TO:
MAJOR DONALD E.
KEYHOE, USMC (Ret.):
FOR HIS SINCERE AND
TIRELESS EFFORTS IN
ALERTING THE WORLD TO UFO
PHENOMENA.
AND ENCOURAGING A RATIONAL
INQUIRY.
The
Brazilian Photograph
Taken January 16, 1958,
from the deck of the IGY research vessel
Almirante Saldanha at Trindade Isle, Brazil, by marine photographer
Almiro Barauna.
Witnessed by several officers and men of the
Brazilian Navy and Air
Force. Published in the Brazilian paper
Folha da Manho February 22,
1958, after analysis by the Naval
Ministry, and release by
the President of Brazil.
THE CHALLENGE
OF
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING
OBJECTS
PRESENTED IN A SERIES
OF SEPARATE ARTICLES BY
Charles A. Maney, Board Member
And
Richard Hall, Secretary
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE
ON AERIAL PHENOMENA
"A new fact is battling strenuously for access to your ears. A new
aspect of the universe is striving to reveal itself. But no fact is so simple
that it is not harder to believe than to doubt at the first
presentation"
- Lucretius (96-55 B. C.)
"The Nature of the Universe”
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
1961
Copyright
1961 by Richard Hall
All Rights Reserved
1916-17th St., N. W.
Washington 9, D. C.
Manufactured in the United States of America
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are indebted to many of their colleagues in the field of UFO
investigation for material, help, and advice. We particularly wish to
thank:
Lee R. Munsick, Fulcrum Productions, Morristown, N. J.Lex Mebane, Isabel Davis, and Ted Bloecher, Civilian Saucer Intelligence, New York CityMajor Donald E. Keyhoe, USMC (Ret.), Director of NICAPJ. Escobar Faria, Sao Paulo, BrazilGeorge Popowitch, UFO Research Committee, Akron, OhioMrs. Coral Lorenzen, Aerial Phenomena Research Organization, Tucson, ArizonaIn addition, we wish to thank the following people for permission to quote them or to reprint copyrighted material:Prof. Clyde TombaughDr. Fred C. FairDr. Charles H. OtisWells Alan WebbWalter N. WebbDr. Seymour L. HessBulkey S. GriffinFlying Saucer Review (London)
C. A. M.
R. H.
|
FOREWORD
The undersigned was requested to write a brief foreword. He has
consented to do this for several reasons. He considers it his duty to
aid in any reasonable way in the study of a subject for which his own long
experience entitles him to express an opinion. Also that the subject of
UFOs is one which should be studied scientifically, which it has not been due
to suppression of pertinent data and also to subjecting reports of trained
and reputable people to ridicule. Further to the certainty that, to
date, we do not know what some of these phenomena are and what causes them.
Also that it is even possible that they might eventually have serious
effects upon our planet and its inhabitants, either for good or ill. In
any case the fullest scientific study should be given them. Again
reputable people, especially pilots, should be encouraged, not discouraged,
to report all unusual phenomena in our atmosphere.
The writer has no personal theory to advance or refute; his hope is that, in
writing this foreword, he will encourage more observers to report and help
dispel the official secrecy which so far has hampered proper study by
qualified scientists. In this latter respect he can personally testify
that his friend Dr. Lincoln LaPaz was unable to furnish him with information
because it was classified, and that, on trying to get it from Washington, the
attempt failed. And these data referred to certain fireballs, not UFOs.
This indicates to what extent censorship of data can go.
Charles P. Oliver
President,
American Meteor Society
(Dr. Oliver is Emeritus
Professor of Astronomy, University
of Pennsylvania.)
INTRODUCTION
Accounts of phenomena popularly referred to as
"flying saucers,” more dignifiedly labeled "unidentified
flying objects" or UFOs, continue to persist in the world news. The
reports of these strange phenomena of the skies have been attracting public
attention for thirteen years and there is apparently no let-up in sight.
Although within a given region on earth long lulls between sightings have
been noted, during such local lulls, other parts of the world have witnessed
extra concentrations of sightings.
In spite of the persistent reports of their repeated
occurrences there appears to be more popular confusion of thought in regard
to these phenomena and less understanding of what they are today than when
they were first observed and noted in the news. Actually it appears that the
great majority of the general public, including the fraternity of scientists
themselves, regard reports of UFOs as figments of the imagination, or
distorted interpretations of natural phenomena.
This book in a group of articles by two serious
students of these phenomena represents an effort to arrive at the true facts
of this subject. Each of the two authors presents his own version and his own
interpretation of the phenomena independently of the other. However, it will
be noted that their two interpretations have much in common, although arrived
at separately.
Those who thoughtfully read these articles will, of
course, come to their own conclusions as to the nature of these reported
phenomena. Everyone is deserving of respect for his own opinion, especially
so if it is arrived at by serious effort in the evaluation of accessible
information. Let it be said, however, that whether he be an average person or
whether he even be a Nobel-prize-winning scientist, his opinion should be
discounted on any subject outside of his particular interest if he has not
taken the trouble to examine seriously and attempt to evaluate a considerable
body of facts on that subject.
To the authors of this book who have devoted much of
their time over a number of years in the effort to discover the significance
of these reported sightings, these UFOs constitute a real challenge. It is
hoped that the contents of this book will awaken others also to accept this
challenge and to cooperate in a great effort to solve this problem. If it
appears that this planet earth is being visited by intelligence from outer
space, then it is obvious that those who reside on this planet should not
remain unconcerned about it, as is now the situation generally.
If this book, composed in sincere effort to arrive at
the truth, contributes in moderate measure to the awakening of men's minds to
the acceptance of these new realities, it will have satisfactorily
accomplished its main purpose.
C.
A. M.
PART I: THE
UFO MYSTERY
Chapter 1
The
Challenge
"It is the majority opinion of the NICAP Board of Governors and Panel of
Special Advisors that the unknown devices reported by reliable observers are
intelligently controlled machines from outer space. Joining in this opinion
are the following:
Board Members
Dr. Marcus Bach, Iowa State
University
The Rev. Albert Bailer, Greenfield, Massachusetts
Mr. Frank Edwards, Mutual
Broadcasting System
Col. Robert B. Emerson,
USAR, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Rear Adm. H. B. Knowles,
USN (Ret.), Eliot, Maine
Professor C. A. Maney, Defiance College, Ohio
Special Advisors
Norman Bean, WTVJ engineer,
Miami, Florida
Albert M. Chop, former AF
information official on UFOs, Pacific Palisades, California
A. L. Cochran, electronics
engineer, Richardson, Texas
Samuel Freeman, former AF
Major, Bedminister, New Jersey
Frank Halstead, astronomer,
Duluth, Minnesota
Dr. Leslie K. Kaeburn,
biophysicist, Los Angeles,
California
Professor N. N. Kohanowski,
geologist, Fargo, North Dakota
Capt. R. B. McLaughlin,
USN, missile expert
Capt. W. B. Nash, Pan
American Airways, Miami Beach,
Florida
Aeronautical experts
agreeing with this conclusion include:
(1)
William P. Lear, aircraft
and electronics development
Hermann Oberth, famous
rocket pioneer
Capt. James Howard, British
Overseas Airway Corporation
Col. Jao Adil Oliviera,
Brazilian Air Force
Air Chief Marshal Lord
Dowding, Royal Air Force
And hundreds of others with
technical training.
"Massive documented evidence confirms UFO reality, their tremendous speeds,
intricate maneuvers, unique shapes (disc-and rocket types), and proves they
are not earth-made."
The above conclusion was communicated to the United States Congress in a
confidential report by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial
Phenomena (NICAP) dated June 21, 1960, urging that all the facts on UFOs be
made public to forestall certain secrecy dangers outlined in the report. (See
Chapter 2 for additional details.)
At the time of this writing dozens of Senators and Congressmen have
responded, pledging their support of Congressional Hearings and help in
ending UFO secrecy, * in spite of the fact that Air Force spokesmen promptly
labeled the NICAP conclusion as "sensational" and "science
fiction. "
In four years of liaison with government officials, scientists, newsmen, and
others, NICAP has gained a reputation for careful fact-finding. The Report to
Congress came after nearly four years of data gathering, detailed
investigation, scientific analyses, and thorough documentation of hundreds of
UFO cases. Behind the report lies massive evidence, including tape
recordings, photographic data, documents, case histories of sightings by
reputable witnesses, and an extensive witness list, all of which has been
promised to Congressional investigators.
Not all of the Board Members and Advisors share the opinion that UFOs are
interplanetary devices. However, it is the unanimous opinion of all NICAP
officials and member experts that the circumstantial evidence for UFOs
warrants an immediate scientific investigation, conducted openly and without
secrecy by the entire scientific community.
As opposed to the official Air Force policy of debunking UFOs and glossing
over evidence, the general NICAP attitude was
____________
* See Congressional Record entry, Appendix A
(2)
summed up in 1960 by Vice
Admiral R. H. Hillenkoetter, USN (Ret.), former director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, and generally considered to be the leading NICAP Board
Member. "It is imperative, “he said, "that we learn where the
UFOs come from and what their purpose is.” Commenting on UFO reports
made in World War II and soon after, when he headed the CIA, Admiral
Hillenkoetter added: "I know that neither Russia nor this country had
anything even approaching such high speeds and maneuvers."
In recent years, in spite of a news blackout reinforced by official denials,
serious UFO reports have continued to come in from credible witnesses. A
recent series of sightings by police officers and others in northern California, in August
1960, was briefly reported on the newswires; then the subject was dropped
quickly after the Air Force publicly stated that the witnesses were deluded.
During a six-day period, August 13-18, UFOs were sighted from 18 California cities and
towns by over 30 witnesses including at least 14 police officers. One of the
most important cases in this series occurred on August 13. The UFO was first
sighted at 11:50 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time). Officers Charles A. Carson and
Stanley Scott had been looking for a speeding motorcycle in the vicinity of
Red Bluff when they noticed an object low in the sky directly ahead of them.
"We stopped and leaped from the patrol vehicle in order to get a
position on what we were sure was going to be an airplane crash.”
Officer Carson said later in his report. * "From our position outside
the car, the first thing we noticed was an absolute silence. Still assuming
it to be an aircraft with power off, we continued to watch until the object
was probably within 100 to 200 feet off the ground, when it suddenly reversed
completely, at high speed, and gained approximately 500 feet altitude. There
the object stopped.
"At this time it was clearly visible to both of us. It was surrounded by
a glow making the round or oblong object visible. At each end, or each side
of the object, there were definite red lights. At times about five white
lights were visible between the red lights. As we watched the object moved
again and performed aerial feats that were actually unbelievable.
____________
* All quotes taken from Officer Carson's official
statement.
(3)
"At this time we radioed Tehama County Sheriff s Office requesting they contact
local radar base. The radar base confirmed the UFO--completely
unidentified!" (Italics added.)
Then, as the two officers continued to watch, the UFO twice came directly
toward them.
"Each time it approached, “Carson
continued, "The object turned, swept the area with a huge red light.
Officer Scott turned the red light on the patrol vehicle towards the object,
and it immediately went away from us. We observed the object use the red beam
approximately six or seven times, sweeping the sky and ground areas."
Then the UFO began moving slowly toward the east and Scott and Carson
followed it. A second UFO approached from the south, moved near the first
object, and both hovered for some time "occasionally emitting the red beam.”
Finally both objects disappeared below the eastern horizon, and the two
officers returned to the Sheriff's office to file a report. There they met
Deputies Fry and Montgomery who had also seen the UFO clearly. Their
descriptions jibed.
Scott and Carson had observed the UFO for about two hours and 15 minutes.
"Each time the object neared us, “Carson said, "we experienced radio
interference*... We were calm after our initial shock, and decided to observe
and record all we could of the object."
These sober police officers were later interviewed by Air Force intelligence
personnel. In spite of the careful observation and the radar tracking, the
official conclusion of the United States Air Force was: "The individuals
concerned witnessed a refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars
Aldebaran and Betelgeux" caused by temperature inversions. ** Then in a
discussion of UFOs on the Dave Garroway show December 5, 1960, Lieutenant
Colonel Lawrence J. Tacker, official UFO spokesman, stated emphatically:
"Air Force radar at Red Bluff did not track the UFO.”
If the need for an organization like NICAP is not obvious from the foregoing
report, perhaps it will become more obvious upon reviewing the facts. When the
report was received at NICAP, an investigation was launched immediately. A
routine check of the star positions was made by Mr. Walter N. Webb,
lecturer
____________
* See "A New Dimension in UFO Phenomena, "
Chapter 6, Part II.
____________
** Official letter in NICAP files.
(4)
in astronomy, Charles
Hayden Planetarium, Boston.
Webb, a NICAP scientific advisor, reported back that all three objects--Mars
and the two stars--were below the horizon at the time of the sighting.
Furthermore one of the stars did not rise until an hour after the UFO
sighting had ended!
To double-check, we contacted Mr. Jack Brotzman, Naval Research Laboratory
physicist. Brotzman, also an amateur astronomer, is another NICAP scientific
advisor. Finally, the star positions were verified by an outside professional
astronomer.
At the time of the sighting the radar tracking was, as we have seen,
confirmed to the Highway Patrolmen. It was also confirmed to the San Francisco Examiner (August 17) and the Corning Daily
Observer (August 15). * Corning
is about 20 miles south of Red Bluff, site of the UFO encounter. The Daily
Observer, after checking with the Red Bluff radar station, reported in a
front-page story that the UFO had been tracked on radar. The story also
indicated that, perhaps under orders, the Air Force installation had begun to
be less cooperative: "This morning the radar station was considerably
more vague than it was Saturday midnight when it confirmed the officers'
report on the object."
Here we have the UFO problem in a nutshell: A serious report by experienced
police officers, confirmed by radar; and strange counter-to-fact explanations
by the Air Force. In addition to an apparent cover-up of the radar evidence,
the Air Force tried to give the impression that a temperature inversion
(layers of air of sharply contrasting temperature) could pick up faint light
sources below the distant horizon and somehow make them appear to be objects
maneuvering a few hundred feet above the ground in northern California.
It is well known that temperature inversions can refract light sources from
the ground locally, but certainly not from planets and stars one to three
hours below the horizon. There is no way for the light from the stars to reach
the local inversion layers, and this explanation is therefore preposterous.
If such a thing were possible, we would often see false suns dancing around
in the sky one to three hours before sunrise and after subset. The sun,
obviously, is a much brighter object than Mars or the two named stars.
Because sightings like this are very common, NICAP was
____________
* See Appendix A.
(5)
formed late in 1956 to help
cut the red tape and provide a responsible civilian committee to prod the Air
Force and other governmental agencies into releasing more information about
UFOs. At first the committee offered an 8-point plan of cooperation with the
Air Force, to help educate and prepare the public for the truth about UFOs,
whatever it might be. But the plan was ignored and the upstart organization
was on its own. NICAP has since fought against what it believes to be an
unwise secrecy policy by the Air Force.
Intense interest in the UFO subject has led many scientists and other
professional people to volunteer their services to NICAP. With the help of a
Panel of Special Advisors, * Subcommittees (investigative units), and member
experts, NICAP has been able to obtain expert analyses of evidence in many
instances. The framework for a true scientific investigation and complete
news reporting now exists. All this has been made possible by Donald E.
Keyhoe, retired Marine Corps Major, whose books are well-known to all who are
intrigued by this mystery.
Major Keyhoe took over as Director of NICAP early in 1957, promptly obtaining
the services of several high-ranking military officers and other prominent
figures for the Board of Governors. Since the Board includes such people as
Admiral Hillenkoetter, USN (Ret.), and Colonel Robert B. Emerson, USAR,
research chemist and head of Emerson Testing Laboratory, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
NICAP has never been seriously ridiculed by the press. Instead, NICAP press
releases have gone over the newswires and have been printed widely.
On January 15, 1957, Admiral Delmer S. Fahrney, famed Navy missile expert and
then Chairman of the NICAP Board, held a press conference and made the
following statement which received serious attention in the international
press:
"Reliable reports indicate that there are objects coming into our
atmosphere at very high speeds.... No agency in this country or Russia
is able to duplicate at this time the speeds and accelerations which radars
and observers indicate these flying objects are able to achieve.
"There are signs that an intelligence directs these objects, because of
the way they fly. The way they change position in formations would indicate
that their motion is directed. The Air Force is collecting factual data on
which to base an opinion, but time is required to sift and correlate the
material.
____________
*See Appendix F for complete list.
(6)
"As long as such unidentified objects continue to navigate through the earth's
atmosphere, there is an urgent need to know the facts. Many observers have
ceased to report their findings to the Air Force because of the seeming
frustration--that is, all information going in, and none coming out. It is in
this area that NICAP may find its greatest mission."
Backed solidly by the Board, Major Keyhoe then began the slow but sure
building process which is still underway. In spite of a chronic lack of funds
to operate efficiently, the membership today is over 5,000 including people
from almost every conceivable profession and trade: Doctors, lawyers,
professors, engineers, scientists, clergymen, editors, artists, and many
others. NICAP now has members in 50 states and in 30 foreign countries. *
Although operating under serious handicaps--chiefly a low budget and lack of
an adequate headquarters staff—NICAP does everything within its means
to dig behind the headlines and come up with the whole story in important UFO
cases. Almost a year before the 1960 Red Bluff police sighting, NICAP learned
of an important sighting (September 24, 1959) involving Federal Aviation
Agency (FAA) personnel in Redmond,
Oregon. In this case, too, the
fact that the Air Force had tracked the UFO on radar was first confirmed,
then denied.
The incident began just before dawn as city policeman Robert Dickerson
cruised the streets of this small central Oregon community. ** Suddenly a streak of
light like a "falling star" caught Dickerson's attention. Quickly
he stopped the patrol car, thinking the object was going to crash nearby.
Instead the UFO took on a larger ball-like appearance, stopped abruptly and
hovered at an estimated height of 200 feet. The brilliant glow lit up juniper
trees on the ground below.
Unable to identify the object after watching it for several minutes,
Dickerson then drove toward the UFO along Prineville Highway, turning in at Redmond Airport. At this point the UFO,
turning to a bright orange color, moved rapidly to a new position northeast
of the airport.
Hurrying to the Air Traffic Communication Station, Dickerson notified FAA
officials. Then he, Laverne Wert, and others in the tower watched the UFO
through binoculars. The hovering disc (it now appeared round and flat) glowed
brightly, tongues of "flame" periodically extending from the
rim.
____________
* In addition to two investigative Subcommittees in Canada, a new unit has been formed in Santiago, Chile.
____________
** Main details of the case are taken from a taped interview
with Ptn. Dickerson and FAA Flight Service Specialist Laverne Wertz; and
official FAA logs. See Appendix A.
At 1310Z (Universal Time) --5:10 a. m. PST—Redmond
reported the UFO to the Seattle
Air Route
Control Center.
The information was relayed quickly to Hamilton AFB, California. FAA logs show that an Air
Force radar station in the vicinity was tracking an unidentified object. On
the strength of the visual and radar reports, F-102 jets were scrambled from
Portland Air Base to intercept the unknown object.
In the Redmond
tower the observers saw a high-speed aircraft approaching. Just then long
yellow and red flames spurted from the underside of the UFO and it rose
quickly, vanishing into a scattered layer of clouds at about 14,000 feet.
After eluding the jets, the unknown object reappeared about 20 miles south of
Redmond. Then
visual contact was lost, but the radar contact was maintained for a while
longer. Later, the FAA dispatched a Tri-pacer aircraft to monitor the area
for radioactivity.
In its official conclusion of this case, the Air Force denied the radar
tracking (attributing it to confused radar operators "tracking" a
fixed antenna), and said the UFO was "probably a balloon.” This
implied that not only Ptn. Dickerson and the FAA tower personnel were badly
deluded by an object familiar to anyone working at an airport, but also that
the air defense radar-men could not tell a ground object from a moving aerial
object.
NICAP has made a practice of concentrating on apparently solid cases of this
sort: Cases involving responsible witnesses such as police officers and
aviation officials, jet interception attempts and radar trackings. Therefore,
every effort has been made either to establish the mysterious object as a
definite UFO, or to identify it conclusively. In the course of the
investigation NICAP consulted astronomy advisors, checked U. S. Weather
Bureau maps, examined the eyewitness reports, and analyzed film taken from an
IGY "all-sky" camera that had been operating in the vicinity of Redmond during the
sighting.
At first the planet Venus was a suspect, since, as Dr. James C. Bartlett, Jr.
(NICAP astronomy advisor) said: "Venus would have been spectacularly
visible from Redmond, Oregon... the stellar magnitude was -4. 1.
" But the radar track and a later check of the directions, (in addition
to the reported maneuvers) ruled out Venus. If it had been visible through
the scattered cloud layers, Dr. Bartlett said, Venus would have been seen
almost due east. The UFO was sighted in the northeast, then south of Redmond.
(8)
Weather maps showed that no sounding balloons were aloft at the time of the
sighting. In addition, prevailing winds were southerly and a weather balloon
would not have moved to the south.
Examination of the IGY film by photographic advisor Max B. Miller was
inconclusive due to the poor quality of the film. It was impossible to
determine whether any of the markings on the film were anything other than
defects. But the clear-cut visual observation and radar tracking could not be
explained. NICAP's conclusion is that the object remains unidentified in
conventional terms.
In the fall of 1958 a whole series of similar reports was received:
October 3- - The entire crew of a Monon Railroad freight train in Central
Indiana watched four glowing disc-like objects pass over the train from front
to back, turn and follow close behind, maneuvering in formation the whole
time. Details obtained by Board Member Frank Edwards in an interview on WTTV,
Indianapolis.
October 7-- (from the log of the S. S. Nantucket, Massachusetts Steamship
Authority vessel, Joseph Gwooz, Master.) "Time 1455 (2:55 p.m.
EDT) Entrance Nantucket Channel. While
outbound from Nantucket for Martha's Vineyard, Woods Hole, and New Bedford, sighted
unknown object hovering in the sky, estimated height 8,000 to 10,000 feet, at
an angle of about 160 degrees. Object remained stationary for a minute or
more, then shot up and away to the N. E. and disappeared out of sight at a
rapid rate of speed. Color of object, grayish. Oval shape. "
October 26--Two Baltimore residents, Philip Small (chemistry graduate, University of Maryland) and Alvin Cohen, (store
department manager) reported huge egg-shaped object seen hovering above
bridge over Loch Raven reservoir. Interviewed by NICAP Subcommittee, reported
car stalled in presence of UFO; facial burns when object flashed
brilliantly as it shot straight up and disappeared. Two independent reports
of egg-shaped object in area same night.
December 20— Patrolmen LeRoy Aboreen and Bernard Talada, Dunellen, New
Jersey, police department, sighted elliptical UFO
while patrolling at 12:55 a. m. In report to NICAP, officers said UFO
approached at meteor-like speed from west, came to sudden complete stop.
"The body of the object was
(9)
solid bright red and it
gave off a pulsating red glow, "Aboreen said. "It hovered for a few
seconds, made a left turn, hovered a few more seconds, then went straight up
like a shot. We watched it until it completely faded beyond the stars. The
object was in plain view from start to finish. "
Of these fall 1958 cases, only one (the Baltimore
case of October 26) was investigated by the Air Force--belatedly, after
prodding by local newsmen. It is obvious that many serious reports of a
similar nature are never investigated, apparently due to the negative
attitude fostered by the Air Force. With orders to find conventional
explanations for hundreds of puzzling UFO sightings, Air Force investigators
are not going out of their way to look into more sightings. As a result, only
cases reported officially through channels are investigated--and many good
observers refuse to report their sightings to the Air Force because they are
disgusted with the official policy.
In spite of its failure to investigate many important cases, the Air Force
issued a "fact sheet" January 22, 1959 (about a month after the New Jersey police
sighting) entitled: "Air Force UFO Study Shows 'Unknowns'
Decreasing.” The official report covered the period from July 1958 to
December 1958, inclusive. In this period, 296 UFO's were reported to the Air
Force. Two (. 67%) were considered "unknowns." One of the two
"unknowns," occurred in October. *
The report emphasized that the Air Force "has set a record low for the
number of cases classified as 'unknown' and that the 296 cases were "a
14% decrease in sightings over the first half of the year." Captain
Ruppelt, who headed the official UFO investigation from 1951 to 1953,
described this process in his book: " (The Air Force policy of writing
off all UFO reports, regardless), is an expedient method of getting the
percentage of unknowns down to zero, but it is no more valid than turning the
hands of a clock ahead to make time pass faster."**
By ignoring unofficial but serious reports (such as the New
Jersey police sighting) and by "writing off other cases
regardless" (such as the more recent Red Bluff, California, police sighting), it is easy
to "reduce the percentage of unidentified's to the minimum," as Air
Force investigators are instructed to do. ***
____________
*Lt. Col. L. ]. Tacker, Pentagon UFO spokesman, lists
the Baltimore
sighting as an "unknown" in his recent book Flying Saucers and
the U. S. Air Force, (Van Nostrand, 1960)
____________
**E. J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying
Objects (Doubleday, 1956), p. 315.
____________
*** "Paragraph 3-c of AF Reg. 200-2 says "Air
Force activities must reduce the percentage of unidentifieds to the
minimum... (However, due to subjective factors) it is improbable that all of
the unidentifieds can be eliminated. "
(10)
The significance of the periodic "fact sheets” debunking UFOs can
be judged by the foregoing.
The Air Force sometimes claims that "improved investigative
techniques" account for the alleged high percentage of "identified'
objects. ”The Fitzgerald Report, "a document prepared by the Akron
UFO Research Committee (see address elsewhere) gives some insight into the
investigative techniques. As the report shows, the Air Force ignored all the
facts of a September 21, 1958, sighting near Cleveland, Ohio,
failed to interrogate key witnesses, and seized upon false natural
explanations to "identify" the UFO.
It is NICAP's conviction that reports from reputable witnesses deserve
serious attention, and that science has an obligation to examine them fairly
and fully. The wild reports from obviously distraught or deluded persons, or
fakers, who converse freely with "Spacemen" and bring back
messianic messages, are irrelevant to the issue. As long as the Air Force
continues to hand out misleading summaries implying that there is no UFO
mystery, and as long as scientists fear association with what they take to be
a crackpot movement, there will be a need for NICAP.
NICAP is tackling three basic problems: (l) To make all significant, factual
UFO reports available to scientists and the general public; (2) To offset the
misleading Air Force pronouncements; (3) To expose hoaxes and weed out
crackpot elements which have attached themselves to the UFO mystery. The
articles in Sections II and III explore these problems and other related
ones.
The important cases cited, significant opinions, and other evidence, we
believe, are a challenge to science and society.
R.
H.
(11)
Chapter 2
Report To Congress
In June 1960, after examining the accumulated evidence for UFOs, NICAP
concluded not only that UFOs are real, and, by majority opinion, probably
interplanetary, but also that there are certain potential dangers linked with
the secretive Air Force policy. These ideas were embodied in a report to
Congress. A digest of the reports follows. (A confidential section, "How
Krushchev Could Exploit the UFO Situation,” has been deleted for
obvious reasons. Otherwise, the following quotes are substantially the text
of the report as it was sent to Congress.
DANGERS
OF SECRECY ON UFOs (UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS)
AND DIGEST OF DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE
Early in 1960, because of the growing hazard from Air Force UFO secrecy,
Congressional hearings were urged by the majority of NICAP Board Members and
technical advisors.
There is a serious and growing danger that UFOs may be mistaken for Soviet
missiles or jets, accidently setting off war. Several Air defense scrambles
and alerts already have occurred when defense radar-men mistook UFO
formations for possible enemy machines. NICAP agrees with the sober warnings
by General L. M. Chassin, recent NATO Coordinator of Allied Air Services (to
recognize UFOs before a case of mistaken identity causes a global tragedy *).
By AF policy, members of Congress and committee chairmen have repeatedly been
told that the UFOs are non-existent, and that hearings would benefit only the
sensation-seekers and science-fiction publishers. The following evidence is
submitted to interested members of Congress, as proof of the need for
immediate emergency action.
____________
* See Appendix A, Congressional Record entry, for text
of General Chassin's statement.
(12)
There is an increasing danger--as the NICAP Board has warned the AF--that Russia
could exploit the muddled UFO situation at any time. If successful, this
trick would greatly increase tension in the United States and allied countries.
It could be planned to upset the 1960 campaigns, * or at any desired time to
increase fear of USSR
attack power.
DIGEST OF UFO EVIDENCE
(Documents,
tape-recordings, and transcripts in NICAP possession)
The documented cases briefed below are examples of the hundreds concealed,
denied, or falsely explained by the AF.
1. Kinross case, November 23, 1953. Disappearance of an F-89 jet from
Kinross Air Force Base during a UFO chase. Pilot Lieutenant Felix Moncla; radar
officer, Lieutenant R. R. Wilson. No trace of jet or airmen found. AF
statement to Associated Press: The plane was followed by radar until it
merged with an object 70 miles off Keweenaw Point in Upper
Michigan. Letters to NICAP by Moncla's mother, brother-in-law,
cite conflicting AF explanations given them and show disbelief in AF answers.
Loss of jet, airmen confirmed to NICAP by Captain R. C. White, AF Press Desk.
(Listed as probable crash, cause unknown.)
The AF now denies this case ever occurred. Denial signed by Major L. J.
Tacker, AF PIO (Public Information Officer) on UFOs, in statement to NICAP
member Richard Levine. Intelligence officers connected with the UFO Project
Blue Book at ATIC (Aerospace Technical Intelligence
Center) at Dayton,
Ohio, also denied knowing of the case; this
denial took place in an interview with Richard Vaughan, staff member WTTG, Washington television
station, and NICAP member Harold E. Salkin, on May 31, 1960. (Tape and
transcript of interview, Tacker and Moncla family letters, photostat of AP
story all available.)
2. Airliner-UFO chase by AF order. On April 8, 1956, Captain Raymond L.
Ryan, American Airlines, encountered fast-maneuvering UFO west of Albany, New
York. Radioed Griffiss AFB, was ordered to abandon
next landing, pursue UFO, aid jets in interception. (Against Civil
Aeronautics Board policy.) In investigations by CAB and CAA ( now Federal
____________
* Congressmen Edgar W. Hiestand, California, took cognizance of this fact
during the 1960 campaigns, wrote to the Secretary of the Air Force urging a
policy of "Complete frankness about UFOs.
(13)
Aviation Agency) Captain
Ryan and American Airlines--evidently under orders--denied any deviation to
chase the UFO, cited flight-log entry as proof of normal flight time
Albany-Syracuse. NICAP request for AF report evaded.
Proof of AF-ordered chase, with possible danger to passengers, also
indicating false or altered flight-log entry: A previously tape-recorded
interview with Captain Ryan and his first officer, William Neff, with both
admitting the AF order, describing the chase to Lake
Ontario, where UFO speeded up,
heading for Canada.
CAA tower operators at Albany, Watertown, and one AF witness in Albany airport tower, said by Ryan to have
observed UFO also. (Tape, transcript, Ryan and AF denials, CAA and CAB
reports to NICAP confirming Ryan denials, available, with proof that tape is
genuine.)
3. Report of AF transport captain indicating possible UFO attack. During
1958 night flight over Pacific, AF transport radar-man picked up nearby UFO.
Strange flashes or explosions followed, like anti-aircraft bursts but
blue-green in color. Transport captain fired a challenge rocket. A red flare,
other blue-green bursts followed, but no damage to plane. AF captain later
told Intelligence he believed they were "shot at." Intelligence
report summary stated: Entire crew were aware of the previous disappearances
of AF transports in this area, and all appeared to believe their experience
was related to the previous disappearances. Extract from unclassified summary
sent to NICAP by a member serving in AF Intelligence. Original or certified
photocopy available.)
On May 31, 1960, ATIC officers denied any such report, in conference
previously cited. (See Kinross case.) Documented denial available.
(Other documented cases
listed on following pages.)
AIR FORCE DENIALS OF SECRECY DISPROVED
Since the AF investigation began, UFO censorship has been constantly denied
in AF press releases, broadcasts, letters to Congress, press, and the public.
Examples follow:
1. Assistant AF Secretary R. E. Horner, CBS nationwide telecast (Armstrong
Circle Theater) January 22, 1958: "There has been a mistaken belief that
the AF has been hiding from the public information concerning unidentified
flying objects. Nothing could be further from the truth. And I do not qualify
this in any way. "
AF admission 24 hours later, in official letter by Captain
(14)
G. H. Oldenburgh, AF PIO at
Langley AFB: "The public dissemination of data on unidentified flying
objects is contrary to AF policy and regulations, specifically AF Regulation
200-2" (Letter to NICAP member Larry W. Bryant; available for inspection.
)
2. General Joe W. Kelly, USAF, Director of Legislative Liaison, to
Senator Francis Case, Congressman Lee Metcalf, other Congressmen, and private
citizens: Denials that UFO reports were withheld from the public.
Signed statement to NICAP by Acting Commandant of Coast Guard, Rear Admiral
J. A. Hirshfield, after NICAP request for a visual-and-radar UFO report from
the Coast Guard Cutter SEBAGO: This official report, said Admiral
Hirshfield,, had been forwarded to the "designated agency" in the
Department of Defense. He added: "Federal law prohibits the release of
official files concerning such cases to other than specified channels. I
therefore find it necessary to refuse your request." (The SEBAGO case
involved high-speed UFO maneuvers about the cutter. The AF later publicly
implied the officers and radar-men were incompetent.)
(Other documentary proof of secrecy available)
EXPLAINING AWAY OF UFO REPORTS
In 1956, Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, former chief of Project Blue Book, publicly
disclosed the AF policy of debunking UFO reports:
"I was continually told to tell them about the sighting reports we've
solved--don't mention the unknowns'... After the AF order of February 11, 1949,
everything was evaluated on the premise that UFOs couldn't exist. No matter
what you see or hear, don't believe it.... There have been definite
indications that there is a movement afoot to get Project Blue Book to swing
back to the old project philosophy of analyzing UFO reports--to write them
all off, regardless.... Some good reports have come in and the AF is sitting
on them.... Some investigators were 'purged' because they had refused to
change their original opinions about UFOs. ... There were two factions. One
believed the spaceship answer but felt we should clamp down on all
information until we had all the answers. Another group favored giving more
facts to the public, including the best cases, the unsolved movies of UFOs,
and the AF conclusions. A press showing of the Tremonton UFO movie--which the
Navy analysts said showed unknown objects under
(15)
intelligent control--was
planned early in '53. ...A new publicity policy went into effect--don't say
anything." (From; The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects,
Doubleday, 1956.)
TYPICAL CASES " WRITTEN OFF" BY AF POLICY
1. Washington UFO operations over White House, Capitol, Washington Airport,
July 1952; tracked by CAA and AF radar-men, speeds from 140 to 7,200 miles
per hour; objects seen by CAA tower men, pilots, exactly where radar
indicated. In 1959, Senator Keating of New
York was told by AF Headquarters that weather
phenomena had caused the radar blips; no mention of the visual sightings. In
the May 31, 1960 ATIC conference, officers first denied any visual reports,
then admitted them. (Record available.)
Captain Ruppelt statement: "In 1952 the press was led to believe the Washington
radar-visual sightings were only weather phenomena. Actually, they're still
unknowns. The press conference did take the pressure off Project Blue Book,
but behind the scenes it was only the signal for an all-out drive to find out
more about the UFOs."
2. Oxnard
case. Maneuvering UFO seen over Oxnard AFB, California, and nearby areas, by AF
personnel, police, sheriff's deputies. Report to NICAP by CAA tower operator
detailed CAA radar tracking, by four operators, of UFOs at 3,600 miles per
hour, one directly over Oxnard AFB. AF denied radar tracking, stated UFO
probably a weather balloon. (CAA report certified by Admiral Knowles, six
Board members, available.)
3. Nike case. Brief landing, take-off of UFO near Nike base, Derwood, Maryland,
reported by Army missile men. First AF public answer: Light from torches of
welders on transmission-line tower. (Major William Lookadoo, PIO, Boiling
AFB.) Canceled when Potomac Electric Power Company official told NICAP no
welders in area. New answer: Floodlight on farmer's barn, given Newsweek,
also NICAP by Major Tacker, AF UFO spokesman. Letter available.) NICAP
investigators searched area; only structure near UFO "touch-down"
spot not even wired for electricity.
4. Report by AF Colonel D. J. Blakeslee, then a wing commander, of
high-speed UFO outmaneuvering his F-84 jet in two chases in the Far East. UFO, described as having rotating lights,
also tracked by AF ground radar.
Intelligence Report
summary: "Definitely in family of
(16)
UFO.“ (Also sighted
by other AF plane crews.) January 1953 ATIC conclusion: Unknown object.
September 1953 answer given Look Magazine: Wing commander misled by twinkling
of planet Jupiter. How AF radar, range 200-300 miles, tracked Jupiter in
high-speed evasion of F-84 not explained. On May 31, 1960, ATIC admitted
Colonel Blakeslee sighting never solved. (Documents proving contradictory
claims available.)
5. AF jet chase of UFO, Redmond,
Oregon. Radar tracking denied
object called "probably a balloon" in spite of FAA logged reports
of high-speed UFO. *
Other documented cases, photographic evidence, and military orders silencing
witnesses will be cited in explaining a possible Soviet trick. Because of the
massed evidence, 25 percent of the public (by national polls) reject AF
denials and answers. Some suspect a disturbing reason for secrecy--that the
UFOs are either Russian or hostile space machines. Since 1947, scores of
magazine and newspaper articles have discussed the Soviet secret weapon
theory--some have warned it is the true answer. Factual records, going back
to World War II, prove it false, but most citizens in the United States and allied
countries are not aware of these facts.
HOW KHRUSHCHEV COULD
EXPLOIT THE UFO SITUATION (This section--confidential to members of
Congress—is omitted here.)
PLAN TO REDUCE THE DANGER
By prompt action, the danger (of Soviet exploitation) can be greatly reduced.
Following the majority vote, NICAP herewith offers its documented evidence,
proving the UFOs could not be of Soviet origin, as a stopgap until the USAF
releases its hidden proof. Selected NICAP evidence to be placed on public
record would include:
1. The majority conclusion that the UFOs reported by competent
observers are interplanetary machines far superior to any earth-made devices.
(NICAP would stress its verified, factual evidence, as opposed to the wild
stories, frauds, and delusions unfortunately publicized.)
2. Massive documented evidence confirming UFO reality, their tremendous
speeds, intricate maneuvers, unique shapes and proof that they are not
earth-made.
____________
* Editorial note: Details of Redmond case reported in Chapter 1, Part I.
(17)
Typical unsolved cases:
a.
Official White Sands report, visual
sighting and theodolite tracking of UFO; calculated speed, 18,000 m. p.
h. Certified by Captain R. B. McLaughlin, Navy Missile expert.
b.
Official AF report of giant UFO tracked
on B-29 radar at over 9,000 m. p. h., and three groups of smaller units (also
seen streaking by the bomber) one of which merged with the smaller machine,
which operated in the manner of a mother-ship. Report declassified 1958,
confirm-to Look researcher later, with ATIC conclusion.-Unsolved.
c.
Official AF report of eight-UFO
formation seen below PAA airliner by Captain W. B. Nash and co-pilot. Speeds
calculated in excess of 4,000 m. p. h. Sharp turns beyond capability of any
known craft or missile.
d.
Official AF report of double-decked
"spaceship" encountered on airway by Eastern Airlines Captain C. S.
Chiles, co-pilot J. P. Whitted. Confirmed also by AF observer at Robbins AFB.
Power exhaust-blast of. UFO rocked the airliner as unknown machine veered to
avoid collision.
Other verified reports of revolutionary-type craft encountered by
armed forces and airline captains, weather bureau observers, tower operators,
etc. Names, dates, details on record.
Photographs confirmed by Captain E. J. Ruppelt, former Project Blue
Book chief:
a.
Moving pictures of UFOs at White Sands,
New Mexico,
April 27, 1950 and May 29, 1950. Taken by Askania cine-theodolites for
tracking missiles.
b.
AF gun-camera pictures of UFO near
Wright-Patterst. AFB, Ohio.
c.
Moving-pictures of UFO formation,
disc-shaped objects seen visually near Tremonton,
Utah. Filmed during high-speed
maneuvers by Navy aviation photographer. Navy analysis confirmed by Captain
Ruppelt: Unknown objects under intelligent control; could not be aircraft or
balloons or birds; excessive speeds indicated. UFOs in three groups; each
appeared to rotate about an axis.
Evidence of electro-magnetic forces created by UFOs, from unknown type
of propulsion. Cases on record showing interference with electrical ignition,
radio, television.
(18)
Statement by Hermann Oberth
on probable artificial gravity fields involved. Evidence of radiation
involved: Case in Geauga County,
Ohio, November 1957; ground checked
with Geiger counters by Civil Defense Director Kenneth Locke, found highly
radioactive after brief landing by UFO. Confirmation of UFO radiation reports
by Captain Ruppelt.
3. Reasons why UFOs could not be Russian machines, in addition to proof of
superior performance. Records showing UFOs officially reported in World War
II, when Russia's
best aerial machines were propeller-driven aircraft. Official AF reports:
a.
Captain Alvah Reida, B-29 bomber pilot,
encounter with high-speed, oval-shaped machine in Far
East; outmaneuvered B-29 during Captain Reida's attempts at
evasion. Captain Reida's conclusion: Interplanetary.
b.
Captain Jack Puckett, Army Air Corps,
1946, encounter with high-speed, rocket-shaped craft (similar to Captain
Chiles' report) while piloting C-47 over Florida. Witnessed by co-pilot, engineer.
c.
Major William D. Leet, 1944, encounter
while piloting AAF bomber over Europe;
mysterious disc device unlike any known craft.
(Similarly, the United States
had no such devices in 1944-45, nor does it possess such machines now. If it
did, we would be superior to USSR
both in space and global operations. We would not be spending large sums to
investigate UFOs ($10,000 per major case, as stated by Lieutenant Colonel
Spencer Whedon, ATIC, November 1957) plus high costs of jet chases, etc. Nor
would we be firing on United States-owned objects. This point should be
stressed to end any complacent belief that we are holding back some superior,
secret weapon.)
NICAP urges that the Congress insist:
- That the opinions of the NICAP majority and recognized experts, and the interplanetary conclusions and supporting evidence, be immediately made public in the public interest.
- That every effort be made to secure immediate release of the hidden AF evidence, as official proof that the UFOs could not be Russian. That this evidence also include the Top Secret AF Intelligence Estimate of the Situation: The UFOs are interplanetary spaceship. (Existence of this conclusion was disclosed by Captain Ruppelt in 1956.
(19)
Top
AF officers and headquarters spokesmen have repeatedly denied it, in letters
to Congress and the public. NICAP is prepared to produce a signed statement
by Major Dewey Fournet, USAFR, former Intelligence monitor for the UFO
program that the document referred to was drawn up and was kept secret.)
It is realized that some public uneasiness might follow an official AF
admission. But NICAP's research indicates there would be no widespread
hysteria at the interplanetary answer, unless the AF created suspicion by
withholding some of its, evidence. It is true some cases might appear to
indicate hostility: The Kinross case; the death of Captain Mantell in a UFO
chase; near-collisions on airways, when airline pilots unavoidably injured
passengers in evading unknown objects, etc. But evaluation of thousands of
reports gives no proof of belligerence. If the AF releases its evidence now,
without waiting for a possibly Soviet-inspired emergency, the public probably
will accept a frank statement that censorship was invoked in the public
interest until more answers were known.
Respectfully yours,
For the
majority:
/s/ Donald E. Keyhoe
Major, USMC (Retired) Director of NICAP
(Major Keyhoe is an Annapolis graduate;
served as a Marine Corps pilot, aide to Colonel Charles Lindbergh; chief of
information, Civil Aeronautics; World War II Naval Aviation Training; writer
on Soviet espionage, aviation, other subjects, in national magazines.)
(20)
No comments:
Post a Comment