravemna)
Editors
Loris Troyer (Kent)
Tom Sicuro
Ed Glassner
4
Record-Courier, Tuesday, August 16, 1966
A Matter of Trust
See correction, published 8/26
Either you are going to be
by the Air Force's chief con-
scientific or you are not going
sultant, Dr. J. Allen Hynek,
to be.
that he did not concur with its
The Air Force had been mak-
conclusion that the Portage
ing show of being scientific in
siting was a satellite or Venus.
its investigation of Unidenti-
This would mean that the Air
fied Flying Objects.
Force simply used Dr. Hynek's
It has scientists who consult
prestige to buttress a conclu-
with it on important reportings
sion which without it would
of UFO's.
carry much less weight.
And when a scientist - a pro-
In a civil dealing, this would
fession which has the highest
be fraud.
of standings in our society -
When done by a branch of
agrees with the Air Force that
our Armed Forces, it is even
any given UFO siting is a hoax,
worse, for it strikes at the very
it adds credence and support
heart of the faith which we
to the Air Force conclusion.
must be able to place in our
But now it seems that at
government and the men who
least one scientific consultant
man its top positions.
has been used as a "rubber
An explanation is in order
stamp" on at least one UFO
here - did the Air Force mis-
siting, that of two Portage
state Dr. Hynek's views on the
County deputies who followed
siting?
something they and others
If so the consequences are
thought they saw all the way
much greater than simply one
to Pennsylvania.
single UFO siting.
The National Investigations
How could we believe their
Committee for Aerial Phe-
intelligence reports on North
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
nomena (NICAP) has been told
Viet Nam?
Record-Courier, Friday, August 26, 1966
5
Raps Blue Book Method of Investigation
Ravenna, Ohio
Dear Sir:
the facts should be even more
Congratulations on your fine
embarrassing to Major Quinta-
editorial of August 16, entitled
nilla.
"A Matter of Trust."
READER'S OPINION
On May 10, in Ravenna, Major
Project Blue Book's actions re-
Quintanilla received testimony
garding the April 17 UFO sight-
that the UFO had first moved
ment on all astronomical con-
ing which began in Portage
director, referred in a recent
in a northerly direction,
County, have indeed been dis-
clusions. Major Quintanilla stat-
speech in Cleveland.
then returned south to hover di-
couraging. Major Quintanilla,
ed this to your reporter Carol
Major Quintanilla told me on
rectly overhead. He also heard,
the project chief, has refused
Clapp, in an interview appear-
Aug. 5, that he had just sent
several times, that Venus had
to consider many factors which
ing in your paper on June 8.
Dr. Hynek the April 17 c a S e
been observed in addition to the
do not agree with his conclusion,
NICAP first became aware that
files, including a 126-page re-
UFO, during the chase. Yet in
that the deputies and other po-
Dr. Hynek had been ignored in
port I wrote for NICAP, a n d
a letter to me, the major says
lice officers only observed an
this case, when a letter f r 0 m
had asked for his opinion. He
a satellite went from northwest
artificial satellite and the
him to another party was for-
was apparently dissatisfied with
to southeast, and - amazingly
planet, Venus.
warded to NICAP.
Dr. Hynek's disagreement; Dr.
- had the officers observed
His letter was a reply to some
Hynek has gone on public rec-
Venus, "new light would have
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Project
direct questions asked by that
ord as not having been official-
been shed on the case."
Blue Book's scientific con-
party. It was this letter to
ly consulted. This is, indeed,
This letter was a reply to one
sultant, supposedly passes judg.
which Major Keyhoe, NICAP's
embarrassing to Dr. Hynek, but
I had sent him 11 weeks before,
in which I drew a picture of
8/16
EDITORIAL
the positions of Venus and the
UFO. Furthermore, about 12
other points of testimony were
overlooked, in the major's con-
clusion.
It is ridiculous to have to
Record-Courier, Wednesday, August 17, 1966-
belabor an obvious fact - that
Suggests "Blue Book' Be
several police officers observed
a huge, bright, nearby airborne
object. When it takes the efforts
of Cong. William Stanton to
Placed in Scientists' Hands
bring Major Quintanilla's at-
tention to this fact, it is worse
than ridiculous. When the A i r
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, chief con-
of the sighting, which may or
may not have been involved Ve-
Force's own scientific expert is
sultant to the Air Force's Proj-
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD BRARY
nus, but "What did Deputy Dale
ignored because his opinion
ect Blue Book UFO investigative
threatens an absurd explana-
unit, said today that he was not
Spaur see rise over the tree-
tion, it is outrageous.
consulted on the Portage Coun-
tops?"
ty April 17 sighting and did not
Dr. Hynek said he has the re-
The Air Force's move to turn
concur with the Air Force con-
port prepared by William Weit-
over the UFO problem to a
clusion of "a satellite and then
zel, chairman of the Pittsburgh
team of university scientists may
Venus."
Subcommittee of the National
correct a basic flaw in their
"I have some misgivings
Investigations Committee on
UFO investigative program.
Aerial Phenomena.
about the Air Force conclusion,"
But in this instance at least,
Dr. Hynek said today. "If the
"The Air Force is not primar-
their handling of the April 17
testimony is correct (that of the
ily a scientific investigative
sighting, a more direct correc-
police officers who said they
body; its primary purpose is to
tion is still needed. NICAP is
saw the UFO) I do not concur
defend the country. This is why
still working, and hoping, for
I've been recommending that
with the conclusion," the astro-
that correction.
physicist at and director of
the Air Force give this (the UFO
William B. Weitzel
Dearborn Observatory of North-
question generally) to a team of
National Investigator
western University said.
scientists for study."
Committee on Aerial
Dr. Hynek proposed the mea-
"It all hinges on the reliability
Phenomena (NICAP)
sures, that have since been
of the testimony of the witness
adopted by the Air Force's Sci-
I would be the last to
entific Advisory Board as rec-
doubt the words of policemen. I
ommendations, to turn the ques-
do not see how, in the face of
tion of the UFO phenomena over
the evidence, they saw a satel-
to teams of scientists from uni-
lite."
versities for detailed, scientific
The crucial question, Dr. Hy-
study.
nek indicated, was not the end
This plan is now underway.
1966 August 23: Disposition of the April 17, 1966 UFO chase, by the USAF
About three weeks ago, Major Hector Quintanilla, Jr., Chief of Project Blue
Book, sent the USAF case file, including a 126-page NICAP report on the sighting,
to Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the Blue Book scientific consultant (Dr. Hynek was at
that time vacationing in Ontario.) (This, the first time Dr. Hynek was asked
for an opinion, was fifteen weeks after the UFO sighting.)
Major Quintanilla told this to William Weitzel, NICAP Investigator, who called
him on August 5. Major Quintsnilla also told Weitzel that, were Dr. Hynek and
Colonel DeGoes, the major's superior officer in the Foreign Technology Division,
to concur on a re-evaluation, the "satellite-Venus" explanation would be dropped.
The major denied having any responsibility for a change of evaluation. Colonel
DeGoes told Weitzel on the phone, the same day (August 5), that an objective
evaluation would be made.
On August 12, Weitzel called Project Blue Book. The other staff>officer,
Lieutenant Marley, said he had just talked with Major Quintanilla, and that
the case had been re-evaluated with Colonel DeGoes; and that Major Quintanilla
was still firm in his conclusion, that the sighting was an observation of an
artificial satellite, then Venus. Yet, in statements to the press recently*,
Dr. Hynek claims he disagrees with this conclusion.
It is apparent that Major Quintanilla is ignoring not only Dr. Hynek's
professional opinion based on the witnesses' testimony, but the testimony
itself. On May 10, in a meeting in Ravenna, Ohio, the major heard from
them repeatedly, that the UFO was seen in addition to Venus. Yet, in a
letter to Weitzel dated 15 July, the major asked, "I ask you, why didn't
any of the witnesses observe Venus which was definitely rising in the southeast?
Had such an observance been made, new light would have been shed on the case.
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD BRARY
I ask you why wasn't Venus observed when the planet was definitely there?
Without a reference point, Venus would have appeared to perform erratic maneuvers,
As the witnesses were traveling toward the southeast how could they have any
balancing point of reference to judge the movement of the planet.
Not only did the men testify to seeing Venus, which was near the horizon, they
also stated (correctly) that it was to the right of the moon; a good "reference
point. Furthermore, much of their travel was due east, at which time the UFO
was seen to their left (north), on a course parallel to theirs. In the same
letter, moreover, the major states, "the satellite approached the southeast
portion of the sky,' in describing the initial phase of the sighting. But
the witnesses testified that the UFO first came from the south, going due
north, then returned to hover directly overhead, and that it hummed and lit
up the road brilliantly. Furthermore, the major's letter was a reply to one
sent by Weitzel on May 17, in which was included a sketch of the moon-Venus-UFO
situation, and all these and several other points from testimony to the major,
which contradict his conclusion. The testimony was tape-recorded, and a copy
is available for inspection in the NICAP office. In his 15 July letter, the
major did not answer any of Weitzel's detailed, numbered points, though he said,
"Achieving a scientific and objective explanation of all UFO reports is of
great importance to me."
In an interview with reporter Carol Clapp, in the June 8, 1966 RECORD-COURIER
(Ravenna, Ohio), Major Quintanilla said Dr. Hynek gives final approval or
disapproval to all of Blue Book's astronomical conclusions. Blue Book published
its "satellite-Venus" conclusion on April 23, and never consulted Dr. Hynek
officially. When Dr. Hynek was finally asked for his opinion, however, based
Page 2/ on the complete USAF and NICAP case files, it was pointedly ignored.
page 2
From the Ravenna, Ohio RECORD-COURIER; to Carol Clapp; August 17, 1966:
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, chief consultant to the Air Force's Project Blue Book,
UFO investigative unit, said today he was not consulted on the Portage County
April 17 sighting, and did not concur with the Air Force conclusion of a
"satellite and then Venus."
"I have some misgivings about the Air Force conclusion," Dr. Hynek
said today. "If the testimony is correct, that of the police officers who
said they saw the UFO, I do not concur with the conclusion," the astrophysicist
and Director of Dearborn Observatory said. "It all hinges on the reliability
of the testimony of the witnesses. I would be the last to doubt the word of
a policeman. I do not see how, in the face of the evidence, they saw a
satellite. The crucial question, Dr. Hynek indicated, was not the end of
the sighting, which may or may not have involved Venus, but what did Deputy
Dale Spaur see rise over the treetops?
Dr. Hynek said he has the report prepared by William Weitzel, chairman
of the Pittsburgh Subcommittee of the National Investigations Committee on
Aerial Phenomena. "The Air Force is not primarily a scientific investigative
body; its primary purpose is to defend the country. This is why I have been
recommending that the Air Force give this, the UFO question generally, to a
team of scientists for study." Dr. Hynek proposed the measures that have
since been adopted by the Air Force's Scientific Advisory Board's recommendations
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
to turn the question of the UFO phenomena over to teams of scientists from
universities for detailed scientific study. This plan is now under way.
From the New Bedford, Massachusetts STANDARD-TIMES; to Greg Stone;
August 21, 1966:
The top Air Force consultant on unidentified flying objects has called
for a "put up or shut up" study of the UFO problem. And it looks as if the
Air Force is taking notice. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Astronomy
Department of Northwestern University, and Air Force scientific consultant
for eighteen years, said, "I'm getting to the point where I'd like to say,
'Let's put up or shut up.' After twenty years of confusion, I'd like to
see it cleared up."
"The only way to clear it up," Dr. Hynek said, "is to have scientists
take a good look at it - not only physical scientists, but social scientists,
psychologists, sociologists and so forth.
"Instead of having 'UFO' just a synonym for 'crackpot and ridicule',
let's make it scientifically respectable, so a person can look at it without
being laughed at. Then, if there's nothing to it, which is always likely,
well, all right; an honest job has been done in looking at it."
"Way back in 1953, in papers to the Optical Society of America, I already
then, guardedly, called for greater scientific attention," Dr. Hynek said.
However, when it was noted he was taking a stronger stand now, Dr. Hynek said,
"I am now, because the persistence of the phenomena bothers me, the persistence
over all these years. You see, back in 1948 I would have just about taken any
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
bets that, well, shucks, by 1952 or 1953 this will be over like any craze.
Who thinks of hula hoops today, for instance. But the thing is persistent,
not only in this country but in many other countries. So as a social phenomena
if nothing else, it's worthy of study. I'm getting impatient with the
perpetuation of confusion. I would say we should put as much effort on one
of these puzzling cases as we would on a Brinks robbery or a kidnapping case.
Let's get to the bottom of it."
5709 Woodmont St.
Pittsburgh, pa. 15217
August 30, 1966
Colonel Florian A. Nolm, Commander
Foreign Technology Division
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Dayton, Chio 45433
Dear Colonel Nolm:
Thank you for your communication of August 3. I am writing again
in connection with the April 17, 1966 U70 "chase" from Chio to Pennsylvania,
called by Project Blue Book "the Ravenna case."
an May 10, at the request of Deputy Sheriff Dale Spaur, one of the
four police officers directly involved in the April 17 sighting, I tape recorded
Major Quintanilla's interview with Deputies Spaur, Neff and Wilson. Decause the
najor' explanation of the sighting, that it was of an Echo satellite and Venus,
contradicted many points of testimony, I wrote to the najor on May 17. My letter
listed over twelve points, from the tape recorded testimony, including material
indicating the uno had first appeared in the west, then due south, then moved over
the road due north, then returned to hover directly overhead. At this time it
subtended a visual angle of about fifty degrees and was too bright to look at
directly. This rules out its being a satellite.
During the chase, the planet Venus was also observed, to the right
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
of the moon. The deputies' description, in their drawing of the situation,
corresbonds with the astronomical positions of the moon and Venus on that morning.
Since they testified to this several times on May 10, and to me on an carlier
date, the major's statement that Venus was the U70 during the chase, is incorrect.
NV letter of May 17 listed these points, including a drawing of the
noon-Venus-U70 positions. Yet in Major Quintanilla's reply of July 15, he stated
that, had Venus been observed as distinct from the UFO, "new light would have been
shed on the case." Do answered none of my points directly. lle also ignored the
fact that Patrolmon Wayne Huston and Frank Pensanella corroborated the deputies'
account. I have talked with these men and know just that information they submitted
to a Blue Book representative. Deputy Spaur is only one of four men involved.
I consider my May 17 letter still unanswered, and the case still
unexplained. In addition, Dr. Hynck's opinion is being intentionally overlooked.
Major Quintmilla told me on August 5 that he had sent the Blue Book case files,
including a 126 page report I wrote for NICAP, to Dr. Pynck in Canada, where he
was vacationing, with a request for his opinion. Since returning, Dr. Hynele has
stated publicly that he was not involved in the investigation of the sighting, and
disagrees with Blue Book's conclusion. (Statement appeared in the Ravenna, Chio,
nixiced-counter, August 17, in an interview with reporter Carol Clapp.) The major
told reporter Clapp carlier (June 8) that Dr. Hynek passes final judgment on all
of Blue Book's astronomical conclusions.
[bitcol --- Colonel Ilola 8/50/06
page 2
I have made what I think is a more than reasonable effort to
bring the details of the sighting to Major Quintanilla's attention. Yet,
dospite my painstakingly clear letter, desnite the withosses' testimony,
despite Dr. colicited opinion, the major is, according to Lt. Marley,
"still firm in his conclusion." (Phone call to Blue Book August 12.)
the major's conclusion has put everyone involved into an
impossible position, Colonel Holm. To the extent it is accepted, all the
officers involved in the UFO signting are pictured as incompetent. To
the extent it is not accepted, the Mr Force suffers a loss of prestige.
peculiar. The public sees Dr. Hynoli's role in the evaluation as, at beat, highly
This situation, Colonel Holm, warrants your concern and serious
attention. I urge you to take some action to correct it. The reputations
of the police officers, Dr. Hynch, and the Air Force need to be repaired. And
I believe Major Quintenilla himself would be more confortable if Blue Book
were to take the facts into account in a thorough, open and sincere ovaluation
of the April 17 sighting.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely yours,
William WilliamB.Weitgt B.
William B. Neitzel
PHOTOCOPYERUM GERALD FORD BRARY
CC: Congressman William Stanton
Sheriff Ross Dusinan
Mr. James Bersie
45 Congress St.
Bradford, Pa. 16701
September 13, 1966
Colonel Florian A. Holm, Commander
Foreign Technology Division
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Dayton, Ohio 45433
Dear Colonel Holm:
The above address reflects my change of location to Bradford,
where I have resumed my teaching duties with the University of Pittsburgh's
regional campus. It may be that some correspondence from you is being
forwarded from my previous address in Pittsburgh, but I thought it would be
appropriate to send you the enclosed material anyway.
My contention that for Quintanilla is ignoring the testimony
of the police officers who witnessed the April 17 low-flying object, is not
simply my opinion. I have made reference previously to my NICAP report, which
I submitted on July 30 to Colonel DeGoes, which you acknowledged in your letter
to me of August 3, and which Major Quintanilla claimed on August 5 he had sent
to Dr. Hynek in Canada. Included in that report is my letter to the major of
May 17, quoting statements made to him from the tape made at the May 10 hearing
in Ravenna, Ohio. Included also is a partial transcript of the tape.
I realize you have little time to peruse a bulky document, but
thought I should bring to your attention at least the transcript. It is therefore
enclosed herein, in addition to an unedited copy of the tape from which it was
typed. The tape includes some interviews I had with the officers immediately
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
following the hearing, and some interviews with me broadcast over the local
(Kent-Ravenna) radio station. I do not intend that you should listen to the
tape; the hearing, alone, lasted over two hours. I am including it to back up
the transcript.
The transcript is particularly interesting in light of what Major
Quintanilla told Lieutenant Marley - that he is basing his conclusion on what
information he gathered on April 17, not heeding anything received on May 10.
This is interesting because (1) Deputy Spaur said the original interview began
with the major's asking, "What was this mirage you saw," and lasted less than
three minutes; and (2) the major told Spaur on May 10, after the hearing, that
the information collected therein was identical with that gotten April 17.
Spaur's testimony of having seen Venus is on pages 8, 9 and 12
of the transcript. There are many other features of interest in this document,
including a passage on page 5, where the major clearly (though perhaps uninten-
tionally) tries to force Spaur to describe a satellite observation. Spaur
rallied, but this did not affect the outcome.
That is all for now, sir. By the way, I would appreciate your
acknowledging my communications. H wonder if this material is reaching you.
Sincerely yours,
William B. Weitzel, Chairman
Pittsburgh Subcommittee, NICAP
CC: Congressman William Stanton
Sheriff Ross Dustman
Mr. James Bersie
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON
SEP 30 1966
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
SEP 3 0 1966
Dear Mr. Stanton:
We refer to your further inquiry regarding the unidenti-
fied flying object (UFO) sighting in Portage County, Ohio, on
April 17, 1966.
The Air Force has carefully considered your suggestion
that the Portage County sighting should be changed to unknown.
However, after again reviewing the statements submitted by all
of the persons involved, it was determined that the original
evaluation should stand.
Statements were received from personnel at the Greater
Pittsburgh Airport, Pennsylvania, Chief of Police Buchert,
Mantua, Ohio, and Deputy Sheriffs Dale Spaur and Wilbur Neff.
We think it should be noted that Sheriff Neff's statement was
exactly the same as that of Sheriff Spaur. The other state-
ments did differ in a number of respects; however, this infor-
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I IBRARY
mation must also be taken into consideration.
Sheriff Spaur's statement is purely subjective and im-
possible to duplicate. He stated that the object was right
over the Greater Pittsburgh Airport and that an aircraft had
flown directly over the object. When a check was made with
the tower operator to determine whether he had observed the
object that Sheriff Spaur was reporting, he stated he did not
see it. However, he asked the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA)
radar controller if they could make contact. The FAA con-
trollers could not pick up the object that Sheriff Spaur was
reporting. Two days after the observation, the Air Force
contacted the radar site at Oakdale Army Installation, Oak-
dale, Pennsylvania, and asked if they had picked up any un-
usual radar tracks. Their reply was also negative.
Sheriff Spaur also made the statement that at daybreak,
the object disappeared within a matter of two or three seconds
while traveling through a 90-degree arc. If this had been
the case, we believe that someone in the vicinity would have
heard a sonic boom. There were no reports of sonic booms in
Pittsburgh or adjacent areas during that time.
Chief Buchert was involved in the sighting only at the
beginning. The Air Force also took into consideration his
report, his description of the object, and the photographs
which he submitted to the Air Force. His statements regarding
the object lead the Air Force to believe that he was observing
Venus and that he also tried to photograph that planet.
We hope you will understand that the Air Force is not
questioning the integrity of any of the observers; however,
considering the information we have received about this ex-
perience or event, we must try to explain it in terms of the
data available. You may be assured that the Air Force has
tried to make an honest evaluation of what transpired with all
the information which was collected.
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
If we may advise you further, please call on us.
Sincerely,
Tayla HAYDEN P. MIMS,
Colonel, USAF
Congressional Inquiry Division
Office of Legislative Liaison
Honorable J. William Stanton
House of Representatives
2
COMMENTS ON LETTER SENT SEPTEMBER 30, 1966 FROM COLONEL HAYDEN P. MIMS TO
CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM STANTON, REGARDING THE APRIL 17, 1966 CHASE OF A LOW-FLYING
AERIAL OBJECT FROM OHIO TO PENNSYLVANIA:
1. Letter identifies subject as "sighting in Portage County, Ohio," but no
reference is made to observations by the deputies in Portage County.
2. The only Portage County observation referred to is by Chief Gerald Buchert,
who was 18 miles distant from the object reported by the deputies to be 50
feet directly overhead, then alternately hovering and moving. Buchert's
observation was of an object at an elevation of about 30 degrees, which
maintained its azimuth while the deputies' object was moving east on Rte. 14.
Therefore Buchert's observation is irrelevant as far as disconfirmation of
the deputies' sighting goes.
3. If a 6 after again reviewing the statements submitted by all of the persons
involved. @ Letter makes no reference to statements in Major Quintanilla's
possession by: Officer Wayne Huston, East Palestine Police
Officer Frank Panzanella, Conway Police
Deputy Sheriff Robert Wilson, Portage County
Huston, listening to radio traffic during the chase, waited for and observed
coming toward him from the northwest, the object Spaur and Neff were chasing.
He joined in pursuit. Frank Panzanella watched the object approach, and saw
it move out over Conway, Pa., to hover, when the three officers arrived and
stopped to watch it with him. Wilson was Spaur's radio operator in Ravenna.
Furthermore, testimony was available to Major Quintanilla from the following:
Radio operator Jack Cramer, Salem Police
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
Radio operator Orville Scarry, Columbiana County Sheriff's Office
Radio operator John Bieghey, Rochester Police
Officer Lonnie Johnson, Salem Police
Officer Ray Esterly, Salem Police
Lieutenant Richard Whinnery, Salem Police
Deputy Sheriff Dave Brothers, Columbiana County
Officer Henry Kwaitanowski, Economy Borough Police
While these men were not interviewed directly by Major Quintanilla, their
testimony, in signed statements, is part of the Blue Book file and was accepted
a.s such from William Weitzel, NICAP, by Colonel Florian A. Holm, Commander,
Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson. Furthermore, Major Quintanilla
admitted this testimony into the record by sending it to Dr. J. Allen Hynek for
review, as part of the Blue Book file. (Letter from Colonel Holm August 3;
statement by Major Quintanilla August 5.) Furthermore, a statement by Lieutenant
Stephen Paquette, Oakdale Radar Installation, is relevant and was not, likewise,
taken into account. (See Point lo, Paquette's information included in NICAP report)
4. "He stated that the object was right over the Greater Pittsburgh Airport. o 0"
Not only does this contradict the major's explanation of "Venus," it was not
reported by any of the witnesses. They testified they saw the object hovering
over the Northern Lights Shopping Center, in Conway, Pennsylvania. The
direction of this shopping center is almost 90° from that of GPA.
5. 17 o o and that an aircraft had flown directly over the object." Spaur
" stated the aircraft flew under the object. From the May 10 hearing transcript:
o e we watched it, it went up, stopped, the airliner went under it, and then
it went straight up." Source of over may be the FAA report, which does say this.
But this report was written third hand, from Frank Panzanella through John Bieghey.
From the second hand point of view, Panzanella stated the airliner went under.
This is significant, because the FAA asked the pilot to look underneath his
plane. Furthermore, see Point 6.
COMMENTS ON 9/30/66 MIMS LETTER (Continued)
Page two
6. The letter obscures the point that the FAA was involved to the extent of
identifying the airliner reported and asking the pilot to look underneath.
From the FAA log, it is clear that the FAA did not believe the object to
be reported as hovering over GPA.
7. "Spaur's statement is purely subjective and impossible to duplicate." This
is extremely vague, pejorative, and counter to fact under any interpretation.
Spaur's statement is easy to duplicate. NICAP's report includes a transcript
of his May 10 statement to Major Quintanilla. The only way, or sense, in which
Spaur's statement can be legitimately called "subjective" is that it resulted
from an observation made by a subject. But that is ridiculous. It is definitely
not "subjective" if this means, "lacking objective support." Spaur's observation
was corroborated by independent observers (see Point 3). The letter contradicts
itself in paragraph two: Neff's statement was exactly the same as Spaur's, it
says. This reference to Spaur's statement, furthermore, narrows down his
testimony to a brief period of observation, the very end of the sighting.
What other purpose can this restrictive, selective and pejorative reference
serve, than to discredit Spaur's testimony?
8. after again reviewing. it was determined. ." Who determined?
Prior to the time of Congressman Stanton's request, which this letter answers,
(or, rather, to which this letter is a reply), Major Quintanilla disclaimed all
responsibility for "again reviewing" the case, which he said he had put in the
hands of Colonel Stephen DeGoes and Dr. J. Allen Hynek. If these men concurred,
he stated, the conclusion would be changed to "unknown." Dr. Hynek was mailed
the Blue Book case file, including the 126-page NICAP report, to his vacation
home in Canada, and asked for an evaluation, Major Quintanilla stated previously
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
(in an interview published about June 8, 1966) that Dr. Hynek passes final
judgment on all "astronomical" conclusions. Dr. Hynek has gone on public record
as having examined the entire case file, including the NICAP report, and as
disagreeing with the Blue Book conclusion. Who is responsible for this re-evaluation?
Is it Colonel Mims?
9. @ he asked the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) radar controller if they could
make contact." Spaur did not make this request, after seeing the object hover
over Conway (or, as Colonel Mims incorrectly states, after seeing it hover over
Greater Pittsburgh Airport.) He did ask, while in pursuit, that planes be sent
up to observe the object. While watching it hover, Frank Panzanella made a
similar request. The deputies and other officers, after this request had been
made, heard a voice over their radio (in Panzanella's car) say, "They have it
on radar, and they're sending two up." This entire paragraph (number four in
the letter) gives an erroneous account - by sequence, source of testimony, and
by fact - of Spaur's involvement. It is this paragraph, not Spaur's testimony,
that is subjective.
10. Oakdale's report is said to have been negative. How relevant is this? The
Oakdale UFO investigating officer and radar operator Lieutenant Stephen Paquette,
told William Weitzel that he would not have expected Oakdale's radar to respond,
considering the object's reported location.
11. D at daybreak, the object disappeared within a matter of two or three
seconds while traveling through a 90-degree arc." Thus, the letter implies,
lack of a sonic boom means no object was seen. Does this mean Spaur was lying
when he testified on May 10 to Major Quintanilla, it went up, stopped,
the airliner went under it, and then it went straight up. Just as straight up
as, well, straight up." What other impression can this passage in the letter
give, than that Spaur was not telling the truth?
COMMENTS ON 9/30/66 MIMS LETTER (Continued)
Page three
12.
If
the Air Force is not questioning the integrity of any of the
observers." Why, then, is their testimony discounted? Not only did
they tell Major Quintanilla over a dozen things on May 10 that contradict
the "satellite --- Venus" conclusion, but many other observers, not mentioned
in this letter, but whose testimony Blue Book has in its files (see Point 3),
corroborated and added to this testimony. If their integrity is not being
questioned in discounting their statements, why are their statements discounted?
On May 17, William Weitzel wrote Major Quintanilla a letter asking for specific
explanations, for particular parts of testimony, why each part was discounted.
There has been no answer to this request. The major's July 15 reply said, in
effect, "I have looked at them fairly." His letter asked questions which Weitzel
had answered in his May 17 letter, for example, Why was Venus not reported? If
it had been reported, "new light would have been shed on the case." Weitzel
had quoted from the May 10 transcript, showing that Venus had been reported,
and drew at diagram based on a photo and diagram obtained early from Spaur.
The diagram, the transcripted comments, the points raised were ignored. See
separate document for this list of points contradicting the major's explanation,
taken from the transcript. (Not out of context; the transcript and tape, unedited
were also submitted.)
13. Why is this letter written by Colonel Mims? Congressman Stanton had gotten
Congressional Inquiry Division letters before, and because of his dissatisfaction
with them, wrote his request to Major Quintanilla directly.
14. The importance of the May 10 testimony cannot be minimized. According to
Lieutenant Marley, Major Quintanilla's assistant in Project Blue Book, the
major prefers to heed only the testimony collected by him on April 17.
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
(Lieutenant Marley's statement made to William Weitzel on August 12.) This
early investigation by the major plays a strange role in his evaluation:
It lasted less than three minutes, according to Deputy Spaur, and was an interview
of Deputy Spaur only.
According to former Air Force Community Relations Branch Director, Lt. Col. John
Spaulding, the major's early investigation was poorly done; thus Colonel Spaulding
had the major go to Ravenna for a more thorough investigation.
In Ravenna, on May 10, the major told Spaur the information he collected May 10
was identical with that collected April 17. The Ravenna hearing involved two
hours of testimony, presented orally and in writing.
A single-spaced typewritten transcript of this testimony is 17 pages long. How
can the 2 or 3 minutes of interviewing April 17 outweigh this?
15. GENERAL COMMENT: This letter from Colonel Mims indicates that Blue Book -
specifically, Major Quintanilla and the unknown re-evaluator - overlooked
corroborating testimony resting in Blue Book's files. It focuses on Dale Spaur
references. as the chief witness, and belittles his testimony, with pejorative and erroneous
William B. Weitzel, Chairman
Pittsburgh Subcommittee, NICAP
October 4, 1966
45 Congress St.
Bradford, Pa. 16701
October 4, 1966
Colonel R. R. Hippler
Deputy Chief of Staff for
Research and Development
Air Force Systems Command
The Pentagon
Washington, D. C.
Dear Colonel Hippler:
Our conversation of two months ago (August 5) encourages me to write this
letter. Because the operations of Project Blue Book are within your official
concern, I believe the following matter will be of interest to you. I am also
hopeful that you can advise me as to appropriate further action.
As the investigator for the National Investigations Committee on Aerial
Phenomena (NICAP) in the "Ravenna Case," the chase of a low-flying aerial object
from Ohio into Pennsylvania on April 17, 1966, I have had intensive interviews
with over a dozen witnesses and radio operators concerned, and have followed
closely the course of Major Quintanilla's investigation. His initial evaluation
seemed based on such a cursory examination of the evidence, that Congressman
William Stanton complained to Colonel Spaulding, then chief of the Air Force's
Community Relations Branch. Colonel Spaulding admitted that the major's efforts
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
had been inadequate, and persuaded him to visit Raverna for a thorough interview
with the witnesses from that area, At this hearing, held May 10 in the Portage
County Court House, the major listened politely to two hours of testimony, but
reiterated his original conclusion - that Deputy Sheriffs Spaur and Neff had
chased Venus for 73 miles, after observing the passage of an Echo satellite.
The major ignored 80 many crucial points that I felt constrained to follow the
matter further, and eventually (June 28) submitted a 126-page report to NICAP.
I also wrote to Major Quintanilla, asking how he reconciled over twelve
points of testimony, which I taped with his permission May 10, with his explanation.
He replied on July 15, not answering any of my questions, but indicating beyond
doubt that he had not taken his May 10 interviews into account. For example, the
witnesses testified tha, initially, the object had come from the southeast,
moved directly overhead and hovered, illuminating the road so brightly that they
could not look at the light directly. Its size was, they said, as big as a house
fifty feet distant. This part of the sighting, the major says, was due to an
artificial satellite traveling from northwest to southeast.
During the chase, the deputies observed the object due north, due east, and
due south at various times. It lit up the ground underneath it with a spot of
light that moved behind it. It had a projection from the rear, and the top was
a dull metallic finish. Part of the time, Neff had to lean close to the windshield
to Bee the object almost directly overhead. This, the major says, was Venus.
They also testified three times on May 10 that they had seen the object
in addition to Venus, for some time before the terminus of the sighting. Just
before the object moved up and out of sight, it was to the left of the moon;
Venus, to the right. In the major's July 15 letter to me, he stated that, had
the men reported seeing Venus, "new light would have been shed on the case."
This unwitting pun reveals his lack of attention to the facts. I even drew him
8 diagrem of the moon-Venus-object positions, in my May 17 letter.
Weitsel - Colonel Hippler 20/4/66
Page two
I found this lack of attention incredible. Feeling it was hopeless to
pursue the matter further with the major, I wrote to Colonel Freeman, Colonel
DeGoes (working in Project Blue Book) and Dr. James McDonald (working with the
Project), and General Cruikshank, then FTD Commander. I sent a copy of my
NICAP report to Colonel DeGoes. In early August, I received a note from Colonel
Florian Holm, the new FTD Commander, to the effect that my correspondence was
appreciated. Nothing was said about the specific points that required answering.
Dr. McDonald told me, however, that Major Quintanilla had told him he was going
to reconsider the case, and that he had asked Dr. Hynek for his opinion. This
was interesting, in that the major had told a newspaper reporter (Carol Clapp,
Ravenna Record=Courier) over two months ago that Dr. Hynek passes final judgment
on all "astronomical" conclusions. At any rate, this news encouraged me to
call Colonel Freeman; he referred me to you. This was August 5th.
The same day, I talked with Major Quintanilla, and he told me he had mailed
Dr. Hynek the Air Force case file, including my NICAP report, and had requested
his opinion. He disclaimed all responsibility for altering the "satellite - Vemus"
conclusion, and said this would be entirely up to Dr. Hynek and Colonel DeGoss.
On August 12, Lieutenant Marley, the major's assistant, told me that the
major and Colonel DeGoss had read the NICAP report and were "standing firm" in
their opinion, the major's original evaluation. He also told me the major was
not taking the May 10 testimony into account, but was sticking with what he found
out initially. This initial investigation was the one about which Congressman
Stanton had complained; it lasted less than three minutes, and consisted of one
phone call, to Deputy Spaur. Lieutenant Marley stated he knew nothing of Dr. Hynek
opinion; that Dr. Hynek was in Canada. The major had said he'd mailed the case
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
material to Dr. Hynek, at his summer place in Blind River, Ontario.
Dr. Hynek's opinion was published a few days later, in the Ravenna Record-
Courier. He said he had never been officially consulted, but that he had read
all the material, including the NICAP report, and could not agree with the Air
Force's conclusion.
Major Quintanilla refuses to do anything more on this case, Colonel Hippler.
He has pointedly ignored Dr. Hynek's solicited opinion. He has ignored testimony
emphasized to him in painful detail on May 10. He has ignored the corroboration
of two other eyewitnesses, police officers, one of whom saw the object approaching
and followed it with the deputies. He has ignored my presentations. He has ignored
corroborating testimony, in signed statements in the NICAP report, from police
radio operators who listened to the radio traffic during the chase. He has, in
short, ignored every aspect of this case which threatens his original hasty conclusion.
This, despite his claims that he never disbelieves a witness, that certain testimony
(which was, in fact, offered) might change his mind, and that Dr. Hynek passes final
judgment on all "astronomical" conclusions.
The major's behavior has engendered discouragement among the police officers
involved. It has engendered incredulity in others, including myself, that events
could take such a turn. I have written twice to Colonel Holm, with no reply.
The men in Blue Book, or involved in that program, seem inaccessible to reasonable
discussion.
I have interrupted this letter to examine and comment on a letter recently
sent from Colonel Hayden Mins to Congressman Stanton. This letter reinforces
what I have said.
Weitzel -- Colonel Hippler 10/4/66
Page three
I would appreciate some comments from you as soon as possible, Colonel Hippler.
What steps can you take, or what steps might I take, to bring about a fair review
of this deplorable situation?
Sincerely (signed) yours,
William B. Weitzel, Chairman
Pittsburgh Subcommittee, NICAP
Enclosures
May 17 letter to Major Quintanilla, page 3, showing relative positions of
Venus-moon-UFO, at terminus of sighting
June 12 list of points submitted to Major Quintanille in May 17 letter, from
letter this date to Congressman Stanton
June 28 NICAP report, page from table of contents listing testimony
August 16 editorial from Ravenna Record-Courier
August 17 article from Record-Courier
August 23 NICAP summary, USAF disposition of April 17 sighting case
August 26 letter from Record-Courier
August 30 letter to Colonel Florian A. Holm
September 13 letter to Colonel Holm
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
September 30 letter from Colonel Hayden P. Mims to Congressman Stanton
October 4 comments on Mims' letter by William Weitsel
Copy sent to
Congressman William Stanton
Mr. James Bersie
Sheriff Ross Dustman
Judge Robert Cook
Dr. James McDonald
Colonel Florian A. Holm
Colonel Hayden P. Mims
Colonel George Freeman
45 Congress St.
Bradford, Pa. 16701
October 5, 1966
Colonel George Freeman, Chief
Community Relations Branch
Room 4A120
The Pentagon
Washington, D. C.
Dear Colonel Freeman:
The enclosed copies of correspondence and news articles should be
of interest to you. They concern the "Ravenna Case," the chase of a
low-flying aerial object from Portage County, Ohio, to Conway, Pennsylvania
on April 17 of this year. I am sure you are familiar with this case.
My reason for being involved in this issue, over a re-evaluation of
the conclusion offered by Major Quintanilla, stems from the investigation
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
I conducted of the sighting as a representative of NICAP. From the point
of view of the witnesses and others involved in the sighting, and of those
who have reviewed the available testimony, including Dr. Hynek, the major's
conclusion fails to explain the details of the sighting. I am concerned
that, to all appearances, the testimony is being ignored or discounted in
favor of the major's early conclusion.
I hope you find this information of interest.
Sincerely yours,
William B. Weitsel, Chairman
Pittsburgh Subcommittee, NICAP
Enclosures
August 16 editorial from Ravenna Record-Courier
August 17 article from Record-Courier
August 23 NICAP summary, USAF disposition of April 17 case
August 26 letter from Record-Courier
August 30 letter to Colonel Florian Holm (unanswered)
September 13 letter to Colonel Holm (unanswered)
September 30 letter from Colonel Hayden P. Mims to Congressman Stanton
October 4 comments on Colonel Mims' letter by William Weitzel
October 4 letter to Colonel R. R. Hippler
Copy sant to
Congressman William Stanton
Mr. James Bersie
Mrs. Helen Groskopf
Hartman, Arkansas
72840
UFO
MEMO
October 27, 1966
G
Professor Philip J. Klass of the University of Iowa appeared as a
special guest on the TODAY TV show this morning. He will be questione
at the upcoming hearings on UFOs at the University of Colorado. He
contends that the UFOs are actually a type of chemical reaction in
the air, and that this same type of phenomina can be reproduced in
laboratory test tubes.
Professor Klass did not say whether or not the phenomina he reproduce:
in the leboratory have rotating blinking lights and windows.
From my Memo to Gerald K. Ford, dated October 10, 1966:
"Unless the investigators recognize the actual existence of
ether and ethoric substance and unless they recognize the
actual existence of other dimensions of time and space
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I IBRARY
then this investigation will be a complete waste of everyone's
time as well as $300,000 of the taxpayer's money.
H.O.
UFO
430 East Lancaster Avenue
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087
November 21, 1966
The President
N/A
Washington, D. C.
Sir:
For years I have been extremely interested in all phases of
scientific advance. This is especially so when it comes to
"Unidentified Flying Objects."
Recently I have been doing a considerable amount of reading about
UFOs. Everything I read specifically illustrates numerous
instances where scientists have irrevocably proved that many of
the statements released by the United States Government concerning
UFOs are openly fallacious. The scientists, and the people who
have read their reports, laugh at the United States Government.
As an individual who believes in our form of government, this
is quite embarrassing.
As is obvious from my writing to you directly, I am a person of
PHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY
great curiosity. I would sincerely appreciate an answer as to
what information and conclusions have been established by the
United States Government (or any agency thereof) on the subject of
UFOs.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully yours,
Karen I. Hanisch
(Mrs. Rudolf Hanisch)
CC: Representative Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
Director of Public Information
United States Air Force
Pentagon
Washington, D. C.