Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "471801034",
    "label": "1969: Unidentified Flying Objects - Unanswered (folder B156-24)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/471801034"
}

{
    "id": "471801034",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/471801034",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1969: Unidentified Flying Objects - Unanswered (folder B156-24)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/471801034",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Legislative Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Unidentified flying objects"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642045/Batch0001/b156-24.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642045/Batch0001/b156-24.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642045/Batch0001/b156-24.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/471801034",
    "naId": 471801034,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1969-01-01",
        "year": 1969
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1969-01-01",
        "year": 1969
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642045/Batch0001/b156-24.pdf",
    "mediaId": "291d45c4d6c30ab4",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box B156, folder \"1969: Unidentified Flying Objects\n(folder 24)\" of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers at the\nGerald 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 Gerald Ford donated to the\nUnited States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives\ncollections.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.\n1969: Unidentified Flying Objects - Unanswered (folder\nB156-24)\nGerald R. Ford Congressional Papers\nmy roskopf\nHelen\n21 artman ark\n72 840\nPHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY\nSegialation\n\"U.F.O\"\nMEMO\nN/A\npaul Harvey Comments--NBC--TV--Noon, Tuesday, March 18, 1969:\n\"The highly respected Journal of Astronautics and Aeronautics, in\nan article in the latest issue, recommends further investigations into\nthe UFO problem.\"\nNEWSCAST--NBC-TV, TODAY SHOW, Friday, March 21, 1969:\n\"There was a series of 40 earthquakes just off the coast of southern\nCalifornia last night. A team has been sent to investigate.\"\nPHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY\nSegislative\n\" UFO\"\nDecember 26, 1968\nMIF/A\nMr. Gerald Ford\nMichigan Office\n425 Cherry Street SE.\nGrand Rapids, Michigan\nDear Mr. Ford\nAbout three years ago in 1966 March 31, I wrote to you\nabout trying to obtain surplus equipment to track UFO,s.\nMy two friends Mark Turner and Greg Crowe worked with me at\nthis time. We could not reach the requirments given to us\nto obtain this equipment.\nWell Mark and Greg have lost there interest in UFO,s. This\nPHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY\nis my eighth year in studing them. I have obtained very\nmuch knowledge on them. By adding the facts and clues and\nsightings, I do not have to call them undentified flying\nobjects. I know what they are and I know where they come from.\nMr. Ford young people hold big surprises. You may reply in\nanswer to this letter if you wish. And also take it serious\nif you wish.\nKindest personal regards.\nSincerely,\nJ.P. P. Missad,\nGabriel UFO. Iv.\nBob Gabriel P Missad UFO. IV.\nP0-34771 Greenville South Carolina\nJones University\nPage 8\nUFO INVESTIGATOR\nTHE\nMONEY\n(Continued from Page 5)\nThe radar screens at the Minot facilities are seldom watched\naccording to USAF officials.\nThese four items alone occupy 15% of the pages in the Report, and\nU.F.O.\nused up 21% of the total Project budget. Money was also wasted on\nThree Civil Air Patrol cadets later reported that they saw one of the\nInvestigator\ninvestigations of obvious crackpot/psychological reports, and on studies\nobjects between Bismarck and Mandan, flying fast toward the southeast.\nIt emitted \"a sound. they never heard before.'\nof radar chaff, lens flare (light leak) photographs, and other well-known\nphenomena which NICAP had pointed out, in early briefings of the\nFACTS ABOUT UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS\nProject staff, as useless, pointless lines of investigation.\nObject Reacts to Light\nIf these lavish expenditures for little or no result had been spent to\nPublished by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena\nbetter purpose, a great deal of solid and significant information might\nA series of nightly reports in the Bismarck-Minot area followed. In\nhave been obtained. One outside scientist, for example, with a budget less\ngeneral, observers described the same or a similar object. At various times\nthan 1% that of Colorado, has followed up almost 300 strong cases,\nit emitted a bright light beam, responded to a patrolman's spotlight,\nVol. IV, No. 9\n(This Replaces Nov-Dec 68 Issue)\nSPECIAL January 1969\ninterviewing witnesses in person and by telephone, and obtaining a great\nhovered near a power plant, and was seen by an F-106 Air Force pilot\ndeal of new information and useful detail.\nwhile in flight.\nAt 7 p.m., Nov. 27, a glowing, round, white UFO, with purple lights\nlining the top and bottom, was seen by several witnesses over Belcourt,\nTHE TRUTH ABOUT THE CONDON REPORT\nSighting Reports\nnear Bismarck. The object also carried a red light \"that would shine a\nred-colored beam toward the ground whenever (it) stopped.\"\nBelcourt Police Officer Joseph Trotier got to within one-half mile of\nA larger evaluation by numerous scientists and technical\nthe UFO, which was hovering about 500 feet from the ground. Officer\nadvisers is forthcoming. Meanwhile, here are some important\nA UFO that executed a sharp, 180-degree turn and was tracked on\nTrotier quickly shone his patrol car spotlight onto the object, which\npoints.\nradar and an object that emitted a beam of light onto an automobile,\nimmediately extinguished its lights and disappeared. It reappeared five\napparently causing electro-magnetic (E-M) effects, highlight recent\nminutes later with its lights on and moved south toward Minot.\nThe conclusions of the Colorado University UFO project are fully\nWitnesses Discredited\nhigh-quality reports.\n\"I checked with Minot AFB on that particular evening,\" Mr.\nnegative, as we predicted.\nA radar-visual sighting from Bismarck, North Dakota, was the first in\nFlickinger reported, \"while I was listening to the police officers in\nHowever, some of the chapters contain strange contradictions of what\nIn regard to witnesses, he said, \"Phenomena is often noted by a\na group of reports from around the Bismarck-Minot area during late\nBelcourt report their sighting over the state police radio. The Air Force\nthe project's director, Dr. Edward U. Condon, stated in his two opening\nwitness who is inexpert, inept or unduly excited.\" The reports, hestated,\nNovember. NICAP's North Dakota Subcommittee Chairman, Donald\nofficials informed me that one of their F-106's had just landed and\nare usually vague and inaccurate. He also said that witnesses often\nsections. Several reports state the probable existence of structured,\nFlickinger, investigated the incidents.\nreported seeing this object in the Belcourt area also. The Air Force did\nembellish their stories and multiple witnesses often compare notes and\nintelligently controlled, unknown objects capable of precise maneuvers\nAt about 5:40 p.m., November 26, Jack Wilhelm, Jack Reeves, and\nnot investigate further, or at least if they did, they wouldn't tell us about\nchange their stories until they all agree.\nand extremely high speeds.\nJohn Fischer, FAA employees of the Bismarck Airport Control Tower,\nit.\"\nEven reports by some astronauts are indicated as dubious the\nIn one case (No. 46, Bantam, 396-407), a scientific evaluation of\nA half-hour after the Trotier sighting, citizens in Deering, a town\nproject director. In one case he says that the window was smudged and\nsaw two round, white UFOs at their duty stations. They alerted Capital\nphotographs was carried out along with detailed interviews with the\nabout 25 miles northeast of Minot and in line with Belcourt, reported to\nthe astronauts were very busy, indicating that the report is not atthentic.\nAviation flight instructor Robert Watts, who was flying with a student in\nwitnesses. After an 11-page evaluation in the Bantam edition (entitled\nthe vicinity. (Watts sent a separate, confirming report to NICAP).\nMinot FAA control tower operators seeing \"a similar object\" cross the\n\"When field studies are made by amateur organizations such as\nScientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects and available at most\nOne of the objects was heading northeast, about 45 degrees above the\nsky east of town.\nNICAP,\" Condon continued, \"there are often several members present on\nbookstores), the analyst states \"the simplest, most direct interpretation\na team, but usually they are persons without technical training and often\nhorizon, and the other was going south at about 30 degrees. Suddenly,\nof the photographs confirms precisely what the witnesses said they saw.\"\nwith a strong bias toward the sensational aspects of the subject.'\nthe UFO heading south executed a sharp, 180-degree turn, rose abruptly\nLight Beam Affects Car\n\"This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated,\nand joined the other object. The two UFOs hovered briefly, then dis-\ngeometric, psychological, and physical appear to be consistent with the\nappeared \"in seconds\" toward the northeast.\nAt 8 p.m., November 22, Mr. Conway Jones was driving about 12\nassertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-\nCondon and Low Praise NICAP\n\"There's nothing that could make a maneuver like the lower one did\nmiles west of Newton, Georgia, when his car radio \"faded into static.\"\nshaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within\n\"At about this time,\" Jones reported to NICAP's newly-formed\nOn December 1, 1967, Dr. Condon wrote NICAP's Director urging\nand at that rate of speed,\" Controller Wilhelm stated to a reporter on\nsight of two witnesses,\" the analyst concluded. (Bantam, 407).\nthe (Fargo) Forum.\nGeorgia Subcommittee, \"I saw a large bright object. about 100 feet\nthat we continue cooperation with the project.\nin\nRegarding this case, Dr. Condon stated, \"The UFO images turned out\n\"We deeply appreciate the cooperation which has been given to our\nIn the investigation, Flickinger interviewed the FAA's Chief Flight\nfront of me and about the same distance off the ground. As I approached\nto be too fuzzy to allow worthwhile photogrametric analysis.\"\nown scientific study of UFOs,\" he wrote, \"from both the central office\nController at Bismarck, Mr. Alvin Bell. Following are excerpts from the\nthe object, a beam of light came from the yellowish-white oval down to\nA Mohawk Airlines pilot computed a UFO's speed between 4,500 and\nand field groups of NICAP. It is my earnest wish that we can continue to\nSubcommittee chairman's report:\nmy auto. My engine shut off and my radio and lights ceased to\n4,800 m.p.h.\n\"During the first few moments of the sighting, the tower operators\nfunction.\"\nwork in full cooperation with NICAP because the help that you have\nThe project's analysis states that this sighting \"must certainly be\nhad placed a call to the FAA Flight Control Radar Installation at\nThe light beam, Jones stated, not only lit up the car and the road but\ngiven us so far has been of great importance\nclassed as an unknown pending further study, which it certainly\nMalmstrom AFB, Great Falls, Montana. The radar facility there reported\nthe ditches and pine trees on both sides.\nFurther confirmation of NICAP's competence was indicated by\ndeserves.\" (Bantam, 143).\nProject Coordinator Robert Low on December 8.\nto the tower operators that they had the objects on radar that\nthey\nA few minutes later, the object changed to an orange-red color and\nYet Dr. Condon's overall conclusion is that no further investigations\n\"NICAP's assistance has been invaluable,\" he stated. \"I have said this\nwere moving erratically, at high speeds, and appeared to be about 10\nwithdrew its beam. Then it \"moved straight up at a very high rate of\nof UFOs are justified.\nmiles NNE of Bismarck.\nspeed.\"\nA UFO paced an RAF fighter plane for 10 minutes while ground\nto you many times and I would like to repeat it here. Your files, because\n\"Radar installations at Minot AFB and at the South Radar Base in\n\"My car then began to function as if it had never stopped,\" the\nradar tracked it.\nof the high caliber of field investigations NICAP has conducted, are of\nMinot reported no 'bogies' on their screens at that time. However, during\nwitness, a bank accounts adjuster, concluded. \"The engine was running\nThe Colorado report said of this case that the \"probability that at\nvery good quality. Our working relationship with the headquarters office\nan interview with the officers of the Minot Radar Facility, it was learned\nwith transmission still on drive. The lights and radio were operative.\"\nleast one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high.\" (Bantam,\nand NICAP members in the field have been from our point of view\nthat\ntheir\nradar. is sent by micro-wave to the FAA and USAF facility\nJones also told a reporter for the Albany Herald he was so scared\n248-256).\nexcellent, and they have provided valuable support to our research effort.\nat Malmstrom. and there it is watched visually on the screen. The FAA\nthat he \"drove to Newton as fast as [I] could, hoping someone would\nAt least 20 percent of the less than 100 cases in the report are listed\nIt would be a great pity if they were terminated.'\nfacility there was the one that reported having the objects on the screen.\nstop me.\"\nas unidentified.\nKook Cases Get Coverage\nCondon Did Not Investigate Cases\nMESSAGE TO MEMBERS\nDr. Condon takes up considerable space in the report discussing\nDr. Condon, although he is named in the Air Force contract as the\nnumerous hoaxes and \"contactee\" trips to Venus but did not include, in\nproject's principal investigator, did not make a single field investigation.\nhis sections, even one strong, responsible case from a good witness. He\nWe need your help. It is crucial that we continue a full-scale campaign\nColorado report, but we feel the importance warrants it. Good sighting\nNor did he interview even one of the hundreds of pilots, astromomers,\nalso accepts Dr. Donald Menzel's misconceptions and states that\nto bring the UFO subject out in the open in order to offset the Condon\nreports are still coming in, however (see above). Now, more than ever, it\naerospace engineers, control tower operators, and other highly competent\nwitnesses should be examined for defective vision (spots before the eyes).\nreport. But the cost of doing so will be great.\nis extremely important that members do all they can to send us good\nwitnesses sent to him by NICAP at Colorado's request.\nFrom 1947 to 1966, Condon added, almost no attention was paid to\nThere will be costly printing and postage bills in preparing and\nsighting cases, which will do much toward effectively offsetting the\nLarge volumes of case material was apparently completely ignored,\nthe subject by well-qualified scientists. This is not true. In 1949, for\nsending vast amounts of material to scientists for evaluation. We will\nCondon report. We also ask that you send us any newspaper editorials\n(see page 2) including the deaths of three Air Force pilots involved in\ninstance, Project Grudge made use, however inadequately, of numerous\nprobably have to hire extra help, at least temporarily. We are making\nand stories in regard to the report, complete with names and dates of the\nUFO chases and a UFO encounter with an Air Force transport captain\ngovernment agencies, laboratories and private industries, including the\nprogress in attaining a tax-exempt status, which, if successful, will do\npapers.\nwho said he believed they were \"shot at.\"\nRand Corporation. Dr. Condon also ignored the fact that the Air Force,\nmuch to relieve our financial burden, but we must hire a lawyer and an\nWe further ask that members make full use of the enclosed order\nDr. Condon stated that there should be no attack on the integrity of\nfor over 20 years, has had a chief UFO scientific consultant, Dr. J. Allen\naccountant before we can continue with this.\nforms.\npersons having different opinions on UFOs. Yet, he ridiculed UFO\nHynek. There have been numerous other individual scientists, such as Dr.\nEveryone should back us so we can get as much rebuttal material as\nNICAP could never have survived this long without the generous\nwitnesses, well informed scientists on the subject, and NICAP. (Bantam,\nJames E. McDonald, who have given the subject careful study.\npossible to scientists, Congressmen and news media personnel.\nfinancial aid of its members and we are confident that you will give us\nSection I).\n(Continued on Page 2)\nWe regret that practically all of this issue has to be devoted to the\nyour full support during this crucial period.\nPage 2\nUFO INVESTIGATOR\nUFO INVESTIGATOR\nPage 3\nNAS Report Inadequate\nCredible Witnesses Ignored\nOther notable early sightings were made by many private and military\npilots. The list is too long to itemize here.\nTHE\nUFO INVESTIGATOR\nA strong statement by the highly prestigious, 32,000-member\nHundreds of credible witnesses were therefore ignored because \"they\nOne airline case discussed in some detail by Gordon Thayer (Bantam,\nAmerican Institute for Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA) calling for a\ncould not add anything new\" to their original reports. But is this actually\nSection III, Chapter 5, pp. 139-40) is the well-known BOAC sighting of\nPublished by\nfull scientific study of UFOs was presented to Dr. Condon before it was\nthe case? On the contrary. Both NICAP and individual investigators like\nJune 29, 1954, over the Quebec-Labrador area, in which the airliner was\nThe National Investigations Committee\npublished, but there is no indication that it was passed on to the National\nDr. McDonald have uncovered new information and testimony regarding\npaced for a number of minutes by a large object which changed shape\non Aerial Phenomena\nAcademy of Sciences (NAS) for consideration.\nimportant cases, although working on a far more modest budget than\nand up to six smaller objects that emerged from and merged with the\n1536 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.\nThe NAS report fully accepting the project's conclusions and\nColorado's. In the very case that Craig mentions, the Washington\nparent UFO. The project's solution for this report is a classic in itself:\nWashington, D. C. 20036\nrecommendations was based solely upon Colorado's report itself. NAS\nsightings of 1952, project scientists were given explicit new leads to\n\"Some almost certainly natural phenomenon, which is so rare that it\nCopyright, 1969, National Investigations Committee on\nscientists conducted no study and interviewed no witnesses. They also\nadditional information by NICAP-for example, the report of an airline\napparently never has been reported before or since.\"\nAerial Phenomena (NICAP) All rights reserved, ex-\ncept that up to 300 words may be quoted by press media,\nmust have read the report quickly because there is no mention of the\nemployee who was present during the sightings and whose testimony had\nproviding NICAP is credited.\ndiscrepancies between the report's \"no evidence\" conclusion and the\nnever been heard. The information was ignored by Colorado.\nunidentified cases listed. Dr. James E. McDonald stated that the\nThus, arguing from a false premise, the Condon committee authorized\nReports by Police\nAcademy's acceptance of the report will prove \"a serious source of future\nitself to sweep aside most of the important and unexplained reports by\nNICAPO Staff: Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe, Director &\nAmong the omissions are reports by police officers and sheriffs'\nEditor-in-Chief, Gordon I. R. Lore, Jr., Assistant Direc-\nembarrassment\" to NAS. (See p. 7).\nhighly credible witnesses. Is this the scientific method?\ndeputies. In several cases, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)\ntor & Associate Editor.\nStatements of dissent are pouring into NICAP from scientists,\nofficials also figured in the reports, such as the one at Redmond, Ore., on\nTop Cases Omitted\nTrademark \"NICAP\" Registered\nnewspaper editorials, cartoons, and persons, many of them highly\n9/24/59, when a large disc was seen pursued by a formation of F-102s,\nqualified technically, who were \"disgusted\" after reading the report, as\nAmong the cases that were brushed off were many reports by\nwhile the flight was tracked on FAA radar; and repeated sightings, some\none correspondent put it. (See p. 7).\nscientists-case material that certainly met Colorado's own requirements\nat close range, of a large, lighted, cigar-shaped UFO at Red Bluff, Calif.,\nBOARD OF GOVERNORS\nNICAP feels that the collective body of criticism to the report will, in\nof witness reliability. These unexplained cases include the following:\nin mid-August, 1960.\nthe final analysis, discredit Colorado's conclusions and force the subject\nA round, silvery UFO that flew north near the White Sands test\nOther excluded cases in which police officers were involved are the\nmore into the open than it has ever been.\ncenter, seen by missile expert Dr. Carl J. Zohn and three others\nwell-known Socorro, N. M. report by Officer Lonnie Zamora, who\nDr. Marcus Bach: Formerly head of the State Univ. of Iowa\nIn addition to more than half a million dollars, Colorado is also\n(6/29/47); a rapidly ascending ellipsoidal UFO, seen near the horizon by\nobserved a landed, egg-shaped object which left traces (4/24/64); and the\nSchool of Religion. Author & playwright, member American\nreceiving royalties from the hardcover and Bantam editions of the report.\nastronomer Dr. Lincoln LaPaz and his family near Fort Sumner, N.M.\nequally well-known police report of an 80-mile chase of a UFO from\nAcademy of Political & Social Sciences. PhD University of\n(7/10/47); a high-speed, oval object tracked with theodolite by aerologist\nPortage County, Ohio, into Pennsylvania (4/17/66).\nIowa.\nCharles E. Moore and his staff during a balloon tracking at Arrey, N.M.\nThe number of important cases involving key witnesses is hardly\nRev. Albert H. Baller; Congregational Minister, Clinton, Mass.\nWHAT HAPPENED TO KEY WITNESSES?\n(4/24/49); passage overhead of a fixed formation of rectangular lights\nexhausted by the examples listed above. The project's decision to ignore-\nAuthor of children's books, graduate Nebraska Wesleyan Univ.\nseen by astronomer Dr. Clyde Tombaugh and his wife at Las Cruces,\nthem was ill-advised. It not only removed from the field of study some of\n& Boston University School of Theology.\nCol. J. Bryan III, USAFR (Ret.) Writer & author, Richmond, Va.\nAmong the omissions in the Condon report are the hundreds of\nN.M. (8/20/49); sightings of several glowing objects performing \"con-\nthe strongest and potentially most significant data that have been\nFormer special asst. to Secretary of Air Force (1952-53),\ndetailed UFO sightings by reputable witnesses whose intelligence and\ntrolled maneuvers\" on two consecutive days by cosmic-ray expert J.J.\naccumulated in the past 20 years; it also greatly weakened the project\nassigned to staff of Gen. Lauris Norstad, NATO (1959), edi-\ncredentials make examinations of their reports essential. Without an\nKaliszewski and associates in the air over Wisconsin and Minnesota\nconclusions.\ntorial staff of national magazines.\nevaluation of these high-quality UFO cases any conclusions are meaning-\n(10/10-11/51); the sighting by aeronautical engineer Paul R. Hill and a\nNo study failing to examine carefully these classic cases from groups\nCol. Robert Emerson, USAR; Research chemist, Emerson Test-\nless.\ncompanion at Hampton, Va., of a maneuvering flight of four objects\nof well-qualified witnesses can be regarded as complete or even taken\ning Lab., Baton Rouge, La. Member American Chemical So-\nTheir exclusion from the official report cannot be because Dr.\n(7/16/52); three round UFOs seen by astronomer Dr. H.P. Wilkens over\nseriously.\nciety Speaker's Bureau, graduate Chemical Warfare School\nCondon did not know that this source material existed or could not\nnorthern Georgia during a flight from Charleston, W. Va., to Atlanta\nEdgewood Arsenal, General Staff College (Ft. Leavenworth),\nobtain access to it. Not only NICAP, but independent researchers, such as\n(6/11/54); a sighting by physicist Dr. Vasil Uzunoglu of a lighted,\n& other military schools.\nDr. James E. McDonald, made special efforts to be certain that the\nlow-flying UFO near Andrews AFB, Md. (8/1/66); a boomerang-shaped\nMr. Dewey J. Fournet: former major, USAF (Intelligence);\nColorado University scientists were aware of these cases.\nobject over Houston, Texas, observed by Dr. Albert Kuntz, University of\nformer AFHQ Monitor of official UFO program; nowa business\nThe fact that the project did have these reports in its records is\nHouston psychologist (1/21/67); geology professor Bryce M. Hand's\nanalyst for a national corporation; Baton Rouge, La.\nMr. J. B. Hartranft, Jr.: President, Aircraft Owners & Pilots\nunequivocally established by examination of the project's computer\nsighting of an elongated, silvery UFO near Amherst, Mass. (9/23/67); and\nMEMBERSHIP RATES INCREASE\nAssoc., Wash., D.C. Former Army Air Corps Col., founder\nprint-out, listing case references with a coded number assigned each case.\na low-hovering, white-glowing object seen by physicist Lewis Hollander\nof U.S. Air Guard (now Civil Air Patrol), graduate University\nObviously, the project had to select certain reports and omit others, but\nand his wife at Mendota, Calif. (10/14/67).\nof Penna.\nwhen one examines the 59 case histories the project reviewed in Section\nPilots' Sightings Not Included\nIn response to the recent emergency appeal, the overwhelm-\nIV, Chapters 1-3, an important question emerges: why were certain\ning suggestion was that we raise our dues to cover rising costs as\nDr. Charles P. Olivier; President, American Meteor Society,\nNarbeth, Pa. Prof. Emeritus of Astronomy, Univ. of Penna.\nlow-priority, easily-explained sightings chosen for investigation and\nReports by scientists were not the only category rejected by project\nwell as the heavy expense of our operations. Most people\nFormer Director of Flower & Cook Observatory. Contributor\ndiscussion rather than cases such as those listed below?\ninvestigators on the basis of their exclusion criteria. There was wholesale\nsuggested $10 a year, a few as high as $15 a year. We have\nto Encyclopedia Britannica & Smithsonial Astrophysical Ob-\nIn Section II, Summary of the Study (6. Field Investigations),\nelimination of sightings by engineers and other technical personnel,\ncompromised at $8.00 for the basic U.S. rate. For the past ten\nservatory reports on meteors.\nCondon offers a partial answer.\nincluding many airline pilots. While the report does include several of the\nyears, the rate has been $5.00; but expenses have mushroomed\nDr. Bruce A. Rogers; Emeritus Prof. of Mechanical Engineering,\n\"We concluded that there was little to be gained from the study of\nmore recent airline pilot reports, the omission of the older, well-known\nduring that period, and the costs of servicing a large member-\nA & M College of Texas. PhD (Physics & Metallurgy), Harvard\nold cases, except perhaps to get ideas on mistakes to be avoided in studies\ncases constitutes a glaring defect. A complete listing of such cases,\nship have caused a chronic financial squeeze.\nUniv.; M.S. (Physics), Univ. of Chicago. Member, American\nof new cases. We therefore decided not to make any field trips to\nbeginning with the United Airlines sightings of July 4, 1947, in which\nAs of February 1 NICAP membership (and renewal) rate for\nNuclear Society; American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy,\ninvestigate cases that were more than a year old, although in a few cases\nCapt. E.E. Smith and co-pilot Ralph Stevens saw two groups of disc-like\nthe U.S. will be $8.00 per year, $15.00 for two years. Renewal\n& Petroleum Engineering; & Electrochemical Society.\nwe did do some work on such cases when their study could be combined\nobjects while flying between Emmett, Idaho, and Ontario, Oregon, would\npayments postmarked no later than February 28 will be accepted\nwith a field investigation of a new case.\" (Bantam, 15-16).\nfill several columns. Even a small selection would have to include the\nat the old rate of $5.00 per year (or six issues of The U.F.O.\nBy this arbitrary decision, a large body of important reports was left\nfollowing, none of which was considered:\nInvestigator). To take advantage of the old rates, send a renewal\nunexplored and unexplained.\nThe Eastern Airlines case of 7/24/48, over Montgomery, Alabama, in\npayment now.\nTRUTH\n(Continued from Page 1)\nAnother explanation is offered by Dr. Roy Craig in discussing field\nwhich Capt. C.S. Chiles and co-pilot John Whitted saw a rocket-like\nDue to the cost of postage and currency exchange, member-\nstudies: \"In general, testimony of the witnesses recorded shortly after\nobject pass close to their DC-3, then pull up in a sharp climb; the TWA\nship rate for Canada and Mexico will be $9.00 a year, $17.00 for\nSecrecy Denied\ntheir experiences can be considered more reliable than their retelling of\nsighting (and associated reports from the ground and other pilots) near\ntwo years; Foreign $10.00 per year, $18.00 for two years.\nthe story two to 20 years later, both because of memory and because of a\nDayton, Ohio (3/8/50); the observation of a circular UFO with a ring of\nDeadline for Canadian, Mexican, and foreign renewals at old\nDr. Condon denied in the report that there was any evidence of\ntendency to crystallization of the story upon repeated retelling. For this\nlighted \"ports\" underneath by Chicago and Southern Airlines pilots\nrate: March 31.\nsecrecy. NICAP gave him evidence of cases that were withheld, reports\nreason, reexamination of witnesses in 'classic' cases was not considered a\nAdams and Anderson over Stuttgart, Ark. (3/20/50); the TWA plane-\nwhose very existence was denied, and sightings whose conclusions were\nuseful way for the project to invest time. Field investigation of classic\npacing over Goshen, Ind., reported by Capt. Robert Adickes and co-pilot\nchanged years later.\ncases was therefore limited to those in which existing reports contained a\nR.F. Manning (4/27/50); the sighting near Washington, D.C., by\nTwo days after Colorado signed the contract with the Air Force, Dr.\nserious discrepancy which might be resolved.\" (Bantam, Section III,\nAmerican Airlines Capt. Willis Sperry and co-pilot William Gates of a\nCondon was asked about possible Air Force secrecy. He replied that some\nChapter 1, p. 52).\ncigar-shaped body that circled the airliner (5/29/50); the Mid-Continent\nVOLUNTEERS NEEDED\npeople believed this, but that he personally didn't. \"Maybe they are\nThis is a specious argument. By this principle, all testimony in courts\nAirlines observation by pilots Lawrence Vinther and James Bachmeier, at\n[misleading us] he stated. \"I don't care much.\" (Rocky Mountain\nwould be thrown out where it was consistent. Referring to the\nSioux City, Iowa (1/20/51); the Pan American sighting of eight\nNews, November 5, 1966).\nWashington, D.C., radar reports of July 1952, for example, Craig writes:\nmaneuvering discs seen by pilots William Nash and William Fortenberry\nNICAP headquarters is in need of volunteer office helpers. If you\nAlthough the Congressional hearings of July 29, 1968, before the\n\"On-site interviewing had contributed no new information. Since our\nover Newport News, Va. (7/14/52); and the American Airlines sighting of\nlive in the Washington, D. C., area and can contribute some time weekly,\nHouse Committee on Science and Astronautics was mentioned in the\nexperience generally showed that new interviews of witnesses in classic\na glowing orange UFO over central N.Y. by Capt. Raymond Ryan\nplease telephone us. Work must be done in the office, but evening and\nreport (Bantam, 49), virtually all of the evidence presented by the highly\ncases did not produce dependable new information, few on-site investiga-\n(4/8/56).\nweek-end hours can be arranged. Call 667-9434 and ask for Miss Davis.\nqualified scientist participants was ignored.\ntions of such cases were undertaken.\" (Bantam, 55).\nPage 4\nUFO INVESTIGATOR\nUFO INVESTIGATOR\nPage 5\nASTRONAUT SIGHTINGS\nGemini 4 The first sighting by astronaut McDivitt occurred at 3 a.m.\nGemini 11 On the 18th orbit of GT-11, over Tananarive, Madagascar,\n(CST) on 4 June 65 somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, according to Dr.\nastronaut Charles Conrad reported \"a large object that was tumbling at\nWHERE DID THE MONEY GO?\nRoach. (NASA had earlier pinpointed the location as \"over Hawaii.\") It\nabout 1 r.p.s. I guess he [the object] could have been anything from\nUNEXPLAINED\nwas described as a cylinder with an arm-like protuberance. McDivitt\nour ELSS [extravehicular life support system] to something else. We\nreportedly took one still shot of it, plus black & white movie film. After\ntook pictures of it.\" Two of the pictures appear as plates 17 & 18 in the\nThe University of Colorado spent over half a million dollars of\nfirst denying that anything showed up on film, NASA released a\nCondon Report (See photo No. 2). Next day, according to Dr. Roach,\ntaxpayers' money ($525,905) on what was supposed to be a \"scientific\nU.S. astronauts, while in orbit around the earth, have made at least\nphotograph consisting of three movie frames showing an oval object with\nNORAD identified the object as the Russian Proton III satellite, at the\ninvestigation of UFOs.\" But now, in order to read the final report, the\nthree sightings of unusual objects that remain unexplained, according to\nwhat looks like a trail of some kind. (See photo No. 1; one frame of\ntime \"more than 450 kilometers\" from the capsule. Although Proton III\ntaxpayer must either pay an additional two dollars to a commercial\nan astro-physicist on the Colorado UFO Project. Dr. Franklin Roach\nNASA photo no. 65-H1013).\nwas estimated to be only 4 meters in diameter (its booster rocket about\npublisher (Bantam Books, paperback edition), with royalties going to the\nreports this conclusion in Section III, Chapter 6 of the Condon Report.\nOn behalf of the Condon committee, Dr. Roach interviewed McDivitt\n10 meters in largest dimension), Dr. Roach does not dispute this\nUniversity, or must pay even more, directly to the University, for the\nDr. Roach's chapter, titled \"Visual Observations Made by U.S.\nand learned that he did not think the photographs were of the objects he\ninterpretation. His analysis distinguished \"four distinct objects\" in the\nhard-cover edition.\nAstronauts,\" sheds new light on some of the astronaut sightings\nhad seen. McDivitt later examined the films himself, and reportedly\nphotographs which he concludes were \"multiple pieces of Proton III\nIf this money had been spent on studies of important past cases and\npreviously reported in the U.F.O. Investigator. However, it leaves the\nfound a hazy image which he though might be the object. (The photo has\nincluding possibly its booster plus two other components.\" The Russian\non useful field investigations, we might be nearer to a scientific resolution\nastronauts' photographs of unexplained objects in a state of confusion.\nnot been released). McDivitt felt that he \"probably\" saw another\nresearch satellite re-entered the atmosphere 16 September 1966, the day\nof the UFO problem. It was not so spent. Very little of the Colorado\nBeginning on page 204 (Bantam paperback edition) of the Condon\nsatellite, but Dr. Roach questions this explanation. NORAD (Air Force)\nafter GT-11 landed. (NICAP Note: A scientist has computed that an\nfunds and effort went toward studying hard-core significant reports from\nReport, Dr. Roach discusses three visual sightings made by the\nlater explained the sighting as the Pegasus satellite, some 1200 miles away\nobject 10 meters in diameter 450 km distant would be 1/10 of a minute\ncredible observers (see item on \"Omissions\" elsewhere in this issue).\nastronauts while in orbit which, in the judgement of the writer, have not\nat the time. However, McDivitt personally doubted this explanation, and\nof are in angular size. Normal visual acuity under favorable conditions\nWhere did the money go? The following table indicates how four large\nbeen adequately explained.\" Two of these were sightings by astronaut\nDr. Roach, upon analyzing NORAD data, was unable to find any satellite\ncan only distinguish an object 2 minutes of arc or larger; in other words,\nchunks of it were spent. (The \"Number of Pages\" column refers to the\nJames McDivitt aboard Gemini 4 and one by astronaut Frank Borman on\nwhich could explain it.\nsomething 20 times larger than Proton III would have appeared).\noriginal report.)\nGemini 7.\nThe second sighting by McDivitt, according to Dr. Roach, occurred\nThis totals at least four unusual sightings and two (possibly three)\nTo clarify where matters now stand, each Gemini flight which in-\nafter GT-4 had been in orbit about 51 hours. McDivitt reported seeing a\nphotographs or film clips, all within the space of 15 months in 1965 and\nNo. of\nvolved unusual sightings is discussed in order. (Excluded is a report from\nbright, star-like object passing above the capsule (lowest point of GT-4\n1966.\nExpenditure Sub-Contract\nCondon Report\nPages\nCost\nMay 1963 that astronaut Gordon Cooper in Mercury 9 saw a green object\norbit 100 statute miles), apparently in a south to north orbit. No\nwith a red tail over Australia. The report was denied by Cooper and\nmention is made of a photograph in connection with this sighting.\n1. Stanford Research Institute,\nSec. VI,\n158\n$ 50,000\nNASA, and may have resulted from a garbled story of something sighted\nWHAT HAPPENED TO CASE MATERIAL?\nfor state-of-the-art study &\nChaps. 4 & 5\nfrom the ground in Australia).\nliterature search on optics\nBorman Spots \"Bogey\"\nand radar\nGEMINI FLIGHTS INVOLVING UNUSUAL SIGHTINGS\nGemini 7 At the start of the second orbit of GT-7 on 4 December\nSignificant Data Omitted\n1965, astronaut Frank Borman radioed a report to Houston flight control\n2. Raytheon Corporation, for\np. 50\n30,000\nFlight\nAstronauts\nLaunch Date\nLanding Date\nSighting\nAnother major defect of the Colorado Project was the meager use it\ncenter that he was observing a \"bogey at 10 o'clock high,\" flying in\nphoto-analysis.\nmade of the enormous reservoir of case material available to it. Over the\nGT-4\nMcDivitt,\n3 June 65\n7 June 65\n(1) cylinder w/\nformation with the spacecraft. The transcript, quoted by Dr. Roach,\nWhite\narm-like extension\nindicates that Borman was asked to clarify and repeated that this was an\n20 years preceding the project, between 10,000 and 15,000 UFO sighting\n3. Caravan Surveys, for public\nSec. III,\n48\n29,750\nreports had been recorded. Yet the report treats only 50 cases from this\n(photo taken);\n\"actual sighting\" of something other than the GT-7 booster rocket,\nopinion poll\nChap. 7\nperiod, or ½ of 1% of the available material.\n(2) star-like obj.\nwhich was visible separately at the 2 o'clock position. Also visible off the\nThe March 1966 wave, chiefly in Michigan, received nation-wide\nabove capsule,\nleft side of the capsule were hundreds of particles apparently in polar\n4. Samuel Rosenberg, for\nSec. V,\n31\n3,200\npublicity and was the immediate cause of the establishment of the\norbit.\n\"UFOs in History\"\npolar orbit.\nChap. 1\nPHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD BRARY\nColorado Project. Hundreds of sightings were recorded, including many\nNo description of the unidentified object is given, nor does Dr. Roach\nchapter\nby police officers; but not one of the Michigan 1966 cases is examined in\nGT-7\nBorman,\n4 Dec 65\n18 Dec 65\n\"Bogey\" (unident-\nmention any photographs taken by Borman or Lovell. Again, Dr. Roach\nthe Report. One case in particular from this period, a March 31 sighting\nLovell\nis unable to account for the observation in terms of known satellites or\nTOTALS\n230\nified object)\n$112,950\nnear Kalamazoo, Michigan, in which a disc-like UFO, inches above the\nabove spacecraft,\nstray fragments (all tracked and logged by NORAD).\nhighway, maneuvered around the witness's car, buffeting it violently, was\npolar orbit.\nNBC News on Friday night, January 10, showed the photo which\n(References in UFOs? Yes!, Saunders & Harkins, p. 131-2)\nfurnished to the Project, at Mr. Low's specific request, immediately after\nNASA had identified as taken by McDivitt (see photo No. 1), and\nthe Project began. The case, although it certainly warranted careful\nGT-11\nConrad,\n12 Sept 66\n15 Sept 66\n\"Large object\nanother photograph identified as taken by astronaut Frank Borman from\nexamination, does not appear in the Report.\nThe costly Stanford report merely duplicates existing information;\nGordon\nthat was tum-\nGemini 7. This apparently was an error of identification, and was actually\nThe sighting wave of July-September 1965, which touched off\nthe literature on radar and optics is accessible elsewhere to scientists and\nbling.\nthe object photographed from Gemini 11 (see below).\ncountless editorials critical of the Air Force, also involved hundreds of\nis well known. By the terms of the sub-contract SRI was specifically\n(Photo taken).\n(Continued on Page 5)\nreports. Only three are treated in the Report. The radar case of August 2\nexempted from confronting any specific case histories.\nin Wichita, Kansas, \"may probably\" be due to false radar returns;\nThe Raytheon sub-contract for $30,000 apparently went for nothing,\nassociated visual sightings \"may have been enhanced\" by temperature\nsince there is no evidence in the Condon Report of where and how the\ninversions. Analysis of the Heflin photographs of August 3 in Santa Ana,\nfunds were spent. The report mentions (p. 50) an analysis, done by\nCalifornia is inconclusive. The August 8 photographs in Beaver, Pennsyl-\nRaytheon in cooperation with NICAP, of a photographic case which\nvania, are considered a probable hoax. Among the omitted cases are the\nNICAP had already, independently, evaluated as a probable hoax. This\nremarkable close-range sighting near Damon, Texas (Sept. 3) by two\ncase happened to include sufficient data for photo-grammetry (geo-\nsheriffs (furnished to the Project both by NICAP and by Dr. J. E.\nmetrical analysis), and the photos were loaned to Raytheon by NICAP\nMcDonald). The sightings at Exeter, N. H., of the same date and later, are\nfor the purpose of a demonstration of photogrammetric techniques while\nbriefly mentioned but not analyzed.\nRaytheon was trying to obtain a sub-contract with the project. This\nOne of the most extraordinary sighting waves of all time, in\nanalysis was published by Raytheon in June 1967 (copy in NICAP files).\nNovember 1957, is scarcely explored at all. A previously unpublished\nIt should not have cost the Project a cent. Yet this is the only indication\nradar case from Blue Book files is presented, which occurred November\nin the Report of what the Project might have obtained from Raytheon\n4, 1957, at Kirtland AFB in New Mexico, but at least 118 sightings were\nfor its $30,000. (Raytheon appears in the acknowledgments but is not\nreported that November (see The UFO Evidence, pp. 163-67), and 20 of\neven listed in the Index to the Report.)\nthese were in New Mexico and the adjacent Texas panhandle; none are\nThe public opinion poll (item 3), according to Dr. Saunders, carried\nreferred to in the Report.\nout the recommendation by Robert J. Low, in his notorious memo of\nThe wave of summer 1952 is similarly neglected. It included a large\nAugust 1966, that the proper investigation of UFOs is to study the\nnumber of puzzling radar-visual sightings by the Air Force and the FAA,\npeople who report them.\" Naturally, it sheds no light on the real\nand jet pursuits of UFOs. The Report discusses only five cases, with\nproblem.\n\"explanations\" that are subject to challenge (some will be disputed in a\nThe chapter on \"UFOs in History\" merely recounts myths and\nlater NICAP report). A major omission is the classic sighting (July 14,\nlegends, much of the material coming from dubious sources. It ignores\n1952) by two Pan-American Airways pilots, who saw 8 discs moving in\nthe entire 1896-97 wave of \"airship reports.\" (See Lore-Deneault,\nformation at high speeds over Newport News; this case was recommended\nMysteries of the Skies, Prentice-Hall 1968.) For this the Project paid\nto the Project both by NICAP and by Dr. McDonald. Important\n$3200, or about $100 per typewritten page, to a self-styled professional\nPHOTO NO. 1\n\"trivialist.\" (Saunders & Harkins, p. 131)\nPHOTO NO. 2\nradar-visual jet pursuit cases on July 23 (Massachusetts), July 26\nUFO Sighted by Astronaut McDivitt\n(Continued on Page 8)\nUnknown Photographed from Gemini II\n(California), and July 29 (Michigan) are omitted.\nPage 6\nUFO INVESTIGATOR\nUFO INVESTIGATOR\nPage 7\nFrom the Condon Report\nPhotographs Declared Authentic\nAIAA Conducts Investigation\nTHE CASE FOR THE UFOs\nMay 11, 1950. McMinnville, Oregon. Mr. and Mrs. Paul Trent saw a\nA special UFO Committee of the American Institute of Astronautics\nbright, metallic UFO with a superstructure. As it tipped up, the witnesses\nand Aeronautics (AIAA), the largest non-governmental aerospace agency\n\"felt a gust of wind. Mr. Trent took two photographs within 30 sec-\nin the world and chaired by Dr. Joachim P. Kuettner, of Boulder's ESSA\nonds (see photograph below). The object moved fast toward the west just\nResearch Laboratories, was established. The 10-man scientific committee\nPilot Reports\nafter the second photograph was taken. The McMinnville \"Telephone\nstated that it \"has made its own objective investigation of the [UFO]\nIn direct contradiction to the negative conclusions of the Condon\nRegister\" examined the pictures and declared them authentic. \"Life\"\nsubject and plans to develop certain recommendations and to give\nreport, its own pages contain data that make a strong case for UFOs.\nNovember 14, 1956, and August 30, 1957. Jackson, Alabama and\nmagazine also ran the photographs as presumably genuine. The Colorado\nsome insight into its reasoning. The committee concluded that the\nAlthough the report is padded with superficially impressive \"background\nnear Norfolk, Virginia. Viscount Captain W. J. Hull and co-pilot Peter\ninvestigator said the Trents were \"very industrious farm people\" whose\nUFO \"controversy cannot be resolved without further study in a\nstudies\" (see separate sections) and with weak case material whose\nMacIntosh were flying over central Alabama on the evening of November\nveracity was attested to by \"various reputable individuals.\" The\nquantitative scientific manner and it deserves the attention of the\njustification for inclusion is unclear, the reports that were actually\n14, 1956, when they saw an object that \"abruptly halted\" and hovered in\ninvestigator concluded in the Condon report that all factors in the case\nengineering and scientific community.\"\nexamined in some detail contain about 20 percent that are unexplained.\nfront of their aircraft.\n\"appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying\nA \"Joint Statement by Scientists,\" released by NICAP, brought\nThis is approximately seven times larger than comparable figures given by\nThe UFO began to dart \"hither and yon, rising and falling in undu-\nobject, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and\nstrong support from scientists in various fields, including aerospace,\nthe U.S. Air Force.\nEven more important than this percentage, however, is the nature of\nlating flight, making sharper turns than any known aircraft, sometimes\nevidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses.\" (396-406.)\npsychology, physics, chemistry, botany, sociology and biology. Because\nchanging direction 90 degrees in an instant.\" After about 30 seconds, the\n\"continuing reports from reputable and competent witnesses\nthe unexplained reports. For 12 years NICAP's main thesis has been\nobject stopped and hovered again. Then it \"began another series of crazy\nabout 50 scientists signed a statement urging \"an appropriate committee\nthat unidentified, structured objects which may be of extraterrestrial\ngyrations\" and \"shot out over the Gulf of Mexico\nat.\nfantastic\nof the Congress to initiate an investigation of. UFOs.\"\norigin are present in our skies, and it has been said repeatedly that one\na\nunimpeachable photograph would prove this thesis. Now the report\nspeed.\" On August 30, 1957, Captain Hull was again piloting a Viscount,\nNews media personnel were also not accepting the report.\nanalyzes pictures of a structured object photographed over McMinnville,\nthis time over the Chesapeake Bay, near Norfolk, Virginia, when he saw a\nNationally syndicated columnists Roscoe and Geoffrey Drummond\nOregon, in 1950, finds no reason to reject either of the two pictures, and\nbrilliant object that \"flew fast and then abruptly halted 20 miles in front\ntold NICAP that the Condon report had not settled the question. There\nof us.\" Both the Viscount and another aircraft, a DC-6, got radar returns\nare enough \"sufficient, creditable sighting reports\" that leave the\nclassifies the objects as \"unidentified.\" Also analyzed is the sighting and\nphotograph by astronaut James McDivitt on June 4, 1965, of cylinder\nfrom the UFO. The object, Captain Hull reported, \"dissolved right in\nUFO question \"still open,\" they said. They added that the \"Condon\nwith a structured arm-like projection. The report's conclusion: \"unex-\nfront of my eyes and the crew lost it from the [radar] scope at the\nreport should be read with great care as to its credibility. The father and\nplained.\"\nsame time.\" The Condon team said \"these two cases must be considered\nson team supported future scientific investigation, despite the report\nas unknowns.\" (127-29.)\nrecommendation to the contrary.\nJune 23, 1955. Near Utica, N.Y. A pilot and co-pilot of a Mohawk\nAirlines DC-3 reported a gray, round UFO with portholes emitting a\nNewspapers Protest\nImpressive Reports Examined\nblue-green light that traveled at \"great speed.\" Two other planes also\nA minimum of 17 cases of a total of less than a hundred in the report\nreported seeing the object and radar tracked it flying east over Boston.\nThe State, South Carolina's largest newspaper, has carried a number\nare listed as unidentified. These include three astronaut sightings; one\nThe Mohawk pilot computed the UFO's speed between 4,500 and 4,800\nof positive editorials in past years. In a recent one entitled \"A Study That\nphotograph case; five radar cases, with all but one including visual\nm.p.h. Colorado concluded that this \"is a most intriguing report that\nWasn't,\" the newspaper stated that the Colorado findings \"may be\nobservations; and two electro-magnetic (E-M) effect reports. Military and\nmust certainly be classed as an unknown pending further study, which it\ninstantly repudiated. The paper also praised NICAP as \"the most\ncommercial pilots were among the witnesses in six of the cases and police\ncertainly deserves.\" (143.)\nsober and efficient of the private [UFO] organizations\" and attacked\nofficers in two others. Six cases occurred during the period of Colorado's\n* May 13, 1967. Colorado Springs, Colorado. A UFO was first\nCondon and Low as being \"increasingly hostile to those who insisted on a\ninvestigations.\ntracked on radar as a Braniff flight touched down at the airport. Then the\nstrictly objective approach.\" The editorial concluded that \"the public\nThe following cases from the report offer puzzling evidence that\nobject turned east and flew over the field at an altitude of about 200\ncould place more confidence in. [Colorado's] findings if it were not\nsomething unexplained is visiting our air spaces. These, without consider-\nfeet. \"This must remain as one of the most puzzling radar cases on\npositively known, as is the case, that the Condon group first arrived\nUFO \"Evidently Artificial\"-Condon Report\ning hundreds of others excluded from the Colorado study, constitute\nrecord, and no conclusion is possible. the report stated.\nthis [negative] conclusion and then went through the motions of\nsufficient support for further scientific study. It is impossible to\n(310-16.)\nassembling the evidence almost as an afterthought.'\nunderstand how the project, confronted by these reports from its own\nUFO Swoops Down on Witness\nOther unidentified cases in the report include three sightings in Joplin,\nThe New York Daily News also dissented. \"The study it said,\nfiles, could conclude that \"further extensive study of UFOs probably\nMissouri, and southeast Kansas on January 13, 1967 (286-90); an\n\"has been under fire from the start as allegedly rigged to bring in the\ncannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced\nApril 22, 1966. Beverly, Massachusetts. A football-shaped UFO\nobservation at Granville, Massachusetts, two days later (285-86); a report\nverdict the Air Force wanted. Let's keep our minds open on UFOs.\nthereby.\"\nwith flashing red lights frightened witnesses and caused interference with\nfrom Winchester, Conn., on September 9, 1967; and a sighting over\nAn editorial in the Knoxville, Tennessee, Journal indicated that the\nJune 4 and 5 and December 4, 1965. Three U.S. astronauts observe\nTV reception. The observers saw three red lights. One was erratically\nConcordia, Kansas, on December 5, 1967. (391-940).\npublic will give the report little credence. The paper stated that it was the\nand photograph UFOs (see details and photos, page 4) while in earth\nmoving over a school building while the others played tag with it. As the\nunknown cases in the project's findings that \"raise concern.\"\norbit. The Condon report finds that these \"three unexplained sightings\nnearest object made a closer approach, the frightened observers saw it\nLetters of protest are also beginning to pour in from NICAP members.\nare a challenge to the analyst. (204-8.)\nwas a metal disc, as big as a large car, flat on the bottom and round. The\nUFO flew 20-30 feet over the head of one witness, then tilted and again\nTHE DISSENTERS\nOne mechanical engineer wrote his Congressman that \"the American\npeople deserve more for their tax money than to be deluded.\nflew over the school. Two police officers arrived and saw the object\nRadar-Visual Sightings\nmaneuvering over the school building. \"No explanation is attempted to\nThere was immediate dissent from the report by a Congressman,\naccount for the close UFO encounter reported. the Colorado report\nscientists, news media personnel and NICAP members.\nFALSE STATEMENTS\nAugust 13-14, 1956. Lakenheath, England. One unexplained object\nreads. (266-70.)\nIn a U.S. House of Representatives floor speech, Congressman William\nwas tracked by air traffic control radar operators at two USAR-RAF\n* August 19, 1966. Donnybrook, North Dakota. The witness was\nF. Ryan (D-NY) attacked the project's findings, saying they \"may result\nFalse statements misquoting the Director and ridiculing NICAP have\nstations while other round, white, fast-moving UFOs were seen visually.\ndriving when he observed a metallic, tilted disc with a dome on top\nin delaying an eventual solution of the UFO puzzle, making more\nRAF fighter planes attempted interception. One pilot reported tracking\ndescend to about 10 feet from the ground with a \"falling leaf\" motion. It\ndifficult a scientific breakthrough in an understanding of the problem.\"\nappeared in two syndicate features and several editorials. NEA reporter\nTom Tiede falsely quoted the Director as admitting strong evidence for-\nan object on radar as the UFO circled behind his plane and paced it for\nthen rose and hovered over a reservoir. After about a minute, it moved to\nHe added that it \"is the duty and responsibility of the House Science and\n\"little green men.\" William Hines (Science Service) attacked NICAP, ac-\nabout 10 minutes. The pilot performed evasive maneuvers in an attempt\na field and descended to \"within a few feet of the ground.\" The disc\nAstronautics Committee to review and hold hearings on the University of\nto lose the object. Of this case, Colorado concluded that the \"probability\ntilted again and disappeared rapidly \"with a whooshing sound.\" The\nColorado UFO report and its implications.'\ncusing us of publishing sensational paperbacks and living on donations\nfrom \"excitable old ladies.\"\nthat at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high.\"\nwitness reported his car radio had ceased functioning during the sighting\nDr. James E. McDonald, of the University of Arizona and probably\n(248-56.)\nthe most knowledgeable scientist on the UFO subject, stated that the\nIndignant members have already indicated their help in exposing un-\nbut returned to normal after the UFO disappeared. Two groups of three\ntrue statements in-or caused by-the Condon report. We hope every\n*\nSeptember 19-20, 1957. Ft. Worth, Texas. An Air Force major was\ndepressions each and \"recently displaced\" rocks were discovered at the\nreport \"must be vigorously challenged lest it succeed in cutting off\nmember who feels this indignation will back us every way possible in this\npiloting a bomber when he saw a UFO that was also tracked on ground\nsite of the near-landing. The Condon team said it could not find an\nserious scientific attention to a matter of extremely great importance.\"\nflight control radar. After alerting his crew, the pilot said they saw a\nDr. McDonald also held a \"special colloquim\" at his university criticizing\nfight. With your help in making it known, nationwide, we can win.\nexplanation for this sighting. (It is interesting to note that Robert Low\nwhite object that crossed in front of the aircraft, then moved to the right\nwas one of the investigators on this case). (273-74.)\nthe report and stated that the National Academy of Science's \"approval\nat speeds far exceeding those of ordinary planes. The UFO disappeared\nJanuary 1967. New Richmond, Michigan. At 2 a.m., a woman saw\nof the scope and methodology underlying the Condon Report is not\nThe Condon Report is now available in paperback, titled:\nfrom view, but the plane's radar continued to track it. Then the\na brightly illuminated object just over her car. It remained over the\njustified and will become a serious source of future embarrassment\nSCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS.\nmysterious craft also disappeared from the radar scope but reappeared\nautomobile and paced it for 10 or 15 minutes, but the car would not\nto that prestigious scientific body.\nConducted by the University of Colorado under Research Contract\nlater on both the ground radar and plane scopes and visually. As the\naccelerate. The witness said she felt she was somehow being controlled by\nSimultaneously with the release of the report, Dr. David R. Saunders'\nNo. F44620-67-C-0035 with the U.S. Air Force. Dr. Edward U.\naircraft closed, the UFO suddenly vanished from both radar and visual\nbook, UFOs? Yes!, was published. Dr. Saunders, one of the two scientists\nCondon, Project Director. Introduction by Walter Sullivan, Ban-\nthe object. The UFO \"made a big check mark in the sky\" and rapidly\nobservation. The Colorado project said it could not identify \"the\nfired from the project for opposing Dr. Condon's views, made it clear\ntam paperback YZ-4747. January, 1969. 965 pp. $1.95. Page ref-\ndisappeared. Colorado rather curiously concluded: \"The case remains\nphenomenon encountered.\" (260-66.)\nthat the indifference of the project's director and coordinator and their\nerences in this issue of the Investigator refer to the Bantam edition.\ninteresting but unexplained.\" (282-85.)\ninadequate research administration went far toward scuttling the project.\nNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE\nON AERIAL PHENOMENA (NICAP)\nDoralt\nI536 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nMaj. Donald E. Keyhoe, USMC (Ret), Director\nFOR IMMED IATE RELEASE\nGordon I.R. Lore, Jr., Assistant Director\n12 February 1969\nPhone: 202-667-9434\nNICAP CHALLENGES COLORADO UNIVERSITY REPORT ON UFOs\n\"The University of Colorado UFO Project report fails to examine hundreds\nof important sightings from credible witnesses,' according to the National\nInvestigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), a Washington-based pri-\nvate organization. The project was headed by Dr. Edward U. Condon and its re-\nport was made public in January.\nYet the report itself, NICAP said, despite the overwhelming amount of ig-\nnored evidence, \"contains data that makes a strong case for UFOs,\" including\nunexplained sightings by astronauts, radar-visual reports, a photograph of a\nstructured object, and cases in which physical effects were reported.\n\"At least 26% of the less than 100 cases in the report are listed as\nunidentified,' NICAP pointed out. \"And many of the so-called 'explained'\ncases are explained in a way that strains the imagination.\"\nIn its current bi-monthly newsletter released today, The UFO Investigator,\nPHOTOCOPY FROM GERALD FORD I BRARY\nNICAP severely criticized the project for allegedly ignoring \"20 years of ac-\ncumulated testimony\" in writing off UFOs as unworthy of further scientific\nstudy. \"A major defect, 11 said NICAP, \"was the meager use it made of the\nenormous reservoir of case material available to it. Over the 20 years pre-\nceding the project, between 10,000 and 15,000 UFO sighting reports had been\nrecorded. Yet the report treats only 50 cases from this period, or Help of 1%\nof the available material.\"\nNICAP also claimed that $113,000 or more of the project's $526,000 budget\nwas wasted on duplicating knowledge already available. Raytheon Corporation,\nNICAP said, apparently was paid $30,000 for photo-analysis work, none of which\nappears in the final report.\n\"Dr. Condon accused NICAP of tellings its members the project was merely\na 'whitewash, 1111 a spokesman said, \"but anyone who examines our publications\nwill see that we defended the project against its critics until it became\nclear that a biased, non-objective investigation was being conducted. We gave\nthem the benefit of the doubt at every turn. Then when 1t became obvious they\nhad failed to accomplish a thorough review, we withdrew out support and pub-\nlished the facts.\"\nSumming up the organization's position, a spokesman stated, \"It would be\na tragedy if the Condon report is accepted as the final answer to UFOs. The\nproject's directors obviously were biased, over-emphasized crackpot stories,\nlooked at serious reports very superficially, and padded their final report\nwith irrelevant material. We will continue to press for a scientific study.\"\nStrong support for a continued scientific investigation was indicated in\na \"Joint Statement by Scientists,\" released by NICAP. At least 50 highly\nqualified scientists signed a statement urging \"an appropriate committee of the\nCongress to initiate an investigation of\nUFOs.\""
}