textfiles/ufo/aquaques.ufo

                           QUESTIONS ON AQUARIUS

                         by Christian P. Lambright


      It has been said that there are three kinds of people, those who 
make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who won-
der...what happened...? It seems that nothing more true could be said of 
the types of people involved in the arena of UFO interest. The recent con-
troversy concerning the alleged project entitled "AQUARIUS" and the con-
trol group labeled "MJ-12" seems a prime example of the confusion that re-
sults from lack of communication between interested parties. Is there a 
project AQUARIUS which deals with UFOs? Who first discovered that such a 
project existed? If the documentation supporting the existence of an "MJ-
12" group is valid, as some contend, then why does it appear full of dis-
crepancies? These are questions that need to be addressed before any at-
tempt can be made to judge the validity of the issues.

      As any good detective can tell, motivation is a helpful key in solv-
ing any crime or mystery. Who would stand to gain by the situation at 
hand? Perhaps a little of this line of reasoning would help in solving the 
current mystery of AQUARIUS/MJ-12. The revelation of a UFO-related project 
by the name of AQUARIUS first appeared on the scene in what has commonly 
been referred to as the "NASA-telex" [AQUARIUS.DOC]. This is the allegedly 
genuine document which describes several pieces of photographic film relat-
ing to incidents at Kirtland AFB and the case of Paul Bennewitz. As most 
knowledgeable people are aware, this document relates quite a bit of inter-
esting information pertaining to official interest in UFOs as well as men-
tioning the existence of project AQUARIUS and something called "MJ-12". 
However, several key areas in this document were deleted by either the 
original source or by the recipient. It is interesting to note that there 
is a retyped version of this document which has circulated with the dele-
tions filled-in, but with no explanation as to who retyped it or how the 
previously deleted areas were uncovered.

      Reportedly Peter Gersten was shown this document in 1983 and so it 
would seem that it has been around for several years. But if Gersten was 
the original recipient he has not revealed where he obtained it or from 
whom. This document would appear to be closely tied to the events at Kirt-
land AFB in 1980 inasmuch as it mentions Bennewitz and the Air Force inter-
est in UFO sightings over military bases. Could the release of this docu-
ment be related to the release of the initial document(s) concerning the 
events at Kirtland? [KIRTLND1.DOC, KIRTLND2.DOC] William Moore has stated 
that he was first given the initial Kirtland documents in Washington DC in 
early 1982 by an unnamed source. And there have been several rumors circu-
lated concerning heated arguments between Moore and Gersten over the means 
by which Gersten obtained these documents. Rumors aside, if Moore received 
his documents over one year _after_ the incidents occurred then whoever 
gave him these copies must have had access to them either from AFOSI files 
in Washington or from the original sender at Kirtland. There are indica-
tions that William Moore received his copies from Richard Doty, the AFOSI 
Special Agent at Kirtland AFB. Other sources have also reported that Doty 
was involved in an effort to get information of this nature out to certain 
individuals for purposes unknown. And so it seems possible that Doty was 
responsible for the Kirtland documents and perhaps the "NASA-telex" being 
released as he would have been in a position to have access to such infor-
mation. Regardless, it would fall to serious UFO researchers to attempt to 
verify if the documents conveyed valid information, or disinformation.
      
      As interest began to focus on AQUARIUS and "MJ-12" several different 
FOIA requests were filed with various government agencies to try to garn-
ish information on these subjects, but as recently as 1986 most of the 
leading figures in Ufology were convinced that the document was a forgery 
and that Project AQUARIUS was nonexistent. In 1985 I had filed several 
different requests with government agencies requesting information on 
three projects: Sigma, Snowbird and Aquarius; as well as any information 
pertaining to MJ-12 or Majestic-12. I specifically did not mention any 
connection or interest dealing with UFOs in these requests. With the excep-
tion of the National Security Agency every response I received was a de-
nial of any knowledge of any of these subjects or titles. While they sta-
ted that Sigma and Snowbird were "not projects of this agency" and that 
they had no knowledge of MJ-12, they estimated that search fees for all 
information on Project AQUARIUS would be $15,000! It would appear that 
this is a rather expansive project. After several subsequent requests for 
clarification and to simply send the initial document which initiated the 
project the NSA stated that the project did not deal with "UFOs" and that 
as I would not be paying the fees they were concluding action on my re-
quests. Subsequent appeals only clarified that Project AQUARIUS was 
classified Top Secret and that release of any portion of it could pose 
"grave danger to the national security." [AQUANSA.DOC]
      
      Several individuals have considered the statement by the NSA that 
AQUARIUS does not deal with UFOs to be patently honest, and perhaps this 
is the truth. However I believe that to have expected the NSA to "roll-
over" and openly reveal otherwise would be naive to say the least. It 
seems paradoxical that some "researchers" both expect these agencies to be 
deceptive but will readily accept some statements as totally accurate. I 
believe that there are sufficient reasons to suspect that the NSA project 
may actually be the project which is indicated in the "NASA-telex" which 
originally mentioned it and MJ-12.

      In the process of trying to verify the above document I had ad-
dressed a series of letters to what was designated the 7602 Air Intel-
ligence Group (7602 AINTELG), as of 1983 known as the Air Force Special 
Activities Center. A Branch of the Air Force Intelligence Service, the 
7602 AINTELG deals with human resource intelligence, much the same as the 
4602 AINTELG which is known to have aided Edward Ruppelt in his investi-
gations several years ago. This may or may not be coincidence and could be 
an interesting avenue for further research. Nevertheless, in the process 
of trying to get information on this group I had been receiving somewhat 
evasive response letters from AFIS. In a conversation with an Air Force 
source in which I had referred to my problems in obtaining information on 
this group I was informed that perhaps this is due to the fact that "they 
are a branch of the NSA!" This was at the time my first indication that 
there may be some NSA involvement, and was prior to my letters to NSA it-
self. Within a few months I was to learn another interesting fact pointing 
to the NSA.

      With the aid of well-known research Thomas Adams I was notified of a 
person who reportedly had heard a very interesting statement concerning 
the initial AQUARIUS/MJ-12 document. After speaking with this gentleman 
personally I was firmly convinced that the information he was relating was 
accurate as it had been told to him. He related that he had been told per-
sonally that this document had been changed in two ways, and that he had 
been told this by the individual who had changed it. Although both changes 
were not revealed, he had been told that the reference in the document to 
"NASA" had originally been "NSA"! And who was the person doing the telling 
...none other than William Moore. In a brief conversation with Moore after 
this in which I asked him if he had any knowledge of this he simply stated 
"No comment."

      The recent issue of JUST CAUSE also contains the statement by Larry 
Fawcett and Barry Greenwood that they have been told that this document is 
actually a retyped version. This fact was reportedly revealed in 1983 to 
Peter Gersten by an Air Force officer and was either forgotten or over-
looked until just recently. However, the Air Force source who is cited is 
said to be none other than Richard Doty himself.

      In light of the fact that it has recently become common knowledge 
that Mr. Moore does (for his own reasons) delete documents which he ob-
tains, and that he is rather aggressive in his research, I believe that 
Mr. Moore did in fact retype or have this document retyped. But does this 
negate the value of the document, or indicate that it is a hoax? Perhaps 
this explains why no one can verify if the document is genuine, because 
technically it _is_ a forgery. It would appear that it is up to Mr. Moore 
to reveal a clean, accurate version and to finally reveal the facts behind 
its acquisition.

      According to film producer and director Linda Moulton Howe, she has 
had independent confirmation of MJ-12 and reportedly was shown a set of 
documents containing much of the same, if not identical, information. How-
ever, the actual name of the group in question was not "Majestic" but an-
other similar sounding word containing the letters M and J. Could it be 
that the term "Majestic" was a substitution in a clever attempt to with-
hold a key bit of information which only someone with true inside inform-
ation would be able to identify?

      If there is reason to question the accuracy of the information pre-
sented in the original AQUARIUS/MJ-12 document as well as the information 
in the recent documents pertaining to MJ-12, does this logically imply 
that the 1980 Kirtland/Bennewitz events should be considered questionable? 
Any single-witness UFO sighting has always been somewhat questionable, 
this is exactly why we look for multiple witnesses and any other support-
ing evidence. If Richard Doty, or Paul Bennewitz were alone in reporting 
these incidents then the Kirtland events would never have become as major 
an issue as they have. However there were numerous individuals involved 
not only in the events precipitating the documents but in the preparation 
of the documents themselves. A brief summary of the incidents is as fol-
lows:

      Early 1980, Paul Bennewitz becomes involved in observing and filming 
      objects which he has sighted on the ground and in the air near Kirt-
      land AFB and the Manzano range. Reportedly his wife was also present 
      to witness some of the first landings he witnessed and filmed in the 
      Coyote Canyon area. Subsequently he contacts Earnest Edwards of the 
      Kirtland Security Police who, over the period of the next few 
      months, becomes concerned and requests the guards on the Manzano 
      Weapons Storage Area report to him any sightings of unusual aerial 
      lights. At the beginning of August 1980 three guards report sighting 
      an aerial light which descends on the Sandia Military Reservation. 
      This is the first sighting described in the complaint form signed by 
      Richard Doty. Edwards reports the sighting to Doty unaware that Doty 
      has already heard from Russ Curtis (Sandia Security Chief) that a 
      Sandia Security guard sighted a disc-shaped object near a structure 
      just minutes after the sighting by the three Manzano guards. Doty 
      includes these reports and several others in his Complaint Form and 
      forwards the report to AFOSI Headquarters in Washington.
      
      
From this point on many other persons became involved. Bennewitz was 
called down to a meeting at Kirtland AFB at which several major Air Force 
officers and Sandia personnel were present, including a Brigadier General. 
Earnest Edwards has confirmed that the three guards under his command re-
ported what was described, and that the meeting took place. Bennewitz has 
confirmed that Doty and Jerry Miller came to his home to view his mater-
ials and there is a document signed by Thomas A. Cseh, Commander of the 
Base Investigative Detachment, to confirm this. Finally there is the com-
plete set of documents which were released by AFOSI Headquarters under 
cover of the Department of the Air Force relating to the described events.
      
      There seem to be only two possibilities to consider. One: that this 
is one of the most profound deceptions that has been undertaken with the 
sanction of the USAF, involving a civilian, for purposes which can only be 
imagined. The other: that the events happened as described and that the 
intervening years, subsequent developments, and misguided researchers, 
have only clouded the facts. Perhaps there was also some effort made on an 
official level to defuse the sensitive nature of the events.

      Would Richard Doty have perpetrated a hoax, involved other officers 
in his deception, sent the hoax on to AFOSI Headquarters, and then spread 
certain information to civilian UFO researchers? For what purpose? And 
would he still be in the Air Force if he was discovered, knowing the 
public relations catastrophe that could result from AFOSI in Washington 
releasing the subsequent documents? If seems inconceivable that the Base 
Investigative Detachment, and the Department of the Air Force, would not 
have quickly and easily discovered the hoax and subsequently labeled the 
entire matter as such, knowing their previous predilection to do just 
that.

      A few simple telephone calls have served to clarify much of the 
truth of the initial incidents. We must avoid the temptation at times to 
"shoot first and ask questions later" which can result in spreading mis-
information ourselves. It is advisable to use tact in approaching wit-
nesses as we have no God-given right to call up strangers and demand that 
they answer questions, particularly when sensitive matters may be in-
volved. Is it any surprise that some of these people may not want to be 
bothered by every person who plies them with questions?

      A very bizarre but intriguing letter was sent to APRO in either late 
1980 or early 1981 and is commonly referred to by the name of the initial 
subject of the letter, a Mr. Craig Weitzel. This letter refers to a se-
quence of events which occurred in the mid-1980's at both Kirtland AFB and 
in an area near Pecos, NM and also makes several statements to the effect 
that there is a UFO-investigation detachment stationed at or near Kirt-
land. The writer also goes on to mention among other things that there is 
at least one "object" stored in the Manzano storage area. That the letter 
was at least legitimately received at APRO can be ascertained by the vehe-
ment letter which Jim Lorenzen mailed out rebuking the gentleman who re-
leased this letter without official permission from APRO. However, can we 
determine if this letter is a total hoax or is there even a grain of truth 
to be found in the information it conveys? In a conversation I had with 
Craig Weitzel he claimed to know nothing of the details related in the 
letter, and denied that he took any photographs. Strangely enough, how-
ever, he _did_ state that he and the other did see an unusual silvery 
object hovering high in the sky which left the area, to use his words, 
"exponentially"! He had been training in mountain rescue operations and he 
and the others had spelled out S-O-S on the mountain side using parachutes 
and were waiting for the rescue helicopters to spot them. While looking 
for these helicopters they notices the silvery "UFO". If this is all that 
occurred what could be the reason to fabricate such a letter and yet give 
the name and address of a witness who was sure to refute the claims? Was 
it just a bizarre practical joke? The author of the anonymous letter 
claims that after Weitzel spoke with AFOSI agent Dody (sic) he did not 
want to have anything more to do with the matter and subsequently the Dody 
character denied that there had been any photographs. Was this a circum-
stance that could have been expected based on previous experience with Air 
Force handling of such matters? Many government and military witnesses 
often refuse to talk about their experiences to strangers either because 
of official pressure or simply for the sake of their own privacy. Motiva-
tion again must be considered in efforts to find the complete truth.
      
      In early October 1987 I had a strange conversation with an indivi-
dual who is unknown to me except by first name and who initially knew 
absolutely nothing about my interest in UFOs. During a telephone conversa-
tion which took place totally by chance, the subject of nuclear weapons 
came up as this person indicated some knowledge of this weaponry, being at 
the time a member of the Air Force. I jokingly asked to know everything 
there was to know about Kirtland AFB, but not due to my interest in nuc-
lear weapons per se but because of something else I thought may be stored 
at Manzano that "isn't nuclear weapons." After a momentary chuckle this 
individual said, "yes...UFOs!" As astounded as I was I asked for a little 
clarification, and after relating my interest, I was told that there are 
two "objects" stored in the Manzano area from what this person had heard 
during conversations by Air Force personnel in Germany. There had been 
some discussion about something which was related to a UFO incident widely 
reported in German newspapers in 1981 being similar to something which 
"they" had "over here."  Because of the circumstances under which this 
conversation occurred and the fact that I had in no way even alluded to 
the subject I believe that this may offer some support to some of the 
statements made in the anonymous "Weitzel" letter.

      A final note of interest has come up in the newly released book on 
the "flying boomerang" objects reported in recent years in and around New 
York state [NIGHT SIEGE, Ballantine 1987]. In the process of investigating 
these incidents Hynek and Imbrogno were contacted by an individual who 
claimed to work for the NSA. They apparently verified this to their own 
satisfaction, and while this person professed that his interest was only 
personal, they were struck by the inordinate amount of interest this per-
son showed in their investigations and any evidence they uncovered. There 
are even indications that their telephones may have been tapped. While it 
is unknown if this man's interest went further than personal curiosity, it 
is clear that the investigators felt there was something unusual about it. 
Nevertheless, here is yet another instance in which the National Security 
Agency seems to have crept into the picture.

      Do the facts as outlined here cast reasonable suspicion on the NSA 
and its part in official interest in unidentified flying objects? I be-
lieve that they do and that there is justifiable cause to suspect that the 
project AQUARIUS which relates (at least in some way) to UFOs is probably 
an NSA, or NSA related project. It also still seems that in spite of the 
arguments and confusion concerning documents, the designation "MJ-12" must 
be considered if not a certainty, than at least potentially valid. Those 
who have taken the time to contact witnesses and obtain their statements 
and help, have the best chance to make up their minds for themselves, re-
gardless of the confusion concerning altered documents which seems to be 
precipitating furiously. We do not want to throw the proverbial baby out 
with the bath water simply because the facts seem confusing. Perhaps even 
the confusion is being directed by someone somewhere. We should keep our 
sights fixed firmly on the major issues and the facts we _can_ prove in 
our efforts to uncover the truth.

END

Thanks to all those sources both named and unnamed who have contributed to 
the facts outlined here.