3788 lines
163 KiB
Plaintext
3788 lines
163 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: SHOULD THE AIR FORCE REOPEN PROJECT BLUE BOOK FILE: UFO2108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE
|
|
|
|
RESEARCH STUDY
|
|
|
|
AIR UNIVERSITY
|
|
|
|
REPORT NO. 0450-74
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
A RESEARCH PAPER
|
|
Submitted to
|
|
The Graduate Faculty of
|
|
Auburn University
|
|
In Partial fulfillment of
|
|
Requirements for the
|
|
Degree of
|
|
Master of Public Administration
|
|
|
|
AUBURN , ALABAMA
|
|
|
|
May 17, 1974
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE
|
|
SHOULD THE USAF REOPEN PROJECT BLUE BOOK
|
|
By
|
|
|
|
William E. Brummett, 310-40-5845FR
|
|
Major, USAF
|
|
And
|
|
Ernest R. Zuick, Jr., 549-46-3888FR
|
|
Captain, AF, CA ANG
|
|
A RESEARCH STUDY SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
|
|
May 1974
|
|
|
|
AIR UNIVERSITY
|
|
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
|
|
|
|
This study evaluates factors related to the USAF
|
|
investigation of Unidentified Flying Objects in an
|
|
attempt to determine whether or not additional UFO
|
|
investigation is warranted. The approach to analysis
|
|
taken by this study was twofold: one writer eval-
|
|
uated evidence justifying the closure of Project Blue
|
|
Book while the other writer evaluated evidence sup-
|
|
porting its reopening. Based on the evidence un-
|
|
covered, the study concludes that there is a definite
|
|
need for a new UFO investigation. The study recom-
|
|
mends that such an investigation should be a sci-
|
|
entific undertaking free from bias, political pres-
|
|
sure, and USAF or DoD jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
ii
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
|
|
|
|
Chapter
|
|
|
|
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
|
|
|
|
Objectives
|
|
Limitations
|
|
Hypothesis
|
|
Overview
|
|
|
|
II. HISTORY OF USAF INVESTIGATION OF
|
|
UFO s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
|
|
|
|
Project Sign
|
|
Project Grudge
|
|
Project Blue Book
|
|
|
|
III. ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING THE TERMINATION
|
|
OF PROJECT BLUE BOOK . . . . . . . . . . 14
|
|
|
|
Natural Acts
|
|
Natural Phenomenon
|
|
Human Behavior
|
|
Studies and Recommendations to
|
|
Support Termination of Project
|
|
Blue Book
|
|
|
|
IV. ARGUMENTS FOR REOPENING PROJECT
|
|
BLUE BOOK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
|
|
|
|
Priority of Project and Selection
|
|
of Project Chiefs
|
|
Project Chiefs' Lack of Dedication
|
|
Insufficient Staff
|
|
Non-Scientific Approach
|
|
Outside Influence
|
|
Poor Structure and Methodology of
|
|
Project Blue Book
|
|
|
|
iii
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
Poor Cataloguing Procedures
|
|
The Barney and Betty Hill Sighting
|
|
Further Developments in the Barney
|
|
and Betty Hill Case
|
|
The Condon Committee
|
|
The Pascagoula, Mississippi Case
|
|
The Bahia Blanca, Argentina Case
|
|
The Ubatuba, Brazil Case
|
|
New Developments in the Barney and
|
|
Betty Hill Case
|
|
|
|
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . 95
|
|
|
|
Conclusions
|
|
The Question of Political Pressure
|
|
The Question of Project Blue Book's
|
|
Filing System
|
|
The Question of Project Blue Book's
|
|
Changing Directorship
|
|
The Question of a New Study
|
|
Recommendations
|
|
|
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
|
|
|
|
iv
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER I
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|
|
|
"We know now that in the early years of the
|
|
twentieth century this world was being watched
|
|
closely by intelligences greater than man's and
|
|
yet as mortal as his own."(15:33)
|
|
|
|
Orsen Welles, 1938
|
|
|
|
With this sentence, Orsen Welles launched his now
|
|
famous "Martian Invasion" broadcast on Hallowe'en Eve,
|
|
October 30, 1938. Although Welles' panic broadcast was
|
|
designed as an elaborate hoax, Welles proved something
|
|
which remains as true today as it was thirty-five years
|
|
ago: few subjects are more intriguingly fascinating or
|
|
as controversial as the possibility of an earthly sur-
|
|
veillance by intelligent extraterrestrial beings.
|
|
Many people mistakenly assume the Welles ' broadcast
|
|
was the basis for the reports of unidentified flying ob-
|
|
jects (UFOs) which have occurred with increasing fre-
|
|
quency in the United States since 1947, but there are
|
|
written records of UFO sightings as early as the reign
|
|
of King Thutmose III, circa 1504-1450 B.C., in Ancient
|
|
Egypt.(32:l4) If the Welles broadcast served any benefi-
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
cial purpose, it was perhaps that it developed a renewed
|
|
awareness of the possible existence of extraterrestrial
|
|
civilizations and caused people to look once again to
|
|
the heavens.
|
|
There were several UFO sightings during World War II
|
|
by both American and Japanese pilots, but both assumed
|
|
the UFOs to be a secret weapon of the enemy. During this
|
|
period, American pilots reported luminous discs, quickly
|
|
dubbed "foo fighters", which sometimes followed alongside
|
|
their aircraft,(4:32) The first large scale UFO sightings
|
|
to occur in the United States since 1897 began in 1947.
|
|
Since 1947, the incidents of sightings have increased in
|
|
momentum which has remained undiminished to this day.
|
|
By September 1947, the United States Air Force (USAF)
|
|
had become sufficiently interested in the growing number
|
|
of UFO reports by reputable, respected citizens to estab-
|
|
lish "Project Sign", later named "Project Grudge", and
|
|
finally renamed "Project Blue Book", the Air Force program
|
|
for investigation of UFOs. Project Blue Book remained
|
|
in effect for over twenty-two years and investigated re-
|
|
ports of 12,618 sightings. Unexplained sightings ranged
|
|
between the official Project Blue Book report of 6 per
|
|
cent to UFOlogist estimates of 54 per cent. Despite the
|
|
wide variance in unexplained sightings, Secretary of the
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Air Force, Dr. Robert Seamans, announced the termination
|
|
of Project Blue Book on December 17, 1969. The decision
|
|
to discontinue UFO investigations was based on an eval-
|
|
uation of a report prepared by the University of Colorado
|
|
entitled, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Ob-
|
|
jects," more commonly referred to as the "Condon Report";
|
|
a review of the Condon Report by the National Academy of
|
|
Sciences; past UFO studies; and two decades of Air Force
|
|
experience investigating UFO reports. (6:141)
|
|
Since 1969, and the demise of Project Blue Book, man
|
|
has penetrated the once impenetrable barrier of space
|
|
and has safely set foot on the lunar surface not once,
|
|
but several times. Space travel to other planets and to
|
|
distant stars, once thought to be "the impossible dream"
|
|
by many, is now believed to be a definite probability by
|
|
nearly all. Since 1969, there have also been an increased
|
|
number of UFO sightings around the world. The most recent
|
|
rash of sightings occurred in the Southeastern United States,
|
|
centering around the three state area encompassing Georgia,
|
|
Alabama, and Mississippi. A growing number of people,
|
|
including many former UFO skeptics, feel the tremendous
|
|
accomplishments of our astronauts, the surge and nature
|
|
of recent UFO reports, and new developments concerning
|
|
former UFO sightings, more than justify the reopening of
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Project Blue Book.
|
|
|
|
Objectives
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this study is to determine whether
|
|
or not Project Blue Book should be reopened. To better
|
|
guarantee an unbiased study, one of the writers will
|
|
present arguments supporting the closure of Project Blue
|
|
Book. These arguments will embrace supportive evidence
|
|
such as the "Condon Report", the review of the "Condon
|
|
Report" conducted by the National Academy of Sciences,
|
|
and the findings of Project Blue Book. The other writer
|
|
will present arguments for reopening Project Blue Book.
|
|
These arguments will contain supportive evidence such
|
|
as a critical analysis of Project Blue Book and the
|
|
Condon Report, new developments regarding two former UFO
|
|
sightings, and two important new sightings which occurred
|
|
in 1973.
|
|
The writers will not attempt to prove or disprove
|
|
extraterrestrial visitors are visiting the earth, but
|
|
will merely gather and analyze information which will
|
|
provide an argument to the Air Force that Project Blue
|
|
Book should or should not be reopened.
|
|
|
|
Limitations
|
|
|
|
The writers were extremely fortunate insofar as the
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
original ProJect Blue Book documents, which are no longer
|
|
classified, are now located in the archives of the Air
|
|
University Library, Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Alabama.
|
|
Limitations, however, did exist. First, research was
|
|
necessarily confined to sources within the Air University
|
|
Library, the Montgomery Alabama Public Library, and the
|
|
few books the writers were able to purchase. Second, UFOs
|
|
are not a particularly favorite topic of a majority of the
|
|
academia, therefore, few scientific journals mention the
|
|
topic, except in a derogatory manner. Third, literary
|
|
sources, other than those already mentioned, were nec-
|
|
essarily confined to the news media and popular period
|
|
icals. Fourth, personal professional correspondence was
|
|
confined to two scientists; Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Director,
|
|
Department of Astronomy, Northwestern University and
|
|
Mr. Stanton J. Friedman, Nuclear Physicist. Fifth, due
|
|
to the fact that both of the writers are currently on
|
|
active duty with the Air Force and any personal contact
|
|
with UFO eyewitnesses might be construed as an official
|
|
USAF investigation, personal interviews were not feasible.
|
|
|
|
Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
At the beginning of this study, neither of the
|
|
writers possessed any bias toward or against the possible
|
|
existence of UFOs, but since opposing views must be taken
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
to better guarantee an unbiased conclusion, there were
|
|
necessarily two hypotheses. For the purpose of this
|
|
study, one of the writers will approach all research
|
|
from the standpoint that Project Blue Book was a well
|
|
organized USAF program which conducted a thorough inves-
|
|
tigation of all reported UFO sightings as substantiated
|
|
by the scientifically conducted Condon Report. This
|
|
writer will maintain the attitude that all UFOs can be
|
|
explained as natural phenomena and contend that Project
|
|
Blue Book should remain closed. This hypothesis will
|
|
provide the negative portion of the joint study.
|
|
Conversely, the other writer, for the purpose of
|
|
this study, will approach all research as though he
|
|
believes both Project Blue Book and the Condon Report
|
|
were biased, unscientific investigations unworthy of
|
|
the auspices of the United States Air Force. This writer
|
|
will contend this bias together with new developments
|
|
regarding two former UFO sightings and two specific 1973
|
|
sightings are more than sufficient reasons for reopening
|
|
Project Blue Book. This hypothesis will provide the
|
|
affirmative portion of the joint study.
|
|
|
|
Overview
|
|
|
|
The writers will begin this study with a brief dis-
|
|
cussion of the history of Air Force UFO investigations.
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Following this summary, one of the writers will present
|
|
arguments, based on extensive research, to justify the
|
|
closure of Project Blue Book, while the other writer will
|
|
conversely discuss arguments he has uncovered which jus-
|
|
tify the reopening of Project Blue Book. The writers
|
|
will then once again join forces and attempt to objec-
|
|
tively analyze their findings to arrive at a conclusion
|
|
whether or not Project Blue Book should be reopened. If
|
|
warranted, the writers will conclude this study by pre-
|
|
senting their recommendations regarding future UFO
|
|
studies.
|
|
For the purpose of this study, the terms "UFO" and
|
|
"flying saucers", will be used synonymously.
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER II
|
|
|
|
HISTORY OF USAF INVESTIGATION OF UFOs
|
|
|
|
Investigation of UFOs by the U. S. Government began
|
|
on September 23, 1947, when, following a rash or UFO
|
|
sightings, Lt. Gen. Nathan F. Twining, Chief of Staff of
|
|
the U. S. Army, recommended to Brig. Gen. George Schulgen,
|
|
Commanding General of the Army Air Force, that Head-
|
|
quarters Army Air Forces issue a directive assigning a
|
|
priority, security classification and code name for a
|
|
detailed study of UFOs. In this letter, Lt. Gen. Twining
|
|
also noted that in his opinion, the phenomenon was real
|
|
and not visionary or fictitious. Since Air Material
|
|
Command (AMC) had originally been collecting UFO data,
|
|
Lt. Gen. Twining recommended that AMC continue the inves-
|
|
tigation within its present resources until the official
|
|
study could be organized.(3:1379)
|
|
|
|
Project Sign
|
|
|
|
On December 30, 1947, a letter from the Chief@ of Staff
|
|
directed Air Material Command to set up a project to
|
|
collect, collate, evaluate and distribute information
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
concerning UFOs. The Air Technical Intelligence Division
|
|
of AMC issued HQ AMC Technical Instruction No. 2185 ,
|
|
February 11, 1948, inaugurating a classified project
|
|
under the code name of "Sign."(25:1) Project Sign con-
|
|
tinued its investigations of UFOs until February 11, 1949,
|
|
when its project name was officially changed to "Project
|
|
Grudge."(2:850) A report covering the 273 incidents
|
|
investigated by Project Sign concluded that no definite
|
|
and conclusive evidence existed.(25:1) This final report
|
|
recommended: (1) future activities of this project
|
|
should be carried on at a minimum level necessary to
|
|
record, summarize and evaluate the data received on
|
|
future reports and to complete the specialized investi-
|
|
gation in progress, (2) reporting agencies should get
|
|
more factual evidence on sightings, such as photographs,
|
|
physical evidence, radar sightings, and data on size and
|
|
shape.(2:850)
|
|
|
|
Project Grudge
|
|
|
|
After December 16, 1948, the USAF study of UFOs con-
|
|
tinued as "Project Grudge." Following this change, UFO
|
|
investigations continued much as they previously had
|
|
during Project Sign. In August 1949 a report containing
|
|
analysis of 244 cases was released which concluded that
|
|
Unidentified Flying Objects posed no direct threat to the
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
national security of the United States and that reports
|
|
resulted from: (1) misinterpretation of conventional
|
|
objects, (2) mass hysteria or "War Nerves", (3) hoaxes
|
|
and/or (4) psychopathological persons.(23:10) The
|
|
Project Grudge report recommended that: (1) investi-
|
|
gation be reduced in scope. (2) current collection data
|
|
relating to UFOs be revised to provide for submission
|
|
of only those reports clearly indicating realistic tech-
|
|
nical applications, and (3) conclusions with sufficient
|
|
supporting data be declassified and made public. (23:6)
|
|
Based on this final report of Project Grudge, a decision
|
|
was made to discontinue the project. However, investi-
|
|
gation of UFOs was continued as part of normal intelli-
|
|
gence activities.(2:857)
|
|
|
|
Project Blue Book
|
|
|
|
Following a new rash of sightings, Project Grudge
|
|
was reactivated as a new and expanded investigation on
|
|
October 27, 1951, under the direction of Captain E. J.
|
|
Ruppelt. In March 1952 the new Project Grudge was redes-
|
|
ignated "Project Blue Book." With this change of project
|
|
designation, there also followed increased support and
|
|
authority for UFO studies at the Air Technical Intelli-
|
|
gence Center (ATIC) located at Wright-Patterson Air Force
|
|
Base near Dayton, Ohio. Project Blue Book was initially
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
governed by policies set forth in Air Force Letter 200-5
|
|
issued April 29, 1952. Air Force Letter 200-5 provided
|
|
for a more elaborate and comprehensive reporting system
|
|
whereby telegraphic reports concerning UFOs would be
|
|
sent directly to both the Project Blue Book staff and to
|
|
the Pentagon. These procedures were later replaced by
|
|
a less complicated reporting system stated in Air Force
|
|
Regulation 200-2 dated August 26, 1953. AFR 200-2
|
|
was superseded by Air Force Regulation 80-17 dated
|
|
September 19, 1966. The primary relevant change noted
|
|
in this regulation was in the area of information release.
|
|
It provided for news releases to come from the Secretary
|
|
of the Air Force, Office of Information (SAFOI). All Air
|
|
Force members not officially connected with UFO investi-
|
|
gation were to refrain from action or comments on UFO
|
|
reports which might mislead public opinion. Another
|
|
regulation covering UFO procedures was Joint Army Navy
|
|
Air Publication 146 (JANAP-146) which reminded Air
|
|
Force personnel of the severe penalties for making public
|
|
statements concerning UFOs without official approval.
|
|
(2:857)
|
|
The USAF maintained that their interest in UFOs was
|
|
related directly to the air defense of The United States
|
|
and the security of its airspace. The objectives of
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Project Blue Book were to determine if UFOs posed a
|
|
direct threat to the security of the United States and
|
|
to determine if UFOs provided any unique scientific
|
|
information or advanced technology that would contribute
|
|
to United States technical research. In accomplishing
|
|
these objectives, the USAF strived to identify and
|
|
explain all UFO sightings. (27:1)
|
|
During Project Blue Book's existence, the staff pub-
|
|
lished 12 regular summary reports and one special report,
|
|
Report Number 14. The conclusions of these reports are
|
|
summed up in a Project Blue Book Report dated 1968
|
|
which states:
|
|
|
|
To date, the firm conclusions of Project
|
|
Blue Book are: (1) no unidentified flying ob-
|
|
ject reported, investigated, and evaluated by
|
|
the Air Force has ever given any indication of
|
|
threat to our national security; (2) there has
|
|
been no evidence submitted to or discovered by
|
|
the Air Force that sightings categorized as
|
|
UNIDENTIFIED represent technological develop-
|
|
ments or principles beyond the range of pre-
|
|
sent-day scientific knowledge; and (3) there
|
|
has been no evidence indicating that sightings
|
|
categorized as UNIDENTIFIED are extraterres-
|
|
trial vehicles.
|
|
The Air Force will continue to investigate
|
|
all sightings of unusual aerial phenomena over
|
|
the US which are reported to it. The services
|
|
of qualified scientists and technicians will
|
|
continue to be used to investigate and analyze
|
|
these reports, and periodic reports and news
|
|
releases will be made on the subject as
|
|
requested.
|
|
The Air Force takes no stand on whether or
|
|
not extraterrestrial life could or does exist.
|
|
Many scientists believe that it is entirely
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
possible that the universe contains life on
|
|
planets other than our own. No evidence yet
|
|
exists that there is other life. The Air
|
|
Force continues to extend an open invitation
|
|
to anyone who feels that he possesses any
|
|
evidence of extraterrestrial vehicles oper-
|
|
ating within the earth's space envelope to
|
|
submit his evidence for analysis. Initial
|
|
contact for this purpose is through the fol-
|
|
lowing address:
|
|
|
|
PROJECT BLUE BOOK INFORMATION OFFICE
|
|
SAFOI
|
|
WASHINGTON, DC 20330 (27:4)
|
|
|
|
Based upon the recommendations of the United States
|
|
Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Ad Hoc Committee
|
|
which met on February 3, 1966, a project for broad in-
|
|
depth study of Unidentified Flying Objects was-co-
|
|
ordinated with the University of Colorado (Colorado
|
|
Study). This study commenced on November 1, 1966, with
|
|
its final report being submitted on October 31, 1968.
|
|
(8:246) Conclusions of this report will be discussed in
|
|
the following chapter. Based upon findings of this study,
|
|
on December 17, 1969, the United States Air Force announced
|
|
the termination of Project Blue Book and the retirement
|
|
of its records to the USAF Archives, Maxwell AFB, Alabama;
|
|
thus concluding all official government investigations
|
|
of UFOs.
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER III
|
|
|
|
ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING THE TERMINATION OF
|
|
PROJECT BLUE BOOK
|
|
|
|
While many disagree with the U. S. Air Force deci-
|
|
sion to terminate Project Blue Book, there exists much
|
|
evidence to support the USAF action. Several UFO
|
|
sightings still remain puzzling and unsolved. However;
|
|
many facets of human life still remain unknown. Even
|
|
though man has used electricity for many years, scientists
|
|
still are unable to agree exactly what it is or upon
|
|
whether electricity flows from the positive pole to the
|
|
negative pole or vice versa. He is not even able to
|
|
understand the reason for his difference in behavior.
|
|
While man can communicate with his fellow man, he is still
|
|
unable to understand why he behaves toward his environ-
|
|
ment as he does. These are a few of the mysteries that
|
|
mankind accepts as normal and lives with the results.
|
|
The decision of the USAF to terminate UFO investigation
|
|
can be supported by looking at some of the natural acts
|
|
that might appear as UFOs and some natural phenomena
|
|
that might appear as UFOs. This decision can also be
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
supported by looking at man himself through some of his
|
|
behavioral aspects. It must also be noted that the USAF
|
|
decision to terminate UFO investigation was based on
|
|
several scientific studies and committee recommendations.
|
|
|
|
Natural Acts
|
|
|
|
To even the trained observer, many natural acts can
|
|
appear weird and thus be later construed to be a UFO.
|
|
Man's natural senses are limited. They serve his needs
|
|
under normal circumstances, however, under many circum-
|
|
stances they are inadequate. Our senses can easily be
|
|
confused. Take, for example, our sense of balance which
|
|
is a joint function of sight and hearing. Man's balance
|
|
is superb under normal conditions of gravity and good
|
|
visibility. However, when man is placed in an aircraft
|
|
where "G" loads and visibility vary, he requires gyro
|
|
stabilized instruments to give him his orientation of up
|
|
or down and whether he is turning or diving. Man's
|
|
sense of vision during night conditions is extremely
|
|
limited and at times inaccurate. Under conditions of
|
|
darkness and with only one point light source in view,
|
|
that light point will appear to move. This physical
|
|
limitation can be simulated in a dark room with one small
|
|
point of light available. This writer, while piloting
|
|
an F-102A Interceptor on a night training mission, exper-
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
ienced a situation similar to the vision limitation
|
|
mentioned. Shortly after take off, the writer saw what
|
|
appeared to be the tail light of the lead aircraft he
|
|
was to join with. As the writer's aircraft appeared to
|
|
close on the light source, power was reduced to slow
|
|
overtake. Shortly after this act, the writer noted the
|
|
lead aircraft about 20 degrees to his right. The writer
|
|
had been attempting to join with a star or planet in the
|
|
sky. This limitation coupled with man's basic limited
|
|
ability to see under conditions of darkness has contri-
|
|
buted to many UFO reports.
|
|
The afterburning of a jet aircraft when viewed at
|
|
night could easily explain many UFO sightings. On most
|
|
nights only the afterburner of the jet will be visible
|
|
and when viewed from the side would appear as a short
|
|
bluish flame. As the aircraft is maneuvered, the flame
|
|
can elongate, shorten or assume different shapes as the
|
|
afterburner flame is viewed at different angles from
|
|
the tail of the aircraft. When the afterburner is viewed
|
|
looking directly from the tail toward the nose of the
|
|
aircraft, the flame will appear as a whitish orange ball.
|
|
If the aircraft is climbing or diving steeply, the after-
|
|
burner would tend to appear as a white ball with erratic
|
|
maneuvers. The sphere would appear to be stationary when
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
the aircraft is level and to climb or dive rapidly as
|
|
the aircraft was maneuvered up or down. The color of
|
|
the afterburner will change colors when the afterburner
|
|
is viewed at different angles. The afterburner flame
|
|
will disappear when afterburner operation is terminated
|
|
or when the aircraft is turned to a head-on view. Thus,
|
|
the jet afterburner can and will, when viewed at night,
|
|
appear as an object similar to that of many night UFO
|
|
sightings; an object with an erratic pattern, one that
|
|
changes colors and shapes in a random fashion and vanishes
|
|
without a trace.
|
|
Night aerial refueling is another source of maneuver-
|
|
ing lights that can appear as UFOs. The number of air-
|
|
craft in an aerial refueling operation can vary from one
|
|
aircraft receiving fuel from one tanker to several air-
|
|
craft and several tankers. The tanker when viewed from
|
|
the bottom normally has two rows of lights along the
|
|
bottom of the fuselage. Many receiver aircrafts have a
|
|
refueling light which shines forward similar to the
|
|
headlights of a car. It is readily apparent that either
|
|
tow aircraft or several aircraft involved in aerial re-
|
|
fueling will be seen as an extremely weird group of aerial
|
|
lights to an unaware ground observer. This view coupled
|
|
with the "Race Track" pattern used by the aircraft give
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
an erratic pattern of lights that travel in one direc-
|
|
tion for several minutes then turn and fly a return
|
|
course. Many UFO sightings have noted lights that have
|
|
behaved similar to those of the aerial refueling oper-
|
|
ation.
|
|
Air Force aircraft use two very common devices that
|
|
can give extremely uncommon appearing lights. These
|
|
are the night flare and the night photo flash. Flares
|
|
are normally dropped from aircraft or shot into the air
|
|
by a ground mortar. These flares are extremely bright
|
|
and descend slowly by the use of a small parachute. They
|
|
take several minutes to burn out and normally burn out
|
|
prior to reaching the ground. Night aerial photography
|
|
is normally accomplished by high intensity flash strobes
|
|
or flash cartridges. These flashes are very high inten-
|
|
sity and normally several are used at a time. Again,
|
|
the flare and flash strobe are normal light sources that
|
|
can and have caused concern to ground observers.
|
|
Bright planets, stars and the moon have been falsely
|
|
reported as UFOs. When near the horizon, stars and
|
|
planets may flash bright colors, mainly red and green.
|
|
This is due to atmospheric conditions. They may appear
|
|
to jump sideways or up and down, and is due to invol-
|
|
untary eye motions. Venus, in particular, is often
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
reported because of its extraordinarily brilliant white
|
|
light. It is bright enough to shine through thin cloud
|
|
layers which often appear as a fuzzy ball and as the
|
|
clouds drift it appears to have erratic motion. Many
|
|
people do not realize that planets and stars rise and
|
|
set, thus giving them motion across a portion of the sky.
|
|
Binoculars make apparent movements greater, therefore
|
|
minor movement will be amplified.(34:2324)
|
|
The following undated abstract from Newsweek was
|
|
found in the Project Blue Book files:
|
|
|
|
A strange looking long bright object settled
|
|
close to the earth, hovered there a few minutes,
|
|
then disappeared. Several Akron, Ohio residents
|
|
spotted it. They fired off reports to the Air
|
|
Force. Its Unidentified Flying Objects task
|
|
force went into action and investigated.
|
|
Just what was that strange bright object
|
|
which hovered close to the earth out in Akron
|
|
one night last year? The answer, disclosed by
|
|
the Air Force last week: The moon. The UFO
|
|
Force, reported on one of the 483 investigations
|
|
it conducted last year explained that the moon
|
|
often seems to assume an ecliptical shape when
|
|
it nears the horizon.
|
|
|
|
Balloons and helicopters have flight characteristics
|
|
similar to those reported by UFO sightings. Weather
|
|
balloons account for a number of UFO sightings. These
|
|
balloons are sent to altitudes of 40,000 feet and higher
|
|
and are launched from virtually every air field in the
|
|
United States. They are made of Polyethylene and rubber
|
|
and increase in size as they gain altitude. They have
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
good radar reflective areas and are frequently lighted
|
|
at night. Undermost daylight conditions and from a
|
|
distance, the balloon will appear as a silver sphere.
|
|
This writer can recall being scrambled from Richards-
|
|
Gebaur AFB, Mo., in an F-102A to attempt an identi-
|
|
cation of a UFO. The writer and a fellow pilot in another
|
|
aircraft identified the UFO as a weather balloon. Heli-
|
|
copters when viewed from a distance can appear as a
|
|
UFO. Their motion is slow and at a distance appear to
|
|
be black specks that moves up and down. At night, this
|
|
motion coupled with the helicopters rotating beacon can
|
|
give some spectacular effects.
|
|
Many strange effects are created by routine jet
|
|
training flights. This writer can remember being a
|
|
member of a 4 ship F-100 night flight where one member's
|
|
high intensity landing light would not turn off after
|
|
take off. The flight continued on an approximate two
|
|
and one half hour flight round robin throughout the south-
|
|
eastern United States with the high intensity light on
|
|
and pointing straight down. There is little doubt that
|
|
this could have been mistaken for a UFO.
|
|
Frequently, unusually bright meteors will cause a
|
|
flurry of UFO reports as they streak across the sky.
|
|
Several satellites can be seen in the sky today. Sat
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
ellites can be visible for several minutes and easily
|
|
misidentified as UFOs.
|
|
|
|
Natural Phenomenon
|
|
|
|
Many UFO sightings can be explained by natural
|
|
phenomenon. Two major areas of phenomenon are worthy
|
|
of note: (1) electrical phenomenon and gaseous phe-
|
|
nomenon and, (2) weather phenomenon. Natural phenom-
|
|
enon as we know it today can explain many UFO sightings.
|
|
However, there is little doubt that in the future many
|
|
more phenomenons will be noted and at least accepted
|
|
as known but unexplainable natural conditions.
|
|
After years of controversy over UFOs, evidence is
|
|
growing that many UFOs may be very real and natural
|
|
electronic phenomenon. Many sightings seem to occur
|
|
near electronic power transmission lines or points.(5:75)
|
|
UFO sightings around these heavy electrical fields give
|
|
rise to the possibility that some phenomenon unknown to-
|
|
day could cause the energy of this highly electrified
|
|
area to give off visible glowing electrical energy. One
|
|
form of ball lightning has been produced in an experiment
|
|
conducted at Melpar Division of E-Systems, Inc., in
|
|
Falls Church, Va. In one of their experiments, ammonia
|
|
vapor was ignited with a high voltage spark. The result
|
|
was a mass of flowing gas that quickly assumed the shape
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
associated with UFOs. The laboratory-model, while much
|
|
smaller than a UFO, proceeded to do many of the maneuvers
|
|
associated with UFOs. It hovered in one spot for several
|
|
minutes, moved quite erratically, sometimes moved at great
|
|
speeds and then abruptly broke up or faded away. Occa-
|
|
sionally the experiments produced several similar objects
|
|
that looked alike and flew in formation. The scientists
|
|
also discovered that their artificial UFO could be tracked
|
|
by radar and produced a charged field that could affect
|
|
radio performance.(5:75) Another electrical phenomenon
|
|
well known to the aviator is the erie and mysterious
|
|
"Saint Elmo's Fire". "Saint Elmo's Fire"is a mysterious
|
|
visual glowing static electricity that forms at times on
|
|
the leading surfaces of an aircraft while flying at night.
|
|
This electrical phenomenon will dance around on the wind
|
|
screen, play on leading edges, and give the aircraft a
|
|
ghost like glow. These are only a couple of the known
|
|
electrical phenomenon. No doubt there are many we do not
|
|
know about.
|
|
Weather phenomenon can produce many of the charac-
|
|
teristics associated with UFOs. Temperature inversion
|
|
reflections have produced radar returns. Speeds of these
|
|
returns have been reported to range from zero to fantastic
|
|
rates with the object moving in all directions. These
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
radar returns have resulted in many fruitless intercept
|
|
efforts. Ionized clouds can cause unidentified radar
|
|
returns. Radio transmission difficulties are also
|
|
associated with ionized clouds. Strong uplifting of
|
|
clouds can cause "lenticular" clouds. The saucer shaped
|
|
clouds appear over mountain ranges and from a distance
|
|
could easily be viewed as a UFO. These are but a few
|
|
of the known weather phenomenon. Little doubt exists
|
|
as to the possibility that many more weather associated
|
|
phenomenons manifest themselves today.
|
|
|
|
Human Behavior
|
|
|
|
While many UFO sightings can be explained by natural
|
|
acts and natural phenomenon, possibly even more sightings
|
|
can be explained by investigating man himself. Much that
|
|
is written shows strong support for placing UFO sightings
|
|
into two basic psychological patterns: (1) A pattern
|
|
whereby the American public is influenced by the press
|
|
or other mass media, and (2) a pattern whereby UFOs fill
|
|
a certain psychological need either for the person report-
|
|
ing the UFO or persons that accept their presence.
|
|
There is no question that the press and other mass
|
|
media have stimulated the public imagination concerning
|
|
UFOs. The term "Flying Saucer" was invented by the press
|
|
in 1947.(21:258) In the opinion of this writer many more
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
books and news stories are written with the thought of
|
|
"sensationalism" in mind rather than the facts. In many
|
|
cases it appears that the facts are stretched a bit and
|
|
the facts not supporting the stories are omitted. Walter
|
|
Sullivan supports this idea in, "UFOs a Scientific
|
|
Debate," by saying:
|
|
|
|
Reporters earn their bread and butter with
|
|
good stories and don't get full credit if they
|
|
"qualify to death" such a yarn. They are
|
|
trained to check the source of an interesting
|
|
report, then write it up "colorfully". But
|
|
they don't do a full research job on it, and
|
|
they hope that no one "shoots it down" before
|
|
the readers can appreciate it.(21:258)
|
|
|
|
A synopsis of Headquarters Air Material Report , dated
|
|
August 31, 1949, states;
|
|
|
|
A peak period in reports has occurred fol-
|
|
lowing widespread publicity given to several
|
|
incidents. This was further illustrated in
|
|
May of 1949 (a Period not covered by this
|
|
analysis) when Project Grudge received 64
|
|
reports of sightings and 51 suggested solutions
|
|
following a Saturday Evening Post article and
|
|
an official USAF press release on "Flying
|
|
Saucers". This amounted to approximately five
|
|
times the number of reports received in pre-
|
|
ceding months. Almost all of the reports and
|
|
suggested solutions made reference to either
|
|
The Saturday@ Evening Post article or the USAF
|
|
official press release.(23:2)
|
|
|
|
The Blue Book files are filled with data that indicates
|
|
the affect of news media upon UFO sighting reports. A
|
|
statement made by an unknown Blue Book staff member
|
|
indicated that if publicity continued for several days,
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
sighting reports go up throughout the country as well as
|
|
in the original locality.(33:6)
|
|
There is little doubt in this writers mind that the
|
|
recent rash of sightings which occurred in the south-
|
|
eastern portion of the United States can be attributed
|
|
in part to the spectacular sighting in Pascagoula, Miss-
|
|
issippi where two men claimed to have been taken aboard
|
|
an alien spacecraft.
|
|
Mankind has become more aware of the heavens in
|
|
recent years by the mass media surrounding him. Probably
|
|
the first and most shocking impression concerning the
|
|
heavens was made in 1938 when Orsen Welles made his famous
|
|
earth invasion broadcast. Since that time the American
|
|
public has become increasingly aware of the heavens and
|
|
of the possibility of alien life from outer space capable
|
|
of visiting earth. Many movies have been made which
|
|
have as their theme "visitors" from outerspace. Tele-
|
|
vision has further increased awareness of the heavens
|
|
with weekly space presentations. These movie and tele-
|
|
vision presentations are in many cases romantically
|
|
based and appeal to many. Most books available to the
|
|
general public deal with supporting the existence of
|
|
UFOs and in many cases are not based on scientific fact.
|
|
Even a strong advocate of UFOs must admit that the
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
press and news media have made the public more aware of
|
|
the heavens. Mass media has supported the possibility
|
|
of UFOs and spacecraft. This increased possibility of
|
|
extraterrestrial visitors has, in the opinion of this
|
|
writer, definitely increased the chance that the average
|
|
person seeing any strange happening in the sky would
|
|
be more apt to report that happening as a UFO.
|
|
One persuasive theory about UFOs is that they corre-
|
|
spond to a deep human need. Contemporary UFO sightings
|
|
are an outgrowth of the troubled international situation
|
|
and gradual erosion among Christians of belief in a God
|
|
who will eventually intervene to save mankind and correct
|
|
all wrongs. Boston psychiatrist Benjamin Simon believes
|
|
that UFOs have a little something for everyone. The
|
|
UFOs which represent an advanced civilization will obvi-
|
|
ously have new cures for the ill. For many, belief in
|
|
the saucers provided an "oceanic" or "cosmic feeling of
|
|
immersion" in the total universe. These conclusions
|
|
are partly based on Simon's work with Barney and Betty
|
|
Hill, a Portsmouth, N.H. , couple who claim to have been
|
|
abducted by UFO personnel, examined and later released
|
|
unharmed. Simon theorizes that Barney (a Negro) and
|
|
Betty (a Caucasian), both filled with tensions con-
|
|
cerning their mixed marriage, sighted a glowing in the
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
sky. This served as a "day stimulus" for subsequent
|
|
nightmares and wish-fulfillment fantasies. The childless
|
|
Betty described an obviously Freudian encounter where a
|
|
humanoid administered a pregnancy test to her. Barney,
|
|
who considered the Irish to be hostile toward Negroes,
|
|
remembered being treated with respect by an Irish looking
|
|
humanoid. (4:32)
|
|
Dr. William Kauffman, Director of the Griffith
|
|
Observatory at Los Angeles, recently explained his ideas
|
|
concerning UFO related human behavior in an article
|
|
stating that many of the people today wish to turn away
|
|
from happenings in the world and perhaps have a desire
|
|
that superintellects could come along and stop all of
|
|
the bungling that is happening today.(20:21)
|
|
Many religious and philosophic groups have needs
|
|
that are filled by the possibility of UFOs. Dr. Ernest
|
|
R. Hilgard, a Stanford University psychologist, theorizes
|
|
that as society becomes more affluent, man tends to want
|
|
to become a more important member of the universe. Belief
|
|
in things of other worlds fill this need.(36:435)
|
|
Dr. Donald L. Warren of the School of Social Work at
|
|
the University of Michigan has another behavior theory
|
|
of UFOs. He views UFOs as an opportunity for us to
|
|
escape without threatening our own immediate social
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
environment. he further feels that a person dissatisfied
|
|
with his own socioeconomic status might be a likely person
|
|
to attach importance to himself by believing in and sight-
|
|
ing flying saucers.(36:436)
|
|
The desire to believe in the existence of UFOs has
|
|
made millions of Americans susceptible to UFO hoaxes.
|
|
Many of these hoaxes have been in the form of photographic
|
|
manipulation such as double exposures taken of sauce pans,
|
|
ceiling lights or other saucer shaped items. Possibly
|
|
one of the most hilarious was a photograph of a weird
|
|
little creature that had supposedly come from a UFO and
|
|
died. The creature was later identified as a shaved
|
|
monkey.
|
|
|
|
Studies and Recommendations to Support
|
|
Termination of Project Blue Book
|
|
|
|
Project Blue Book was terminated on December 17, 1969,
|
|
by Secretary of the Air Force, Robert C. Seamans, Jr.
|
|
The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based
|
|
on a report prepared by the University of Colorado
|
|
(Condon Report), a review of that report by the National
|
|
Academy of Sciences, past UFO studies, and Air Force
|
|
experience in investigating UFO reports.(21:297) Sec-
|
|
retary Robert Seamans Jr., stated that the program "no
|
|
longer can be justified either on the ground of national
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
security or in the interest of science.(15:76) Many
|
|
experts disagree with the conclusion of the 1500 page,
|
|
$539,000 independent Condon Study that took over two
|
|
years to complete. The Condon Study concluded that :
|
|
|
|
Nothing has come from the study of UFOs in
|
|
the past 21 years that has added to scientific
|
|
knowledge. Careful consideration of the record
|
|
as it is available to us leads us to conclude
|
|
that further extensive study of UFOs probably
|
|
cannot be justified in the expectation that sci-
|
|
ence will be advanced thereby.(1:2)
|
|
|
|
One of the major critics of the Condon Study was
|
|
an amateur UFO organization, The National Investigators
|
|
Committee for Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). As indicated
|
|
by the Condon Report , NICAP in the past has spent much
|
|
effort in attacking Air Force UFO policies and attempting
|
|
to influence Congress. NICAP warned members of the
|
|
Colorado Project to beware less the Condon Project turn
|
|
out to have been "hired to whitewash the Air Force."
|
|
The Condon Report charges that NICAP made several efforts
|
|
to influence the course of their study. When it became
|
|
clear that NICAP could not influence the Condon Study,
|
|
NICAP termed the Condon Study "biased" and without
|
|
merit.(1:19)
|
|
The National Academy of Sciences supported the Condon
|
|
Report and agreed with its conclusions. They concluded
|
|
that the scope of the Condon Report was adequate, the
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
methodology was correct, and its conclusions justified.
|
|
The National Academy of Sciences also concurred with the
|
|
Condon recommendation that Project Blue Book be terminated.
|
|
They also concluded that "The study of UFOs in general
|
|
is not a promising way to expand scientific understanding
|
|
of the phenomena."(21:299)
|
|
While many criticize the conclusions and recommendations
|
|
of the Condon Study, no one can deny that it is the most
|
|
thorough and complete review or Project Blue Book ever
|
|
undertaken.
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER IV
|
|
|
|
ARGUMENTS FOR REOPENING PROJECT BLUE BOOK
|
|
|
|
Occasionally, a project such as Project Blue Book
|
|
is undertaken which ultimately proves to be successful
|
|
beyond the highest aspirations of its researchers. On
|
|
rare occasions, this occurs because of a fortunate acc-
|
|
ident, but it is more often the result of the amalgam-
|
|
ation of several prerequisites which have been faith-
|
|
fully and stringently adhered to. First, the project
|
|
must be assigned a priority comparable to its importance
|
|
and the potential value of its findings. Second, careful
|
|
consideration must be given to select a leader to head
|
|
the project who possesses the necessary qualifications,
|
|
expertise, and stature to assure a thorough, well-struc-
|
|
tured study incorporating the necessary scientific meth-
|
|
odology. Third, each member of the research staff should
|
|
be judiciously chosen and should possess a background
|
|
and expertise in his particular field comparable to that
|
|
of the project leader. Fourth, an atmosphere completely
|
|
void of bias and unsolicited outside influence must be
|
|
maintained at all times to better assure valid results.
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Judging from its significant nature, one would think
|
|
Project Blue Book would have been such a study. Un-
|
|
fortunately, the research conducted by this writer
|
|
indicated this was far from the truth.
|
|
This writer has briefly described some of the
|
|
necessary elements of a well-conducted scientific
|
|
research study and will now analyze the shortcomings
|
|
of the research methodology employed by Project Blue
|
|
Book.
|
|
|
|
Priority of Project and Selection of
|
|
Project Chiefs
|
|
|
|
The Class 2A priority originally assigned to Project
|
|
Blue Book at its inception in 1947 seemed to indicate
|
|
the Air Force placed a high value on the project, but
|
|
the fact that junior officers possessing little, if any,
|
|
scientific background and no graduate or research exper-
|
|
ience were repeatedly chosen to head the project presented
|
|
a dichotomy of action on the part of the Air Force.(14:268)
|
|
Lack of experience and scienti@ic training, however, can
|
|
often be overcome by time and true dedication, but time
|
|
was a rare commodity to Project Blue Book's officers.
|
|
The first decade of Project Blue Book's existence wit-
|
|
nessed six project chiefs, each averaging less than two
|
|
years at the helm - far too little time to develop a
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
firm foothold much less an expertise, regardless of the
|
|
depth of their dedication.
|
|
|
|
Project Chiefs' Lack of Dedication
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, dedication appeared to be a commodity
|
|
as rare as time where most of Project Blue Book's pro-
|
|
ject chiefs were concerned. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, currently
|
|
Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern
|
|
University and formerly the Air Force's chief scientific
|
|
consultant for Project Blue Book has stated that some
|
|
of the project's directors constantly thought only of
|
|
promotion or retirement and felt it wise not to "rock
|
|
the boat" where such a controversial subject as UFOs was
|
|
concerned.(l4:l86) Not all of Project Blue Book's
|
|
chiefs possessed this apparent lack of dedication, how
|
|
ever. At least one of the project's early chiefs
|
|
expressed true puzzlement over some of the sightings
|
|
and the Air Force's Chameleon-like change of attitude
|
|
concerning the entire subject of UFOs. The late Cap-
|
|
tain Edward J. Ruppelt, head of Project Blue Book from
|
|
September 1951 through September 1953 admitted that he
|
|
was bothered by the fact that the Air Force's dominant
|
|
position of "reality" (discussed earlier on page 8) at
|
|
the beginning of Project Sign, in 1947, had turned to a
|
|
position of "disbelief" at the inception of Project
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Grudge in 1949. This was particularly puzzling to
|
|
Captain Ruppelt, since UFO reports seemed to be getting
|
|
much better and less skeptical at that time.(29:85)
|
|
The Air Force appeared to want answers, not mysteries,
|
|
so the staff of ProJect Sign tried a new hypothesis:
|
|
UFOs don't exist.
|
|
|
|
In no time they found that this was easier
|
|
to prove and it got recognition. Previously,
|
|
if an especially interesting UFO report came
|
|
in and the Pentagon wanted an answer, all they'd
|
|
get was an "it could be real but we can't prove
|
|
it" Now such a request got a quick, snappy
|
|
"It was a balloon," and feathers were stuck in
|
|
caps from ATIC up to the Pentagon. Everybody
|
|
felt fine.(29:85)
|
|
|
|
Insufficient Staff
|
|
|
|
Perhaps one of the most serious deficiencies con-
|
|
cerning Project Blue Book was the size, competency,
|
|
and facilities of its staff. It is widely assumed that
|
|
Project Blue Book enjoyed a large staff with proper
|
|
facilities to accomplish a credible research. Unfor-
|
|
tunately, this was not true. Former Project Blue Book
|
|
Director, Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, once remarked at
|
|
an Air Defense Command (ADC) briefing that tech orders
|
|
called for Project Blue Book's staff to consist of four
|
|
officers, two airmen, and two stenos. Captain Ruppelt
|
|
carefully avoided mentioning the actual staff size by
|
|
crossing the following line from his prepared text:
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
"But like any other organization the actual strength
|
|
fluctuates."(24;file) The sad truth is that the actual
|
|
staff of Project Blue Book was generally headed by a
|
|
junior officer who was usually assisted by a Lieutenant
|
|
and sometimes only by a sergeant. For one period of
|
|
time a sergeant with little technical training was given
|
|
the duty of evaluating most of the incoming reports.
|
|
This small staff was not only expected to investigate
|
|
the nearly fifty UFO reports received monthly, but had
|
|
to devote much of its time to answering correspondence
|
|
and filing.(14:182) Even taking into consideration the
|
|
fact that some of the UFO sightings were immediately
|
|
explainable, the large number of credible reports, if
|
|
analyzed scientifically, would often have demanded many
|
|
days and even weeks of research. In all fairness to
|
|
the staff of Project Blue Book, their workload was awe-
|
|
some and much too great for so few to handle properly.
|
|
The mere fact that the project was usually headed by a
|
|
junior officer gave little leverage for its leader to
|
|
initiate the tape of investigation often requested by
|
|
its scientific consultant.(14:182)
|
|
Project Blue Book's rare on-scene investigations
|
|
were often conducted a week after the actual sighting
|
|
due to the fact that an aircraft was not readily avail-
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
able to the project chief. Funds were scarce and Project
|
|
Blue Book's Director, sometimes a pilot, often had to resort
|
|
to "hopping" a flight at the Air Force's convenience or
|
|
taking a commercial flight if funds could be appropriated.
|
|
It should also be stated in fairness to the Blue
|
|
Book staff that reports received from UFO officers
|
|
(officers assigned the additional duty of forwarding
|
|
reports of local UFO sightings to Project Blue Book) at
|
|
various air bases throughout the world often lacked even
|
|
the most elementary information necessary to conduct a
|
|
satisfactory investigation. Follow-up calls to these UFO
|
|
officers put an additional workload on the already over
|
|
burdened staff of Project Blue Book.(14:181)
|
|
|
|
Non-Scientific Approach
|
|
|
|
The official attitude toward UFOs in 1949, for
|
|
reasons unknown even to Captain Ruppelt, had become
|
|
"they didn't exist, they couldn't exist."(29:83) There
|
|
seemed little chance for Project Grudge, struck by bias
|
|
after only two years, to survive at all. Captain
|
|
Ruppelt admitted after leaving the Air Force that good
|
|
UFO reports continued to come in at the rate of approx-
|
|
imately ten per month during his tenure as Project Blue
|
|
Book's chief. Unfortunately, according to Ruppelt,
|
|
these reports weren't being verified or investigated.
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
In fact, most of them were discarded.(29:92)
|
|
|
|
Outside Influence
|
|
|
|
Beginning in 1949, the news media constantly ran
|
|
negative articles pertaining to the existence of UFOs.
|
|
This was not surprising since Captain Ruppelt admitted
|
|
that the negative approach was typical when issuing
|
|
information to the news media. The project chief was
|
|
continually being told by higher headquarters to "tell
|
|
them the media? about the sightings we've solved - don't
|
|
mention the unknowns."(29:89)
|
|
This apparent official change of attitude regarding
|
|
Project Blue Book raises a pertinent question: did this
|
|
change of attitude widen the dichotomy between the issu-
|
|
ance of project priority and staff assignments, or did
|
|
a dichotomy exist in the first place? Some of those
|
|
involved in Project Blue Book began to feel that the Air
|
|
Force disbelieved in UFOs from the beginning and only
|
|
created Project Sign to pacify the American public.
|
|
Whether or not there is any validity to this accusation
|
|
is not known. One thing that is known, however, is
|
|
Captain Ruppelt's admission that "the (UFO) problem was
|
|
being tackled with organized confusion (by the Air Force)
|
|
and everything was being evaluated, on the premise that
|
|
UFOs did not exist."(29:81,83)
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Whatever the Air Force's approach was regarding
|
|
Project Blue Book in 1947, it was apparent by 1953 that
|
|
the investigative nature or the project was not taking
|
|
the direction desired by the American Government. This
|
|
attitude was made even more obvious when the now famous
|
|
(or infamous) Robertson panel, chaired by physicist
|
|
Dr. H. P. Robertson of Cal Tech, convened in January
|
|
1953 under the auspices of the CIA to investigate the
|
|
subject of UFOs. The four day meeting resulted in
|
|
the following conclusions and recommendations by the
|
|
Robertson panel :
|
|
|
|
1) That the evidence presented on Unidentified
|
|
Flying Objects shows no indication that these
|
|
phenomena constitute a direct physical threat to
|
|
national security.
|
|
2) That there is no evidence that the phenomena
|
|
indicates a need for the revision of current
|
|
scientific concepts.
|
|
3) That the continued emphasis on the reporting
|
|
of these phenomena does...result in a threat to
|
|
the orderly functioning of the protective organs
|
|
of the body politic.
|
|
4) That the national security agencies take
|
|
immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying
|
|
Objects of the special status they have been
|
|
given and the aura of mystery they have acquired.
|
|
5) That the national security agencies institute
|
|
policies...designed to prepare...the country to
|
|
recognize most promptly and to react most effec-
|
|
tively to true indications of hostile intent or
|
|
action.
|
|
Robertson 1953
|
|
|
|
In short, the majority of the Robertson panel felt that
|
|
less, rather than more, attention should be paid to
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
UFOs.(30:102)
|
|
Project Blue Book managed to struggle along for
|
|
another fifteen years despite the conclusions of the
|
|
Robertson panel, but Project Blue Book's staff was not
|
|
as fortunate. Al Chop, the Pentagon's civilian Public
|
|
Information Office expert on UFOs resigned his position
|
|
less than two months after the Robertson panel adjourned.
|
|
Captain Ruppelt quit the Air Force in September 1953
|
|
less than eight months after the Robertson panel re-
|
|
leased its conclusions, and Major Robert Fournet,
|
|
Ruppelt's associate in Project Blue Book quit the Air
|
|
Force at the end of his tour.(30:106) Although many
|
|
felt the effect of the Robertson panel was the cause
|
|
for there mass resignations, it should be noted t@at
|
|
this was mere speculation. No official reason was
|
|
ever released.
|
|
The Robertson Panel played an important role in the
|
|
history of Project Blue Book, but no record of the panel
|
|
is included in the original ProJect Blue Book files. As
|
|
far as this writer could determine, the supposedly com-
|
|
plete Blue Book files do not even mention the Robertson
|
|
panel. The writer, however, was successful in uncov-
|
|
ering a speech made by Captain Ruppelt to members of
|
|
ADC at Ent AFB, Colorado a week following the meeting
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
of the Robertson panel on January 24, 1953, which perhaps
|
|
contains a clue to the reason for the resignation of Pro-
|
|
ject Blue Book's staff. It should be restated at this
|
|
point that negative news releases were being issued to
|
|
the news media in 1953, the Air Force privately maintained
|
|
an attitude that regarded UFOs, as "non-existent" and it
|
|
was the Air Force's desire to downplay UFO sightings
|
|
categorized as "unknown". The Air Force had consistently
|
|
maintained that most UFO sightings had been identified
|
|
and most of the "unknowns" could be explained if better
|
|
information were available. With this atmosphere pre-
|
|
velant, Captain Ruppelt flew to Colorado Springs and
|
|
committed the unpardonable sin of disagreeing with official
|
|
Air Force policy and statistics before a group of fellow
|
|
Air Force officers. The discrepancy might have been
|
|
intentional, but it was likely that Ruppelt felt he could
|
|
speak more candidly before his peers. Regardless of the
|
|
reason, some of Ruppelt's statements presented a stark
|
|
contrast and departure from the attitude the Air Force
|
|
wished to project - at least to the civilian populace.
|
|
At one point in his speech, Ruppelt discussed the fairly
|
|
common occurrence of simultaneous radar-visual sightings
|
|
by saying:
|
|
|
|
...reports of simuLtaneous visual reports
|
|
that supposedly correlate with unusual, high
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
speed or erratic radar tracks, with the rare
|
|
exception or meteors and lightening, are a
|
|
different story. No presently known phenomena
|
|
or condition will give this situation. If it
|
|
can be shown that the object sighted visually
|
|
and the radar tracks are the same, the report
|
|
warrants a detailed investigation.(24:file)
|
|
|
|
If Ruppelt "took the cake out of the oven" with that re-
|
|
mark, he certainly added the icing by later admitting:
|
|
|
|
I might state now that the project will be con-
|
|
tinued and the subject will continue to be treated
|
|
seriously. There are several reasons why the pro-
|
|
ject will be continued. _There are reports we can
|
|
not explain._ (Underlining Ruppelt's) We be-
|
|
lieve we can explain all but about 20% but if
|
|
you noted the breakdown of conclusions, _we can
|
|
only positively identify about 7%._ (underlin-
|
|
ing is Ruppelt's) (24:file)
|
|
|
|
Poor Structure and Methodology of
|
|
Project Blue Book
|
|
|
|
When Project Blue Book was closed in 1969, the
|
|
official Air Force estimates of "unsolved" cases ranged
|
|
from less than 1 per cent to 2.09 per cent.(14:259)
|
|
Ruppelt's 1953 statement placed the number of UFO sight-
|
|
ings that could not be positively identified at 93 per
|
|
cent. Either the Air Force figures released to the public
|
|
were conveniently exaggerated in Project Blue Book's
|
|
favor or the Air Force had devised a more accurate
|
|
method of determining the validity of UFO reports
|
|
between 1953 and 1969, A more probable explanation
|
|
for this apparent discrepancy in calculations is offered
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Project Blue Book's official
|
|
scientific consultant:
|
|
|
|
In the evaluation of cases it has been the
|
|
custom to employ the terms "possible" or
|
|
"improbable" as modifiers to a given eval-
|
|
uation; thus "possible aircraft" or "prob-
|
|
able meteor" are often used. However, in
|
|
the year-end compilations of cases these
|
|
modifiers are conveniently dropped. Thus
|
|
"possible aircraft" becomes simply "aircraft"
|
|
and the public will be led to believe that
|
|
there was no possible question....Not only had
|
|
the "probable" and "possible" labels been
|
|
deleted from the statistics, but sightings
|
|
previously considered only possibly explained
|
|
were now "definitely established" - not because
|
|
of further investigations, but because of book-
|
|
keeping procedures.(14:256)
|
|
|
|
Dr. Hynek insisted that Project Blue Book's meth-
|
|
odology was completely unscientific since no scientist
|
|
would test only for a preconceived hypothesis and rule
|
|
out the possibility of another hypothesis. Yet this
|
|
was common practice with Project Blue Book. The Project
|
|
Blue Book staff would consistently dismiss case after
|
|
case because the local air base had reported that no
|
|
aircraft were in the vicinity at the time of the UFO
|
|
sighting. Dr. Hynek suggested that a scientific approach
|
|
would have been to "manifest scientific curiosity about
|
|
the matters in hand" and to "attempt to find patterns in
|
|
data rather than handling each datum as though it existed
|
|
in a vacuum".(14:266) The Project Blue Book staff should
|
|
have been researching for a solution that was consistent
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
with the basic data of the report and not with the work-
|
|
ing hypothesis."(14:267)
|
|
|
|
Poor Cataloguing Procedures
|
|
|
|
The entire results of the twenty-two year study of
|
|
Project Blue Book fill twenty-four standard filing-type
|
|
drawers in the Albert E. Simpson Historical Research
|
|
Center at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Alabama. An addi-
|
|
tional drawer contains artifacts, motion pictures of
|
|
Purported UFOs, and tape recordings of eyewitness
|
|
reports on UFO sightings. The best thing that can be
|
|
said for the files is that they are listed in chrono-
|
|
logical order and are readily available to anyone who
|
|
knows exactly what he or she is looking for. Researchers
|
|
must know the exact date and place of the UFO sighting
|
|
in order to obtain material from the files. It should
|
|
be noted at this point that this atrocious method of
|
|
cataloguing is not the fault of the Albert E. Simpson
|
|
Historical Research Center personnel. The staff of
|
|
Project Blue Book apparently lacked the foresight or
|
|
inclination to computerize the data contained in the
|
|
reports and made no attempt to do so even when a pro-
|
|
cedure was suggested by Drs. J. Allen Hynek and Jacques
|
|
Vallee.(l4:183)
|
|
Except for two l6mm NBC and CBS television films,
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
the movies contained in the artifacts drawer represent
|
|
a travesty of film splicing. The film splices are often
|
|
made with scotch tape or masking tape causing the film
|
|
to tear to shreds when the tape hits the projector
|
|
sprockets. This amateurish and crude attempt at film
|
|
splicing was performed prior to the films' shipment to
|
|
Maxwell AFB by Project Blue Book personnel. One can
|
|
only hope that this was not a reflection of the attitude
|
|
and approach the staff of Project Blue Book took towards
|
|
the entire study.
|
|
In October of 1958, the Air Force's game of "musical
|
|
chairs", which it had consistently played for over a decade
|
|
with no fewer than six project chiefs appeared to have
|
|
reached an end. Major Robert J. Friend was appointed to
|
|
head Project Blue Book and remained at the helm for almost
|
|
five years, although the Air Force continued to juggle per-
|
|
sonnel in and out of the UFO Project Spokesman position
|
|
at the Pentagon. Consequently, Major Friend worked with
|
|
three different project spokesmen during his assignment as
|
|
Project Chief. Dr. Hynek speaks well of MaJor Friend's
|
|
approach to Project Blue Book, which was considerably more
|
|
objective than that of his predecessors'. Major Friend was
|
|
promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel during his
|
|
tenure as Director of Project Blue Book. During his
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
five year's in the job, Lt. Col. Friend and Dr. Hynek
|
|
organized a panel of scientists which met to assist in
|
|
evaluating various UFO sightings, but this effort lacked
|
|
backing from the Air Force and was short-lived.(14:198)
|
|
At this point, Lt. Col. Friend's appointment as Project
|
|
Blue Book's director was terminated. The Air Force
|
|
decided to once again attempt to achieve the proper mix
|
|
of Project Director and UFO spokesman which would be
|
|
"politically" acceptable. This final mix, after sixteen
|
|
years of almost constant personnel shuffling, was
|
|
apparently successful from the Air Force's point of
|
|
view. The new appointees each held their respective
|
|
positions for over six years until the close of Project
|
|
Blue Book. The new Project Director rose from the rank
|
|
of Captain to Lieutenant Colonel in the process. Since
|
|
these positions had been precarious, at best, one might
|
|
assume that these two men either performed their duties
|
|
in an excellent manner or projected the attitude toward
|
|
UFOs deemed proper by the Pentagon.
|
|
The research performed by this writer indicates the
|
|
latter assumption is probably correct. Methodology
|
|
at this time was no better than before. One needs only
|
|
to look in the Project Blue Book files between August
|
|
1963 and December 1969 to realize the new ProJect Blue
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Book methodology was poor. A considerably greater
|
|
number of sightings were labeled "identified" during
|
|
this period since the words "possible" and "probable"
|
|
were consistently dropped from most UFO reports - a
|
|
method familiar to, but more sparingly used by, pre-
|
|
vious Project Blue Book management. During the final
|
|
years of Project Blue Book, it was not unusual to
|
|
see three or four explanations for the same UFO sighting
|
|
with no reason given for determining the final selection
|
|
Since the final Project Blue Book Director's successful
|
|
tenure and promotion was apparently not due to his
|
|
excellence as a scientifically disciplined researcher,
|
|
one can only assume that he was projecting the attitude
|
|
and approach towards UFO investigations desired by the
|
|
Air Force.
|
|
This writer felt that no clearer description or
|
|
example of what the Air Force condoned as proper meth-
|
|
odology could be offered than to present an actual case
|
|
from the Project Blue Book files. Any number of sight-
|
|
ings could be reconstructed at this point, but this
|
|
writer chose to retrace the UFO sighting near Lincoln,
|
|
New Hampshire on September 20, 1961 reported by Mr. and
|
|
Mrs. Barney Hill. The Hill sighting plays an important
|
|
role in the conclusion of this chapter.
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The Betty and Barney Hill Sighting
|
|
|
|
While traveling near Lincoln, New Hampshire on mid-
|
|
night the evening of September 19, 1961, Barney and
|
|
Betty Hill spotted a bright object in the sky. Mrs. Hill
|
|
noticed that the object appeared to grow brighter and
|
|
larger and appeared to be moving, but actual motion was
|
|
difficult to verify due to the movement of their auto-
|
|
mobile. Barney Hill stopped the car so they could get
|
|
a better look at the object, and it was determined that
|
|
the "star, or the light, or whatever it was, was defi-
|
|
nitely moving."(10:45) The Hills resumed their trip
|
|
but continued to view the strange object which now ap-
|
|
peared much closer. Its flight seemed erratic and the
|
|
speed seemed to fluctuate. Red, amber, green, and blue
|
|
lights were now visible on the object which had crossed
|
|
the face of the moon and appeared to be playing games
|
|
with them. The couple lost sight of the object tem-
|
|
porarily until it suddenly appeared approximately 300
|
|
feet to the right of their car.(10:46) At this point
|
|
Barney stopped the car, grabbed his binoculars, and
|
|
walked toward the object, which he now realized was a
|
|
spacecraft. Barney stopped approximately fifty feet
|
|
away from the object and began viewing the UFO through
|
|
his binoculars and noticed at least six living creatures
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
staring back at him from behind the craft's windows.
|
|
Barney immediately ran screaming toward his car. Reach-
|
|
ing his automobile in a state of near hysteria, he
|
|
jammed the car into gear and sped toward his original
|
|
destination. Barney and Betty were suddenly aware of
|
|
an electronic beeping sound and they began to feel an
|
|
odd tingling sensation and were overcome by a dazed
|
|
feeling. Sometime later, they were again aware of the
|
|
beeping sound and noticed they were almost thirty-five
|
|
miles away from the area where the UFO sighting occurred.
|
|
Barney and Betty reached their home in Portsmouth, New
|
|
Hampshire near daylight. Both their watches had stopped,
|
|
but their kitchen cLock read shortly after 5 a.m. This
|
|
was particularly odd since they should have arrived home
|
|
at approximately 3 a.m. For some peculiar reason, they
|
|
were unable to account for two hours of their trip.
|
|
Shortly after awakening late that same afternoon, Betty
|
|
Hill called her sister and informed her of their exper-
|
|
ience. Betty's sister then talked with the former police
|
|
chief of Newton, New Hampshire who suggested that the
|
|
Hills should report their sighting to nearby Pease,
|
|
AFB.(10:47) Betty's sister relayed this information
|
|
to her, and Mrs. Hill contacted the Air Police at Peace
|
|
AFB the following day, September 21, 1961. Both Barney
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
and Betty Hill talked with Major Paul W. Henderson of
|
|
the 100th Bomb Wing (SAC) at Pease AFB and relayed the
|
|
bare outline of their sighting. Since Barney was con-
|
|
cerned about being considered irrational, he purposely
|
|
avoided mentioning the figures observed in the craft.
|
|
(10:47) The official Air Force Form 112, report
|
|
No. 100-1-61, as transcribed by Major Henderson appears
|
|
in Project Blue Book files as follows:
|
|
|
|
On the night of 19-20 Sept. between 20/0001
|
|
and 20/0100 Mr. & Mrs. Hill were traveling
|
|
south on route 3 near Lincoln, N. H. when they
|
|
observed, through the windshield of their car,
|
|
a strange object in the sky. They noticed it
|
|
because of its shape and the intensity of its
|
|
lighting as compared to the stars in the sky.
|
|
The weather and sky was clear at the time.
|
|
|
|
Report contained herein is IAW par. 15, AFR
|
|
200-2, dated 14 Sept. 1959.
|
|
|
|
A. Description of Object
|
|
1. Continuous band of lights - cigar shaped
|
|
at all times despite change of direction.
|
|
2. Size: When first observed it appeared
|
|
to be about the size of a nickel at arms length.
|
|
Later when it seemed to be a matter of hundreds
|
|
of feet above the automobile it would be about
|
|
the size of a dinner plate held at arms length.
|
|
3. Color: Only color evident was that of
|
|
the band of light when (sic) was comparable to
|
|
the intensity and color of a filament of an
|
|
incandescent lamB.
|
|
(see reference to "wing tip" lights.)
|
|
4. Number: One
|
|
5. Formation: None
|
|
6. Feature or details: See 1 above. Dur-
|
|
ing periods of observation wings seemed to
|
|
appear from the main body. Described as V-
|
|
shaped with red lights on tips. Later, wings
|
|
appeared to extend further.
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
7. Tail, trail or exhaust: None ob-
|
|
served.
|
|
8. Sound: None except as described in
|
|
item E.
|
|
B. Description of course of Object.
|
|
1. First observed through windshield of
|
|
car, Size and brightness of object compared
|
|
to visible stars attracted observers' atten-
|
|
tion.
|
|
2. Angle of elevation, first observed:
|
|
about 45 deg.
|
|
3. Angle of elevation at disappearance:
|
|
Not determinable because of inability to ob-
|
|
serve its departure from the auto.
|
|
4. Flight path & maneuvers: See item E.
|
|
5. How object disappeared: See item E.
|
|
6. Length of observation: Approx 30
|
|
min's.
|
|
C. Manner of Observation
|
|
1. Ground-visual
|
|
2. Binoculars used at times
|
|
3. Sighting made from inside auto while
|
|
moving and stopped. Observed from within and
|
|
outside auto.
|
|
D. Location and details: On the night of
|
|
19-20 September between 20/0001 and 20/0100
|
|
the observers were traveling by car in a
|
|
southernly direction of Route 3 south of
|
|
Lincoln, N.H. when they noticed a brightly
|
|
lighted object ahead of their car at an angle
|
|
of elevation of approximately 45 deg. it appear-
|
|
ed strange to them because of its shape and
|
|
the intensity of its lights compared to the
|
|
stars in the sky. Weather and sky were clear.
|
|
They continued to observe the object from their
|
|
moving car for a few minutes then stopped.
|
|
After stopping the car they used binoculars
|
|
at times.
|
|
They report that the object was traveling
|
|
north very fast. They report it changed dir-
|
|
ections rather abruptly and then headed south.
|
|
Shortly thereafter it stopped and hovered in
|
|
the air. There was no sound evident up to
|
|
this point. While hovering, objects began to
|
|
appear from the body of the "object" which
|
|
they describe as looking like wings which
|
|
made a V-shape when extended. The "wings"
|
|
had red lights on the tips. At this point
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
they observed it to appear to swoop down in
|
|
the general direction of their auto. The
|
|
object continued to descend until it appeared
|
|
to be only a matter of"hundreds of feet"
|
|
above their car.
|
|
At this point they decided to get out of
|
|
that area, and fast. Mr. Hill was driving and
|
|
Mrs. Hill was prevented from observing its
|
|
full departure by her position in the car.
|
|
They report that while the object was
|
|
above them after it had "swooped down" they
|
|
heard a series of short loud "buzzes" which
|
|
they described as something like someone
|
|
dropped a tuning fork. They report that they
|
|
could feel these buzzing sounds in their auto.
|
|
No further visual observations were made of
|
|
this object. They continued on their trip and
|
|
when they arrived in the vicinity of Ashland,
|
|
N.H,, about 30 miles from Lincoln, they again
|
|
heard the "buzzing" sound of the "object";
|
|
however, they did not see it at this time.
|
|
Mrs. Hill reported the flight pattern of
|
|
the "object" to be erratic, changed directions
|
|
rapidly, that during its flight it ascended
|
|
and descended numerous times very rapidly.
|
|
Its flight was described as jerky and not
|
|
smooth.
|
|
Mr. Hill is a Civil Service employee in
|
|
the Boston Post Office and doesn't possess any
|
|
technical or scientific training. Neither
|
|
does his wife.
|
|
During a later conversation with Mr. Hill,
|
|
he volunteered the observation that he did not
|
|
originally intend to report this incident but
|
|
in as much as he & his wife did see this
|
|
occurrence he decided to report it. He says
|
|
that on looking back he feels that the whole
|
|
thing is incredible and he feels somewhat
|
|
foolish - he just can not believe that such a
|
|
thing could or did happen. He says, on the
|
|
other hand, that they both saw what they re-
|
|
ported and this fact gives it some degree of
|
|
reality.
|
|
Information contained herein was collected
|
|
by means of telephone conversation between the
|
|
observers and the preparing individual. The
|
|
reliability of the observer cannot be judged and
|
|
while his apparent honesty and seriousness
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
appears to be valid it cannot be judged at
|
|
this time.(26:file)
|
|
|
|
There is no indication that the Hills were ever
|
|
contacted by the Air Force after this report was filed.
|
|
This is particularly strange since Project Blue Book
|
|
files show that a UFO was spotted and tracked by Air
|
|
Force radar operators at nearby Concord AFS, Vermont
|
|
less that seven hours prior to the Hills' sighting.
|
|
Another UFO was sighted by Pease AFB precision approach
|
|
radar only two hours following the Hill visual sighting,
|
|
The report of the first radar sighting was not wired
|
|
to the Project Blue Book staff at Wright-Patterson AFB
|
|
until nearly three days after the actual sighting took
|
|
place. Personnel at the N. Concord AFS, Vermont sent
|
|
their TWX on 22 September 1961 at 0234Z. The radar
|
|
sighting took place on 19 September at 2122Z.(26:file)
|
|
The report of the Barney and Betty Hill sighting
|
|
containing an additional comment regarding the UFO
|
|
spotted and tracked by the Pease AFB radar was not
|
|
wired to Project Blue Book headquarters, despite the
|
|
fact that it was normal USAF policy to do so. Instead,
|
|
the Directorate of Administrative Services at Pease AFB
|
|
mailed the information to Project Blue Book on September
|
|
29, 1961 - eight days after the original Hill report
|
|
was filed, An accompanying memo sent by Pease AFB
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
explained that "Non-availability of observers for
|
|
early interrogation precluded electrical transmission
|
|
of report."(26:file) This is a particularly puzzling
|
|
statement, since the Hills were readily available for
|
|
interrogation at any time. Conversations with the Hills
|
|
were concluded on September 21, 1961.
|
|
On September 25, 1961, Project Blue Book's Director
|
|
sent the information regarding the N. Concord AFS radar
|
|
sighting to the Electronics Branch of the USAF's Foreign
|
|
Technology Division requesting comment. The Deputy for
|
|
Science and Components answered Project Blue Book's
|
|
request on September 28, 1961 with the following memo:
|
|
|
|
Memo, TD-E (Major Friend), 25 Sep 61, (U) Request
|
|
for Review
|
|
|
|
1st Ind (TD-Ela/Mr. V.D. Bryant/74201 28 Sep-
|
|
tember 1961
|
|
TO: TD-E (MaJor Friend)
|
|
|
|
1. The relatively low speed and high altitude
|
|
of the subject UFO, coupled with an erratic
|
|
course (including hovering), appear to rule
|
|
out a normal aircraft target and favor some
|
|
target as a weather balloon.
|
|
2. It is suggested that if it is desired to
|
|
pursue the investigation further, a check
|
|
might be made of activities in the area res-
|
|
ponsible for launching and tracking weather
|
|
balloons.
|
|
|
|
Signed
|
|
|
|
PAUL J. SLOCUM 1 Atch
|
|
Colonel, USAF n/c
|
|
Chief, Electronics Division
|
|
Deputy for Science and Components (26:file)
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
There is no indication that Project Blue Book ever
|
|
checked activities in the area responsible for launching
|
|
and tracking weather balloons. The Director of Project
|
|
Blue Book apparently accepted the Foreign Technology
|
|
Division's explanation.
|
|
The official ProJect Blue Book Project 10073
|
|
Record Card regarding the N. Concord AFS radar sighting
|
|
reads as follows:
|
|
|
|
1. Date: 19 Sept 61
|
|
2. Location: N. Concord AFS, Vermont
|
|
3. Date: Time Group-GMT 19 2122Z (September
|
|
19, 1722 Eastern Time). "
|
|
4. Type of observation: Ground-Radar
|
|
5. Photos; No
|
|
6. Source: Military
|
|
7. Length of Observation: 18 min.
|
|
8. Number of objects: 1
|
|
9. Course: S
|
|
10. Brief summary of sighting: Return on
|
|
H/F (height-finder) radar size of a/c (air
|
|
craft) appearing as normal target at 62,000
|
|
appeared 196 deg. at 84 mi, lost on contact 199 deg.
|
|
at 80 mi, going NW then S and gradually S on
|
|
scope 18 min. (The original TWX not reproduced
|
|
here but on file with original Blue Book
|
|
material describes the UFO sighted as "a
|
|
large aircraft").
|
|
11. Comments: Relative low speed and high
|
|
altitude coupled with erratic course includ-
|
|
ing weather balloon.
|
|
12. Conclusion: Probably balloon.
|
|
|
|
Page number one of the Form 112 reporting the UFO
|
|
sighting of Betty and Barney Hill included the following
|
|
radar sighting as an additional item. The subtlety of
|
|
its mention, as a mere afterthought, certainly belies its
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
significance. The additional item reads as follows:
|
|
|
|
ADDITIONAL ITEM :
|
|
During a casual conversation on 22 Sept 61
|
|
between Major Gardiner B. Reynolds, 100th B W
|
|
DCOI and Captain Robert O. Daughaday, Commander
|
|
1917-2 AACS DIT, Pease AFB, NH it was revealed
|
|
that a strange incident occurred at 0214 local
|
|
on 20 Sept. No importance was attached to the
|
|
incident at the time. Subsequent interrogation
|
|
failed to bring out any information in addition
|
|
to the extract of the "Daily Report to the
|
|
Controller". Copy of this extract is attached.
|
|
It is not possible to determine any relation-
|
|
ship between these two observations, as the radar
|
|
observation provides no description. _Time and
|
|
distance between the events could hint of a
|
|
possible relationship._ (Underlining ours)
|
|
|
|
The extract referred to in the above memo read:
|
|
|
|
TRUE EXTRACT OF "DAILY REPORT TO CONTROLLER", AACS
|
|
FORM 96, FOR THE DATE OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1961.
|
|
|
|
0614Z (0214 a.m.) OBSERVED UNIDENTIFIED A/C COME
|
|
ON PAR (Precision approach radar) 4 MILES OUT.
|
|
A/C MADE APPROACH AND PULLED UP AT 1/2 MILE.
|
|
SHORTLY AFTER OBSERVED WEAK TARGET ON DOWNWIND,
|
|
THEN WHEN IT MADE LOW APPROACH, TWR (tower)
|
|
UNABLE TO SEE ANY A/C AT ANY TIME....JC
|
|
|
|
CERTIFIED TRUE:
|
|
Signed
|
|
|
|
ROBERT O. DAUGHADAY
|
|
Captain, USAF
|
|
Commander (26:file)
|
|
|
|
The official Project Blue Book Project 10073 Record
|
|
Card concerning Barney and Betty Hill's visual sighting
|
|
of a UFO and the UFO sighted on the Pease AFB radar reads
|
|
as follows :
|
|
|
|
1. Date: 20 Sep 61
|
|
2. Location; Lincoln, NH
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
3. Date-Time Group: Local 0001-0100 GMT:
|
|
20 0401-05002
|
|
4. Type of observation: Ground-visual Air
|
|
intercept radar.
|
|
5. Photos: No
|
|
6. Source: Military
|
|
7. Length of observation: 30 min.
|
|
8. No. of objects: 1
|
|
9. Course: N
|
|
10. Brief summary of sighting: Continuous
|
|
band of lights. Cigar-shaped at all times
|
|
despite changes of direction. Wings seemed to
|
|
appear fm main body. Described as V-shaped
|
|
with red lights on tips: later wings appeared.
|
|
to extend further. Appeared about 45 deg. Varied
|
|
direction abruptly and disappeared to north.
|
|
11. Comments: Both radar and visual sight-
|
|
ing are probably due to conditions resulting
|
|
from strong inversion which prevailed in area
|
|
on morning of sighting. Actual source of
|
|
light viewed is not known but it has all the
|
|
characteristics of an advertising searchlight.
|
|
Radar probably was looking at some ground
|
|
target due to strong inversion (a temperature
|
|
inversion can take place in a perfectly clear
|
|
sky). No evidence indicating objts were due
|
|
to other than natural causes.
|
|
12. Conclusions: Optical condition (later
|
|
changed to "inversion", and still later changed
|
|
to "insufficient data".)(26:file)
|
|
|
|
It is interesting to note that the Project 10073
|
|
Record Card was typewritten except for a ball-point
|
|
checkmark in the air-intercept radar box in item number
|
|
four. The official Form 112 submitted to Project Blue
|
|
Book by Pease AFB officials indicated the radar sighting
|
|
was made on precision-approach radar. Since there was
|
|
no indication of an air intercept having taken place,
|
|
it might be assumed that the air-intercept radar box
|
|
was marked incorrectly. It is important to note, however
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
that this is merely an assumption of this writer. It
|
|
is also interesting to note the comment made in item 11
|
|
regarding the UFO as having all the characteristics of
|
|
an advertising searchlight. This possible explanation
|
|
raises the question of what an advertising searchlight
|
|
would have been used for in Lincoln, N.H. between mid-
|
|
night and 1 a.m. in the morning. There is no indication
|
|
that Project Blue Book ever followed the searchlight
|
|
hypothesis although it would have been relatively
|
|
simple to discover whether or not a searchlight was
|
|
actually in use in Lincoln, N.H. on the date in ques-
|
|
tion.
|
|
Project Blue Book certainly can not be blamed for
|
|
the time delay regarding the TWX sent by the N. Concord
|
|
AFS and letter sent by Pease AFB. They must be given
|
|
credit for at least following through, to some extent,
|
|
on the N. Concord AFS sighting. It is this writer's
|
|
opinion, however, that Project Blue Book's explanation
|
|
regarding the searchlight was an example of mere spec-
|
|
ulation with no attempt at follow-up. Although a
|
|
correlation between the UFO reported by the Hills and
|
|
the UFO tracked on the Pease AFB radar was indicated
|
|
as a possibility by Pease AFB officials, Project Blue
|
|
Book officials make no further mention of it.
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
On November 15, 1961, almost two months after the
|
|
Barney and Betty Hill sighting, a Project Blue Book
|
|
official telephoned the Air Weather Service at Ashville
|
|
North Carolina requesting copies of Rawinsonde (graphic
|
|
adiabatic weather charts) observations of the Lincoln,
|
|
N.H. area for 17-22 September 1961. This was an
|
|
apparent attempt to support ProJect Blue Book's former
|
|
"inversion" explanation. Since Lincoln, N.H. does not
|
|
take Rawinsonde observations, and Portland, Maine was
|
|
the closest station to do so, Project Blue Book's
|
|
hypothesis could not be validated.
|
|
Project Blue Book ended their investigation of
|
|
the Barney and Betty Hill sighting and the correspond-
|
|
ing radar sightings at this point without ever recon-
|
|
tacting the Hills. This is a particularly disturbing
|
|
aspect of this sighting. The Hill file is much larger
|
|
than many of the other Project Blue Book files, but
|
|
this is due primarily to the thickness of news clipping,
|
|
and magazine articles that were later included. Project
|
|
Blue Book officials made meager attempts at "solving"
|
|
the case by asking information of two other USAF offices,
|
|
No attempt was made, however, to recontact the Hills
|
|
or to interview them in person. No attempt was made to
|
|
visit the reported UFO landing sight. No attempt was
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
made at drawing a possible correlation between the visual
|
|
and radar UFO reports even though former Project Blue
|
|
Book Director, Captain E.J. Ruppelt admitted as early
|
|
as January 24, 1953, that visual reports that supposedly
|
|
correlate with erratic radar tracks warrant a detailed
|
|
investigation.(24:file)
|
|
The official Air Force explanation regarding the
|
|
Hills' UFO sighting turned out to be almost as erratic
|
|
as the radar and visual sightings themselves. The
|
|
official explanations in this particular case included
|
|
"weather inversion", "the Planet Jupiter", "optical
|
|
condition", and finally "insufficient data". If one
|
|
counts the explanation given for the N. Concord AFS
|
|
UFO sighting, the explanation of "weather balloon" can
|
|
also be added. "Weather inversion" became a favorite
|
|
"catch-all" explanation at Project Blue Book, according
|
|
to Dr.J. Allen Hynek. A 3 deg. inversion existing at 6000
|
|
feet has been used to explain a sighting made by an
|
|
aircraft at 15,000 feet. The Air Force maintains
|
|
excellent scientific facilities at its Cambridge lab-
|
|
oratories but Project Blue Book officials never once
|
|
contacted this facility to calculate whether the inver-
|
|
sions to which a sighting was attributed were actually
|
|
sufficient, quantitatively, to account for the UFO
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
sighting.(14:268)
|
|
|
|
The official Air Force release regarding the Barney
|
|
and Betty Hill UFO sighting reads as follows:
|
|
|
|
Information on Barney Hill sighting, 20 Sep-
|
|
tember 1961, Lincoln, New Hampshire
|
|
The Barney Hill sighting was investigated
|
|
by officials from Pease AFB. The case is
|
|
carried as insufficient data in the Air Force
|
|
files. No direction (azimuth) was reported
|
|
and there are inconsistencies in the report.
|
|
The sighting occurred about midnight and the
|
|
object was observed for at least one hour. No
|
|
specific details on maneuverability were given.
|
|
The Planet Jupiter was in the South West, at
|
|
about 20 degrees elevation and would have set
|
|
at the approximate time that the object dis-
|
|
appeared. Without positional data the case
|
|
could not be evaluated as Jupiter. There was
|
|
a strong inversion in the area. The actual
|
|
light source is not known. As no lateral or
|
|
vertical movement was noted, the object was
|
|
in all probability Jupiter. No evidence was
|
|
presented to indicate that the object was due
|
|
to other than natural causes.(26:file)
|
|
|
|
This official release is confusing since directions
|
|
of flight (azimuth) were supplied b@ the Hills. The
|
|
official release also mentions inconsistencies in the
|
|
Hill report, but none of the inconsistencies are
|
|
mentioned, and this writer has been unable to uncover
|
|
any. The Planet Jupiter is mentioned in the official
|
|
release as the probable sighting observed by the Hills
|
|
but Barney and Betty Hill mentioned the fact that the
|
|
object passed in front of the moon at one point and
|
|
contained colored lights. The official Project Blue
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Book release states that the Hill sighting was observed
|
|
for at least one hour, yet the sighting time listed on
|
|
the official report was "3O minutes". The Air Force
|
|
release also claims that no lateral or vertical move-
|
|
ment was noted yet the official Air Force report mentions
|
|
descending, ascending, and swooping movements.(26:file)
|
|
The official Air Force release concludes by stating
|
|
that no evidence was presented to indicate that the
|
|
object was due to other than natural causes but makes
|
|
no mention of the radar tracking. All in all, the
|
|
official investigation of this sighting appears, at
|
|
best, to be shallow and incomplete.
|
|
|
|
Further Developments in the
|
|
Barney and Betty Hill Case
|
|
|
|
In the week following their initial UFO report,
|
|
Betty Hill was plagued by nightmares that she and Barney
|
|
had encountered a strange roadblock on a lonely New
|
|
Hampshire road. She dreamed that a group of men forced
|
|
her and Barney to board a spacecraft where they were
|
|
both made to submit to a physical examination.(10:48)
|
|
During the ensuing months, both Barney and Betty were
|
|
increasingly bothered by anxiety and by the disturbing
|
|
fact that two hours of the morning of September 20, 1961,
|
|
remained unaccounted for. Finally, on February 22, 1964,
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Barney agreed to undergo questioning under hypnosis by
|
|
Dr. Benjamin Simon, the distinguished Boston psychi-
|
|
atrist and neurologist. Betty Hill was questioned under
|
|
hypnosis by Dr. Simon the following week.(11:11) The
|
|
tape recorded sessions proved to be fascinating and
|
|
uncovered some startling information.
|
|
Under hypnosis, Barney and Betty Hill told of
|
|
humanoid (human-like) creatures forcing them to board
|
|
a spacecraft. The crew of the spacecraft conversed in
|
|
a manner described by Barney as "humming", although
|
|
Betty was able to converse with the leader in English
|
|
and was able to understand the leader's speech in a
|
|
manner not clearly describable by Betty Hill. Barney
|
|
and Betty were taken into different rooms for a physical
|
|
examination. During the course of the examination, a
|
|
needle was inserted into Betty's navel and was explained
|
|
as a pregnancy test. After Betty's examination was con-
|
|
cluded, she inquired about what appeared to be a star
|
|
map on the wall of the spacecraft. The leader explained
|
|
that the map was actually a map of exploratory and trade
|
|
routes (This star map incident was to play an extremely
|
|
important role many years later.) Both Barney and Betty
|
|
Hill were told that they would remember nothing of the
|
|
time they had spent aboard the spacecraft and were then
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
released.
|
|
The time that the Hills spent aboard the spacecraft
|
|
could very well explain the two hours of their trip
|
|
which were previously unaccounted for. Assuming the
|
|
examinations did take two hours, and the UFO left shortly
|
|
after releasing the Hills, an eerie time correlation can
|
|
be drawn between the Hills' reported midnight sighting
|
|
and the UFO tracked by Pease AFB radar at 2:L4 a.m.
|
|
The Barney and Betty Hill story was first printed in
|
|
a series of six newspaper articles in the "Boston Traveler"
|
|
in October 1965. Almost a year later, "Look Magazine" ran
|
|
articles describing the Hills' experience and their
|
|
testimony under hypnosis. The actual information revealed
|
|
under hypnosis was published as a book by John Fuller
|
|
entitled, "Interrupted Journey."
|
|
The notoriety surrounding the Hill experience
|
|
apparently had little effect on Project Blue Book's
|
|
investigation of the case. In fact, Project Blue Book
|
|
now considered the Hill case closed with "zero prior-
|
|
ity". The only evidence that the new Project Blue Book
|
|
staff paid any attention to the renewed notoriety of
|
|
the Hill case was the fact that the two "Look Magazine"
|
|
articles and copies of the "Boston Traveler" articles
|
|
regarding the Hills' experience were included in Project
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Blue Book's official file on the Barney and Betty Hill
|
|
case.
|
|
On November 9, 1965, ten days after the last Hill
|
|
article appeared in the "Boston Traveler", Project Blue
|
|
Book's Deputy Director of Information mailed copies of
|
|
the articles to the Pentagon's UFO spokesman. The
|
|
articles were later returned to Project Blue Book's
|
|
files with a page attached which contained a combination
|
|
of sixteen questions or statements in an attempt to dis-
|
|
credit the information contained in the "Boston Traveler"
|
|
articles. The note was unsigned and it is not known
|
|
whether the questions and statements were written by
|
|
the Pentagon's UFO spokesman or the Director of Project
|
|
Blue Book. Regardless of who wrote the note, it remains
|
|
an excellent example of the attitude prevalent through
|
|
out the Project Blue Book organization and how little
|
|
information the author of the note possessed regarding
|
|
a UFO case as extraordinary as the Hills'.
|
|
This writer will list all of the statements and
|
|
questions contained in the aforementioned attachment
|
|
in the order originally listed.(24:file) Immediately
|
|
following each statement or question, this writer will
|
|
supply an answer or comment.
|
|
1. (Statement) The Hill case is closed, and has
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
zero priority.
|
|
Apparently no consideration was given to reopen this
|
|
case, even though startling additional revelations under
|
|
hypnosis seemed to warrant further investigation.
|
|
2. (Statement) "Foreign" does not mean foreign to
|
|
the United States.
|
|
|
|
This statement was made to correct a statement pub-
|
|
lished in the first Boston Traveler article regarding
|
|
the Hills which appeared on Monday, October 25, 1965.
|
|
The article stated that "foreign" (in Foreign Technology
|
|
Division) means foreign to this earth and not simply
|
|
alien to this country.(18:B-7)
|
|
3. (First Statement) FTD (Foreign Technology
|
|
Division) is directed by AFSC (Air Force Systems
|
|
Command) at Andrews AFB, not the CIA.
|
|
|
|
The "Boston Traveler" stated that the FTD was directed
|
|
by the CIA which takes over and investigates UFO reports
|
|
the Air Force itself cannot explain.(18:B-7)
|
|
|
|
3. (Second Statement) The CIA does not investigate
|
|
the unidentifies.
|
|
|
|
This was not a completely accurate statement since
|
|
the Robertson Panel of 1953 was held under the auspices
|
|
of the CIA and investigated UFOs and the findings of
|
|
Project Blue Book to date.(29:file)
|
|
|
|
4. (Statement) Name one scientist of "astro-
|
|
physicist" studying this case.
|
|
|
|
This writer can name one excellent example: Dr. J.
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy
|
|
at Northwestern University and the Air Force's Sci-
|
|
entific consultant on Project Blue Book.(14:156)
|
|
|
|
5. (Statement) NICAP (The National Investigations
|
|
Committee on Aerial Phenomenon) is not a "scien-
|
|
tific" agency.
|
|
|
|
This involves a question of semantics. What exactly
|
|
is a "scientific agency"? NICAP is a non-profit world-
|
|
wide organization incorporated in the District of
|
|
Columbia. Its main purpose is the scientific inves-
|
|
tigation and research of reported UFOs, and encouragement
|
|
of full reporting to the public by responsible author-
|
|
ities of all information that the Government has accum-
|
|
ulated on the subject.(10:46) Many astronomers, pro-
|
|
fessional pilots, and scientists are members of NICAP.
|
|
|
|
6. (Question) Walter Webb astronomer? Yes, No?
|
|
|
|
Walter Webb was an astronomer and a lecturer on the
|
|
staff of Hayden Planetarium.(10:47)
|
|
|
|
7. (Question) Is Hill (Barney Hill) emotionally
|
|
mature?
|
|
|
|
Dr. Simon, the psychiatrist who questioned Barney
|
|
Hill under hypnosis never gave any indication that Mr.
|
|
Hill was immature.(10:45) In fact, Barney Hill was
|
|
reluctant to report the UFO incident in the first
|
|
place.(26:file)
|
|
|
|
8. (Statement) Note that they withheld infor-
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
mation and waited two days (before reporting the
|
|
sighting to Pease AFB). They reported only that
|
|
there appeared a bright star moving toward them in
|
|
a northerly direction.
|
|
|
|
The Hills did not wait two days before reporting
|
|
the incident. The UFO was spotted in the early minutes
|
|
of January 20, 1961. Barney and Betty Hill didn't
|
|
arrive home until 5 a.m. on January 20, 1961, and slept
|
|
until after 3 p.m. Betty Hill's sister convinced Betty
|
|
and Barney later that same afternoon that their UFO
|
|
sighting should be reported to Pease AFB. Since it
|
|
was most likely early evening by that time, it does
|
|
not seem unusual for the Hills to wait until the fol-
|
|
lowing day, September 21, 1961, to report the inci-
|
|
dent.(10:47) The Hills relayed much more information
|
|
than simply stating that they had seen a bright star
|
|
moving toward them in a northerly direction as was
|
|
quite evident from reading their original report included
|
|
earlier in this paper.(26:file)
|
|
|
|
9. (Question and Statement) Two years later?...
|
|
Evaluated in 1961 (info supplied to Herbert S.
|
|
Taylor in 1963).
|
|
|
|
This writer has not determined specifically what
|
|
the above question and statement mean. A regular Pro-
|
|
ject Blue Book press release was forwarded to Herbert
|
|
S. Taylor as requested by Taylor in his letter of
|
|
August 27, 1963, but the gist of question and state-
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
ment number nine remains unclear.(26:file)
|
|
|
|
10. (Question and Statement) Records? Indicate
|
|
an intensive? Come now. We did not even bother
|
|
to contact the Hills personally.
|
|
|
|
This item was in reference to a statement made in
|
|
the third "Boston Traveler" article regarding the Hills'
|
|
UFO sighting. The article reported as follows: "What
|
|
the Air Force wasn't saying, however, is that its
|
|
Foreign Technology Division in Ohio has quietly assumed
|
|
charge of a new - intensive investigation..." (17:B-2)
|
|
It is particularly interesting to note that whoever
|
|
typed the list of sixteen questions and statements
|
|
admitted that Project Blue Book did not bother to
|
|
contact the Hills personally. This is hardly a state-
|
|
ment to boast about and once again conveys the shallow-
|
|
ness of their "investigation".
|
|
|
|
11. (Question) No one else saw the same object
|
|
the Hills did, who are the others???
|
|
|
|
Barney Hill insisted that Pease AFB officials
|
|
informed him that they had received other reports similar
|
|
to his.(26:file) These reports do not appear in the
|
|
Project Blue Book files. Of course, two radar sightings
|
|
took place which supported the Hills' report, but who
|
|
ever composed this list of questions did not refer to
|
|
them.
|
|
|
|
12. Sought psychiatric help. Does this indicate
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
emotional maturity? What are the conclusions of
|
|
the psychiatrist ?
|
|
|
|
Seeking psychiatric help does not necessarily
|
|
indicate immaturity. The conclusions of Dr. Simon
|
|
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
Some aspects of the experience are un-
|
|
answered, and, perhaps, unanswerable at this
|
|
time. Nothing is finally settled. Nothing is
|
|
absolutely proved to me regarding the alleged
|
|
"abduction". Neither patient is psychotic, and
|
|
both consciously and under hypnosis told what
|
|
they believed to be absolute truth. The char-
|
|
isma of hypnosis has tended to foster the belief
|
|
that it is the magical road to truth. In one
|
|
sense, this is so, but it must be understood
|
|
that hypnosis is a pathway to the truth as it
|
|
is felt and understood by the patient. The
|
|
truth is what he believes to be the truth, and
|
|
this may not be consonant with the ultimate
|
|
and nonpersonal truth. Most frequently it
|
|
is.(10:45)
|
|
|
|
l3. (Question) Who was the accredited sci-
|
|
entific investigator who heard the tapes?
|
|
|
|
If a representative of Project Blue Book or the Air
|
|
Force asked this question, it is rather embarrassing
|
|
since their own scientific consultant, Dr. J. Allen
|
|
Hynek actually participated in hypnotic sessions
|
|
between Dr. Simon and the Hills. Hynek was not acting
|
|
on behalf of the Air Force at the time.
|
|
|
|
14. (Statement) Final evaluation is made at
|
|
Wright-Patterson on the data submitted from
|
|
Pease AFB and other information from _their
|
|
own investigation into the matter._ (Under
|
|
lining ours.)
|
|
|
|
What other information? This writer hopes this is
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
not a reference to Project Blue Book's request for
|
|
Rawinsonde observations, which proved futile.
|
|
|
|
15. (Statement) The time motion sequence is
|
|
missing in all reports. Such directions as
|
|
"to the right" "up" etc. have no validity.
|
|
Only directions reported in azimuth and eval-
|
|
uation have value.
|
|
|
|
The Hills indicated the UFOs elevation when first
|
|
sighted and also gave information pertaining to dir-
|
|
ection in their report to Pease AFB.(26:file) The
|
|
angle of elevation when the UFO disappeared was not
|
|
available but no further information regarding azimuth
|
|
or elevation was asked by Pease AFB officials. Further
|
|
information of this nature was revealed by the Hills
|
|
while under hypnosis, however, and was readily avail-
|
|
able to Project Blue Book in 1966 if they had listened
|
|
to Dr. Simon's tapes or had bothered to ask the
|
|
Hills.(26:file)
|
|
|
|
16. (Statement) The files are maintained at
|
|
Wright-Patterson, not Pease AFB.
|
|
|
|
This is a true, but relatively unimportant, state-
|
|
ment.
|
|
|
|
Prior to the publication of their series of arti-
|
|
cles on the Hills, the "Boston Traveler" requested a
|
|
copy of the original Air Force Information Report
|
|
100-1-61 originally prepared by Major Paul Henderson
|
|
at Pease AFB. A "copy" of the report was furnished
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
by Project Blue Book one month later. The sixth
|
|
article printed by the "Boston Traveler" reported that
|
|
"It was actually a typewritten copy, not a repro-
|
|
duction. It was mistakingly dated September 1963,
|
|
instead of 1961 when the report was compiled. It
|
|
made not mention of radar shimmerings..."(19:B-1)
|
|
The statement regarding shimmerings was in reference
|
|
to an earlier remark by Pease AFB officials that the
|
|
UFO appeared on its radar as a "shimmering" - an air
|
|
mass phenomena that reflects light from the ground.
|
|
(18:B-7) The truth is that the information that Pro-
|
|
ject Blue Book released to the "Boston Traveler" was an
|
|
_incomplete_ typewritten copy of the original Air Force
|
|
Information Report 100-1-61. Project Blue Book had
|
|
failed to include the additional item from the report
|
|
which referred to a "strange incident (that) occurred
|
|
at 0214 local on 20 Sept (1961)." The "strange
|
|
incident", of course, was the report of a radar sight-
|
|
ing by Pease AFB precision approach radar. The radar
|
|
"shimmering" originally reported to the press was much
|
|
more than a shimmer indicating an air mass. It was a
|
|
bonafide sighting (see page 55). It is not clear why
|
|
Project Blue Book purposely withheld information to the
|
|
press regarding the Pease AFB radar sighting, but it
|
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
certainly supported the Government's attitude that UFOs
|
|
did not exist. This was an example of the way Project
|
|
Blue Book's final director protected the Government's
|
|
attitude. This was also perhaps an example of why this
|
|
director remained in his position longer than any of
|
|
his predecessors. To paraphrase former Project Blue Book
|
|
Director Captain Edward Ruppelt, "the Hill case was
|
|
dead - just when the information was getting better."
|
|
(29:85) Not only was the Hill case dead, but Project
|
|
Blue Book was now mortally ill itself.
|
|
Finally, in October 1966, the Air Force dealt Pro-
|
|
ject Blue Book what ultimately proved to be its death
|
|
sentence. The Air Force selected the late Dr. Edward
|
|
U. Condon and the University of Colorado to conduct
|
|
its Scientific Investigation of Unidentified Flying
|
|
Objects, a study to determine whether or not Project
|
|
Blue Book should be continued.
|
|
|
|
The Condon Committee
|
|
|
|
The shortage of funds which continually plagued
|
|
the Air Force's Project Blue Book suddenly ceased to
|
|
be a problem when the Air Force decided to hire Dr.
|
|
Edward Condon to conduct a scientific investigation of
|
|
UFOs. The two year investigation to determine whether
|
|
or not Project Blue Book should be continued ultimately
|
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
cost the Air Force $525,905 and led directly to the
|
|
demise of ProJect Blue Book.(30:183)
|
|
Dr. Edward U. Condon was a distinguished physicist
|
|
and second in command at the secret atomic installation
|
|
in Los Alamos, New Mexico during the development of the
|
|
atomic bomb. Dr. Condon was also the former president
|
|
of both the American Association for the Advancement of
|
|
Science and the American Physical Society, and former
|
|
director of the U.S. Government's National Bureau of
|
|
Standards.(12:58) The selection of Dr. Condon as
|
|
Director of the University of Colorado's Scientific
|
|
Investigation of Unidentified Flying Objects (commonly
|
|
referred to as the Condon Committee) seemed to satisfy
|
|
both skeptical observers and those convinced of the
|
|
existence of UFOs. Dr. Condon's leadership appeared
|
|
to promise the scientific objectivity necessary for such
|
|
a study, but so obviously missing from Project Blue Book's
|
|
methodology. Associations such as the National Inves-
|
|
tigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) were
|
|
satisfied by the selection of Dr. Condon to lead the
|
|
new UFO study, but were bothered by a curious factor.
|
|
Four out of the first five investigators appointed by
|
|
Condon were psychologists. Robert J. Low, the project's
|
|
coordinator and key operations man held a Master's
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Degree in Business Administration (although his B.A.
|
|
was in Electrical Engineering). Many observers felt
|
|
that more physical scientists were needed and Dr. Condon
|
|
later corrected this imbalance.(12:58) Since Dr. Condor
|
|
pledged a fair study, UFOlogists such as Dr. J. Allen
|
|
Hynek, aided by NICAP, briefed the Condon Committee.
|
|
NICAP trained field teams and loaned the Condon Commit-
|
|
tee verified UFO reports submitted by pilots, aerospace
|
|
engineers and other capable observers.(12:62)
|
|
It appeared to satisfied UFOlogists that an objec-
|
|
tive UFO study was finally underway. Their satisfaction
|
|
was short-lived, however, by a remark made by the Pro-
|
|
ject Coordinator of the Condon Committee in October 1966,
|
|
Robert Low was quoted by "The Denver Post" as saying that
|
|
the UFO project "comes pretty close to the criteria of
|
|
nonacceptability" as a university function.(12:58) On
|
|
January 25, 1967, Dr. Edward Condon, speaking before an
|
|
honorary scientific fraternity remarked, "Unidentified
|
|
Flying obJects are not the business of the Air Force...
|
|
it is my inclination right now to recommend that the
|
|
Government get out this business...my attitude right
|
|
now is that there's nothing to it...but I'm not supposed
|
|
to reach a conclusion for another year...."(12:58) The
|
|
fact that Dr. Condon maintained that some of his remarks
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
had been taken out of context did little to bolster the
|
|
confidence that UFOlogists formerly possessed regarding
|
|
the Condon Committee. NICAP continued to cooperate with
|
|
Dr. Condon and the University of Colorado but was increas-
|
|
ingly disturbed by rumors of internal friction from within
|
|
the Condon Committee. Robert Low was apparently giving
|
|
staff members considerable leeway in the approaches
|
|
they were taking to the study. Dr. Condon appeared
|
|
before committee members infrequently and could rarely
|
|
be reached by phone. During this time, Dr. David R.
|
|
Sanders, a scientific investigator on Condon's staff
|
|
complained that several interesting UFO cases were turned
|
|
down by project coordinator Low for what was apparently
|
|
specious reasons.(12:50) Dr. Norman Levine, another
|
|
scientific member on Dr. Condon' s staff, joined the pro-
|
|
ject after it was well underway and was immediately
|
|
aware of the strained atmosphere developing between Low
|
|
and several members of the staff. Dr. Condon, himself, was
|
|
heard to say that he wished he could give the Air Force's
|
|
money back.(12:59)
|
|
The project's credibility suffered another blow when
|
|
a member of Dr. Condon's staff was asked to speak before
|
|
a teachers association regarding the UFO project. The
|
|
staff member began looking for information regarding
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
the origin of the project and was advised to check the
|
|
open file folder under the heading "Air Force Contract
|
|
and Background".(12:59) This advice led to the discovery
|
|
of a memo written by Dr. Robert Low to university offic-
|
|
ials on August 9, 1966, three months before the UFO
|
|
study officially began. The memo, labeled "Some Thoughts
|
|
on the UFO Project" revealed the study was not as objec-
|
|
tive and unbiased as first thought. Robert Low's memo
|
|
to university officials read:
|
|
|
|
Our study would be conducted almost exclus-
|
|
ively by nonbelievers who, although they could-
|
|
n't possibly prove a negative result could, and
|
|
probably would, add an impressive body of evi-
|
|
dence that there is no reality to the obser-
|
|
vations. The trick would be, I think, to des-
|
|
cribe the project so that, to the public, it
|
|
would appear a totally objective study but to
|
|
the scientific community would present the
|
|
image of a group of nonbelievers trying their
|
|
best to be objective, but having almost zero
|
|
expectation of finding a saucer. One way to do
|
|
this would be to stress investigation, not of
|
|
physical phenomena, but rather of the people
|
|
who do the observing - the psychology and soc-
|
|
iology of persons and groups who report seeing
|
|
UFOs. If the emphasis were put here, rather
|
|
than on examination of the old question of the
|
|
physical reality of the saucer, I think the
|
|
scientific community would quickly get the mes-
|
|
sage....I'm inclined to feel at this early
|
|
stage that, if we set up the thing right and
|
|
take pains to get proper people involved and
|
|
have success in presenting the image we want
|
|
to present to the scientific community, we
|
|
could carry the job off to our benefit.(30:211)
|
|
|
|
Professor Condon continued to make statements not
|
|
befitting a supposedly unbiased scientific investi
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
gator. On September 13, 1967, Dr. Condon made a speech
|
|
at the Atomic Spectroscopy Symposium at Gaithersburg,
|
|
Maryland. The entire body of Dr. Condon's speech was
|
|
dedicated to UFO reports made by obviously disturbed
|
|
People. Dr. Condon, failed to mention or elaborate
|
|
on any of the good, solid reports that comprised a
|
|
large majority of UFO sightings. It was particularly
|
|
disturbing to Dr. Hynek, NICAP, Dr. Levine, David Sanders
|
|
and many other members of the Condon Committee that Pro-
|
|
fessor Condon seemed preoccupied with the antics of the
|
|
lunatic fringe and the "kookie" aspects of the UFO
|
|
problem.(14:206)
|
|
The Condon Committee decided to investigate eighty-
|
|
seven UFO reports. Fourteen of the eighty-seven cases
|
|
were previously evaluated by both Project Blue Book and
|
|
NICAP as obvious misperceptions. Dr. Condon selected
|
|
only a small percentage of the total cases for review;
|
|
and unfortunately, many of those he chose were trivial.
|
|
(14:204)
|
|
Many of Dr. Condon's staff became increasingly
|
|
disturbed by the biased, unscientific, and negative
|
|
approach Dr. Condon and Robert Low were taking toward
|
|
the UFO study.(12:60) The majority of Condon's staff
|
|
once considered resigning en masse or issuing a press
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
release or a minority report. They speculated that Dr.
|
|
Condon was tired and disenchanted.(12:60)
|
|
On January 19, 1968, Dr. James McDonald of the
|
|
University of Arizona informed Dr. Condon that he was
|
|
personally disturbed by Condon's disturbing preoccu-
|
|
pation with crackpots and the negative tone of Dr.
|
|
Condon's statements over a period of time. Dr. McDonald
|
|
stressed that he was also disappointed in Dr. Condon's
|
|
failure to personally investigate significant field
|
|
cases or to question any of the working staff who had
|
|
been making a serious UFO study.(12:61) At this point Dr.
|
|
David Saunders and Dr. Norman Levine released Dr. Low's
|
|
memo to Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Dr. James McDonald, and
|
|
NICAP. Dr. Condon, furious at the news leak from what
|
|
he considered confidential files, immediately fired both
|
|
Saunders and Levine. Actually, the files were never
|
|
considered personal. The relaxed open-file system was
|
|
part of a general policy to keep the UFO project out of
|
|
the cloak-and-dagger category.(12:69) NICAP immediately
|
|
suspended cooperation with the Condon Committee upon
|
|
the firing of Saunders and Levine, and the obvious
|
|
slanted approach being taken by Robert Low and Dr.
|
|
Condon. Mary Louise Armstrong, a member of the Condon
|
|
Committee and former secretary for Dr. Condon as well
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
as a supporter of Dr. Saunders and Dr. Levine resigned
|
|
her position soon after their firings. Her letter of
|
|
resignation accused Project Director Robert Low with neg-
|
|
ativism and bias.(14:212)
|
|
It was regrettable that Saunders was fired because he
|
|
had begun to computerize the UFO data available from var-
|
|
ious sources and had over 30,000 cases on tape available
|
|
for analysis.(14:200) This was precisely the type of meth-
|
|
odology that Dr. Hynek maintained Project Blue Book lacked.
|
|
Dr. Condon had the most sophisticated data ever recorded
|
|
at his fingertips but disregarded it when Saunders was
|
|
fired. Dr. Condon, instead, analyzed eighty-seven cases,
|
|
many current, and many of which did not even satisfy the
|
|
definition of legitimate UFO reports.(14:200)
|
|
In 1969, to almost no one's surprise, what was left
|
|
of the Condon Committee released its findings which con-
|
|
cluded:
|
|
|
|
Careful consideration of the record as it
|
|
is available to us leads us to conclude that
|
|
further extensive study of UFOs probably can
|
|
not be justified in the expectation that science
|
|
will be advanced hereupon.(14:193)
|
|
|
|
As if this were not enough, Dr. Condon displayed
|
|
his bias openly in the summary of his study by stating:
|
|
|
|
A related problem to which we wish to direct
|
|
public attention is the miseducation in our
|
|
schools which arises from the fact that many
|
|
children are being allowed, if not merely encour-
|
|
|
|
79
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
aged, to devote their science study-time to
|
|
the reading of UFO books and magazine articles
|
|
of the type referred to in the preceding para-
|
|
graph. We feel that children are educationally
|
|
harmed by absorbing unsound and erroneous mat-
|
|
erial as if it were scientifically well founded.
|
|
Such study is harmful not merely because of the
|
|
erroneous nature of the material itself, but
|
|
also because such study retards the development
|
|
of a critical faculty with regard to scientific
|
|
evidence, which to some degree ought to be part
|
|
of the education of every American.
|
|
Therefore, we strongly recommend that teachers
|
|
refrain from giving students credit for school
|
|
work based on their reading of the presently
|
|
available UFO books and magazine articles. Teach-
|
|
ers who find their students strongly motivated
|
|
in this direction should attempt to channel their
|
|
interests in the direction of serious study of
|
|
astronomy and meteorology, and in the direction
|
|
of critical analysis of arguments for fantastic
|
|
propositions that are being supported by appeals
|
|
to fallacious reasoning or false data.
|
|
We hope that the results of our study will
|
|
prove useful to scientists and those responsible
|
|
for the formation of public policy generally in
|
|
dealing with this problem which has now been
|
|
with us for 21 years.(1:8)
|
|
|
|
This could hardly be considered the remarks of an un-
|
|
biased scientist. These closing remarks by Dr. Condon
|
|
were disturbingly similar to the attitudes expressed
|
|
by some of the scientific fraternity of antiquity
|
|
regarding anything that differed from their beliefs.
|
|
Since the Air Force accepted the Condon Report in its
|
|
entirety, Project Blue Book was doomed and officially
|
|
closed its files on December 18, 1969. Once more
|
|
Captain Ruppelt's now prophetic statement comes to
|
|
mind: "here were people deciding that there was nothing
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
to this UFO busi@ess right at a time when the reports
|
|
seemed to be getting better."(29:83) The visual reports
|
|
were not only getting better, some reports were even
|
|
supported through hypnosis and the use of sodium
|
|
pentothal.
|
|
|
|
The Pascagoula, Mississippi Case
|
|
|
|
On October 11, 1973, Charles Hickson and Calvin
|
|
Parker, two Pascagoula, Mississippi shipyard workers,
|
|
claimed they were abducted and forced to board a space
|
|
craft. While aboard the craft, they claimed to have
|
|
undergone a physical examination much like the one
|
|
described by Barney and Betty Hill. On October 30,
|
|
1973 , Charles Hickson was hypnotized and underwent a
|
|
2 1/2 hour lie detector test administered by a New Orleans
|
|
detective firm. Officials claimed the test confirmed
|
|
that Hickson was telling the truth as to what he be-
|
|
lieved happened.(16:4) Parker did not undergo lie
|
|
detection tests because of a nervous breakdown immed-
|
|
iately following the UFO sighting. Calvin Parker still
|
|
refuses to give interviews or even talk about his UFO
|
|
experience. He simply wants to be left alone.(7:47)
|
|
Charles Hickson, like Barney Hill, stated under hyp-
|
|
nosis that the humanoids aboard the UFO conversed in
|
|
a "humming" manner.(7:40) As in the Barney and Betty
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Hill case, the Pascagoula sighting was also observed by
|
|
radar shortly after Parker and Hickson claimed they
|
|
were released.
|
|
|
|
The Bahia Blanca, Argentina Case
|
|
|
|
During the same month as the Pascagoula, Mississippi
|
|
UFO sighting, Senor Dionisio Yanca, an Argentine trucker
|
|
suffering from unexplained shock underwent treatment
|
|
with sodium pentothal. While under the effect or this
|
|
truth serum, Senor Yanca claimed he was forced by
|
|
aliens from another galaxy to spend 1 1/2 hours aboard a
|
|
flying saucer. Like Barney Hill and Charles Hickson,
|
|
Senor Yanca stated that the UFO occupants conversed in
|
|
a "humming" manner.(13:21-A) Senor Yanca maintained
|
|
that creatures from the spaceship connected a hose to
|
|
high tension wires and another to a small lagoon. The
|
|
Bahia Blanca Electric Company reported a sharp and unex-
|
|
plained rise in power consumption at the time and a
|
|
UFO was sighted by an Argentine airbase near Bahia
|
|
Blanca on the same day Senor Yanca claimed he was
|
|
abducted. Senor Yanca cannot remember any portion of
|
|
the UFO incident when he is conscious and not under the
|
|
influence of truth serum.(13:21-A)
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The Ubatuba, Brazil Case
|
|
|
|
Many excellent UFO sightings have occurred in South
|
|
America including a sighting which produced three frag-
|
|
ments from a UFO that exploded in midair near Ubatuba,
|
|
Brazil in September 1957. Fishermen reported seeing a
|
|
UFO approaching the beach at an unbelievable speed.
|
|
The object pulled upward at the last moment and exploded
|
|
over the ocean. Several small particles landed on the
|
|
beach and were retrieved by the fishermen. Three of
|
|
these particles were sent to the Aerial Phenomenon
|
|
Research Organization (APRO) in Tucson, Arizona by the
|
|
late Dr. Olavo T. Fontes, M.D., APRO's representative
|
|
in Brazil.(30:171) The Mineral Production Laboratory,
|
|
a division of Mineral Production in Brazil's Ministry
|
|
of Agriculture analyzed the metal fragments. The anal-
|
|
ysis proved the density of one sample to be 1.866. The
|
|
density of pure terrestrial magnesium is 1.741.(30:171)
|
|
APRO submitted one fragment to the Air Force for further
|
|
analysis, but an emission spectrograph operator acciden-
|
|
tally burned up the entire sample before obtaining any
|
|
results. The Air Force asked for another sample but
|
|
APRO refused. APRO finally relented and consented to
|
|
send one of the two remaining particles to the Atomic
|
|
Energy Commission Laboratories, but these tests also
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
proved disastrous. This particle was also "accidentally"
|
|
destroyed with no further explanation.(30:171)
|
|
Dr. David Saunders, of the Condon Committee, felt this
|
|
case possessed unusual potential merit and requested
|
|
that a piece of the remaining metallic fragment be mailed
|
|
to the University of Colorado. APRO would not entrust
|
|
valuable material to the United States mail and informed
|
|
Dr. Saunders that he would have to pick it up personally.
|
|
Dr. Norman Levine flew to Tucson, picked up a piece of
|
|
the fragment, and returned to Boulder, Colorado. Another
|
|
member of the Condon Committee later delivered the frag-
|
|
ment to Washington D.C. where it was analyzed by the
|
|
FBI laboratory. Analysis showed that the sample was
|
|
99.9% pure magnesium with an odd pattern of impurities
|
|
containing strontium, zinc, barium, manganese, and chro-
|
|
mium(30:173) The hypothesis drawn was that the alloy
|
|
had unusual strength. In 1957, the alloy was apparently
|
|
unknown on this planet. Today we do have the technology
|
|
to produce a large piece of the alloy and to test the
|
|
high strength hypothesis.(30:173)
|
|
The Ubatuba, Brazil UFO sighting was not listed in
|
|
Project Blue Book's files and, as far as this writer
|
|
could determine, no mention was made of the metalur-
|
|
gical analysis made of the UFO fragments. This partic-
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
ular case, although researched by investigators of the
|
|
Condon Committee, was not referred to in the final Condon
|
|
Report. This was not particularly surprising since Dr.
|
|
David Saunders and Dr. Norman Levine performed much of
|
|
the work on this particular case. When these two men
|
|
were fired from the Condon Cornmittee, much of their
|
|
effort was unfortunately discarded by Dr. Condon.
|
|
|
|
New Developments in the
|
|
Barney and Betty Hill Case
|
|
|
|
A fascinating postscript to the Barney and Betty
|
|
Hill case occurred shortly after the termination of Pro-
|
|
ject Blue Book. Shortly after the Hill sighting was
|
|
publicized, Marjorie Fish, a school teacher from Oak
|
|
Harbor, Ohio decided to construct a three dimensional
|
|
replica of all stars 32.6 light-years from our sun. In
|
|
1964, while hypnotized, Betty Hill had described and
|
|
sketched a star map she had seen on the wall of the space
|
|
ship she had been forced to enter in 1961. The purpose
|
|
of Marjorie Fish's three dimensional star model was an
|
|
attempt to locate the specific star pattern described
|
|
by Betty Hill in 1964. The star model was an intricate
|
|
and complicated device, but with the aid of the 1957 Von
|
|
W. "Gliese Star Catalog", each star was laboriously and
|
|
tediously placed in its proper location by threading
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
various colored beads on nylon thread and knotting them
|
|
in place.
|
|
In 1968, just as Marjorie Fish believed her star
|
|
model was nearly complete, a Gliese supplement was
|
|
published listing another 1000 stars. After completing
|
|
the project, Marjorie Fish was unable to locate the
|
|
proper star pattern regardless of the viewing angle
|
|
employed.(9:36) Marjorie Fish then enlarged her star
|
|
model to include all stars thought capable of sustain-
|
|
ing life within 65 light-years' radius of the Earth.
|
|
Finally, in 1969, Marjorie Fish received the break
|
|
through she had been searching for. The incident is
|
|
graphically described by UFOlogist Stanton Friedman:
|
|
|
|
Suddenly, almost magically, nine of the
|
|
stars in the pattern appeared; the same angular
|
|
pattern was too precise to be a coincidence...
|
|
Unmistakably, about 36 light-years away, were
|
|
the two close base stars. Zeta 1 Reticuli and
|
|
Zeta 2 Reticuli in the Constellation of Reticulum,
|
|
stars which are not familiar sights to persons
|
|
living in the Northern Hemisphere but which can
|
|
be seen by an observer with a telescope who is
|
|
below the Equator! The alien trade and explor-
|
|
ation lines became perfectly logical, going only
|
|
to systems considered to have planets where life
|
|
might develop. Their travel route was also
|
|
logical, going first to the nearest star and then
|
|
to the next one farther out, rather than skipping
|
|
around. The extraterrestrials had an advantage
|
|
in that the trip from Zeta 1 to Zeta 2 was a quick
|
|
jump of about one twentieth of a light-year - no
|
|
great distance for their early space explorers.
|
|
In our case, the nearest star of any kind is
|
|
Alpha Centauri which is over four light-years
|
|
from our Sun.
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Most of the other stars in the pattern were
|
|
quickly identified: Sol, Alpha Mensae, Tau Ceti,
|
|
82 Eridani, 107 Piscium, 54 Piscium, and Gliese
|
|
67. Still missing were the three stars which
|
|
formed the triangle to the left of the map Betty
|
|
had drawn, stars close enough to the surface of
|
|
the alien map to form a distinct geometric design
|
|
standing out prominently in Betty's memory... It
|
|
wasn't until the updated "1969 Gliese Catalogue
|
|
of Nearby Stars" became available to Marjorie
|
|
that the last three stars with connecting lines
|
|
as well as the stars in the triangle could be
|
|
pinned down and identified as the Constellation
|
|
Fornax. The triangle stars are identified by
|
|
the Gliese numbers of 86.1, 95, and 97. With
|
|
that specific star data, Marjorie had all the
|
|
proof she needed to confirm that Betty's map
|
|
could only have been drawn at the time as a
|
|
result of contact with extraterrestrials!
|
|
The Hills' experience occurred in 1961.
|
|
Betty Hill drew the map under hypnotic sug-
|
|
gestion in 1964. But, in 1964, the star 86.1
|
|
was not in any earthly star catalog as it had
|
|
not yet been listed! The other two stars,
|
|
95 and 97, had formerly been catalogued by
|
|
astronomers in incorrect parallax positions
|
|
which never would have produced the visual
|
|
star triangle Betty saw on the alien map!
|
|
The "1969 Gliese Catalogue" now made those
|
|
spatial corrections. No astronomer on Earth
|
|
from 1961 to 1964 could have known that the
|
|
triangle of background stars existed in its
|
|
present geometric design....(9:54, 56)
|
|
|
|
The discovery of an actual star pattern to match
|
|
Betty Hill's drawing was not the only fascinating post-
|
|
script to the Barney and Betty Hill sighting. In 1964,
|
|
Betty Hill maintained under hypnosis that humanoids
|
|
aboard a UFO had inserted a needle in her navel as a
|
|
test for pregnancy. This type of pregnancy testing was
|
|
unheard of at the time of the Hills' UFO sighting in
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
1961 and Betty's testimonial under hypnosis in 1964. In
|
|
the May 18, 1971, issue of "Look Magazine", however, an
|
|
article described the research of German and English
|
|
doctors who used a pencil-like viewing device, termed
|
|
an Iapaoscope. The device was inserted through a
|
|
woman's navel and provided a "panoramic view of the
|
|
peritoneal cavity and its contents". A procedure des-
|
|
cribed by Betty Hill in 1964, and unknown to medical
|
|
science at that time, was now a reality ten years after
|
|
Betty Hill's physical examination by members of a UFO
|
|
crew allegedly took place.(9:54)
|
|
The cases described in the latter portions of this
|
|
chapter are simply a few of the thousands of UFO sight-
|
|
ings which occur each year. Organizations such as
|
|
NICAP and APRO continue to do their best to research and
|
|
document all reports received by their offices, but they
|
|
lack the funds and the scope that a government-sponsored
|
|
organization might possess. Many good UFO sightings
|
|
remain unreported today simply because the observer does
|
|
not know where or to whom he should report them. If the
|
|
observer reports a UFO sighting to a nearby air base, he
|
|
is given the following standard reply:
|
|
|
|
On 17 December 1969 the Air Force termi-
|
|
nated Project Blue Book, the Air Force UFO
|
|
investigation program. This decision was
|
|
based on a University of Colorado study of
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
the program, a review of the University of
|
|
Colorado's report by the National Academy of
|
|
Sciences, past UFO studies and two decades of
|
|
Air Force experience in investigating UFOs.
|
|
The conclusions drawn from Project Blue Book
|
|
were: (1) no UFO reported, investigated, and
|
|
evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any
|
|
indication of threat to our national secur-
|
|
ity; (2) there has been no evidence submitted
|
|
to or discovered by the Air Force that sight-
|
|
ings categorized as "unidentified" represent
|
|
technological developments or principles beyond
|
|
the range of present-day scientific knowledge;
|
|
and (3) there has been no evidence indicating
|
|
that sightings categorized as "unidentified"
|
|
are extraterrestrial vehicles.
|
|
With the termination of Project Blue Book,
|
|
the regulation establishing and controlling
|
|
the program was rescinded and the Project
|
|
Blue Book records were transferred to the Air
|
|
Force Archives where they are available for a
|
|
cost to cover duplicating. The Air Force,
|
|
then, is no longer involved in UFO investi-
|
|
gation.(31:4)
|
|
|
|
The above memo has been forwarded to all USAF bases
|
|
and has been headed "GUIDANCE FOR REPLYING TO UFO
|
|
INQUIRIES". The paragraph preceding the body of the
|
|
memo is addressed to personnel who will disseminate
|
|
the message and reads as follows:
|
|
|
|
From time to time we receive inquiries on
|
|
how to handle UFO inquiries and sighting reports.
|
|
Our response to letters and Congressional Inquir-
|
|
ies provides the following information, which you
|
|
may wish to keep as policy for answering inquir-
|
|
ies...(31:4i
|
|
|
|
It is interesting to note that the above paragraph
|
|
refers to the fact that even Congressional Inquiries
|
|
are answered with the same explanation. The final para-
|
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
graph following the prepared reply for UFO inquiries
|
|
contains another message for Air Force personnel in
|
|
charge of answering UFO reports:
|
|
|
|
As further amplification, we suggest to
|
|
inquirers that if they are concerned about
|
|
their safety as a result of a UFO, they
|
|
should contact a law enforcement agency. If
|
|
they believe the UFO sighting has scientific
|
|
value, they should contact the nearest univer-
|
|
sity.(31:4)
|
|
|
|
One regrettable aspect of the Air Force's UFO project
|
|
was that many foreign governments neglected to undertake
|
|
UFO studies of their own. They felt that the United
|
|
States with all its facilities, was able to handle the
|
|
problem better than countries with more Limited facil-
|
|
ities.(14:173)
|
|
One country that didn't neglect to undertake its own
|
|
study is the USSR. Dr. Vsevold Troitsky, a well-known
|
|
soviet astrophysicist is currently in charge of four
|
|
widely-spaced detection stations. The stations are
|
|
designed to monitor signals from outer space and are
|
|
located in Siberia where man-made radio interference is
|
|
at a minimum. The results of this project have been
|
|
detected by Russian scientists several times a day for
|
|
a few minutes at a time. Dr. Troitsky claims the signals
|
|
were obviously carrying a message.(28:22) The sounds
|
|
are described by Dr. Troitsky and his associate, Dr.
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Nikolai Karadzshev as "definite call signals" from
|
|
another planet within our solar system that could only
|
|
have been transmitted by "civilized beings". Both
|
|
Soviet and American scientists denied that the signals
|
|
were coming from known spacecraft.(28:22)
|
|
The United States might well have been ahead of the
|
|
Soviet detection system if the U.S. Government had
|
|
followed the advice of Bernard M. Oliver ten years ago.
|
|
Oliver, recognized as one of the top electronic eng-
|
|
ineers in the country, proposed a listening station
|
|
that would "enable man to detect even the unintended
|
|
radiation from another intelligent race..."(28:22) In
|
|
the decade that was passed since Mr. Oliver made his
|
|
suggestion regarding a U.S. detection system, Project
|
|
Blue Book has been terminated. There seems little
|
|
evidence that Congress is ready to initiate, or even
|
|
suggest, another UFO study at this time, although some
|
|
members of Congress are well aware of the shortcomings
|
|
of Project Blue Book. Representative J. Edward Roush
|
|
(D-Ind) readily admits "the Air Force's Investigation
|
|
of UFOs was a farce" and the Condon Report "was a ruse
|
|
for the purpose of eliminating any further governmental
|
|
interest". Congressman Roush added that it is his
|
|
feeling that "many Congressmen are interested in UFOs"
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
but he feels there will be no move to appropriate money
|
|
for another study at present, because of today's polit-
|
|
ical climate.(35:17)
|
|
The question remains: If funds were available for
|
|
a federally-sponsored UFO study, who should undertake it?
|
|
The United States Air Force still has the world's best
|
|
resources and facilities available to conduct such an
|
|
investigation, but they tried once and failed. Is it
|
|
possible, after a five year hiatus and a new Air Force
|
|
Chief of Staff that the Air Force is now capable of
|
|
conducting an unbiased politically free UFO investi-
|
|
gation? The writers feel that this is extremely doubt-
|
|
ful. General George S. Brown, the new Air Force Chief
|
|
of Staff, admittedly encourages more open discussion
|
|
between the Air Force, the media, and the general public
|
|
than his predecessor. General Brown's philosophy of
|
|
open discussion apparently does not seem to pertain to
|
|
himself, however, at least so far as the subject of
|
|
UFOs is concerned.
|
|
On August 13, 1973, Mr. Allen F. Sandler, President,
|
|
Institutional Films, Inc. wrote a letter to SAFOI inform-
|
|
ing them of an upcoming television documentary on UFOs
|
|
that he was producing. The film was to be narrated by
|
|
Mr. Rod Serling and Mr. Sandler informed SAFOI that one
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
of the goals of the program was to clarify the position
|
|
of the Department of the Defense regarding UFOs and to
|
|
clear up the misconception that there is a government
|
|
conspiracy to cover up the UFO project. In a letter to
|
|
SAFOI dated October 29, 1973, Mr. Sandler enclosed a
|
|
script of his intended production of UFOs for SAFOI's
|
|
evaluation. Mr. Sandler also requested permission to
|
|
film various Air Force locations, the Project Blue Book
|
|
files, and to film an interview with General George S.
|
|
Brown. On December 12, 1973, Norman T. Hatch, Chief,
|
|
Audio-Visual Division, Directorate for Defense Infor-
|
|
mation, Washington, D.C., answered Mr. Sandler's re-
|
|
quests by giving him permission to photograph certain
|
|
unclassified portions of the requested areas. As for
|
|
Mr. Sandler's request to interview General Brown, Mr.
|
|
Hatch wrote the following reply:
|
|
|
|
General George S. Brown and Colonel George
|
|
Weinbrenner do not desire to participate in the
|
|
UFO program. No film interviews with military
|
|
personnel at the above-mentioned installations
|
|
are authorized. Any further requests for film
|
|
interviews must be submitted to this office for
|
|
approval....We agree with your suggestion that
|
|
the official Department of Defense position be
|
|
expressed on the show. If you desire, a spokes-
|
|
man will be made available to be filmed stating
|
|
the current position of the Department of Defense
|
|
on UFOs.(31:2)
|
|
|
|
There was no mention made as to whom the possible
|
|
Air Force spokesman would be, but Mr. Sandler later
|
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
informed employees who safeguard the Project Blue Book
|
|
files that the Last Director of Project Blue Book would
|
|
appear in his television documentary. Whether or not
|
|
the former Director of Project Blue Book is the official
|
|
government spokesman, there is little doubt as to what
|
|
the position of the Department of the Defense will be.
|
|
Page one of Mr. Hatch's letter of December 12, 1973,
|
|
to Mr. Sandler includes a remark which is a good indica-
|
|
tion that the current Air Force position on Project Blue
|
|
Book and UFOs has remained unchanged since 1969:
|
|
|
|
Components of the DoD have not engaged in
|
|
the investigation of UFO reports for several
|
|
years. The mission ended for the simple rea-
|
|
son that no scientific evidence supported a
|
|
need for its continuation.(31:1)
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER V
|
|
|
|
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
|
|
|
|
There are many fascinating and convincing argu-
|
|
ments both supporting and refuting the existence of
|
|
UFOs. Advocates of both positions have one thing in
|
|
common: they are very often rigid in their beliefs
|
|
and inflexible to arguments which conflict with their
|
|
hypotheses. But after pro and con evidence has been
|
|
weighed, after the scientific dogmatism has been elim-
|
|
inated, after explanations of natural phenomena have
|
|
been accounted for, and long after the facade of ob-
|
|
vious deception has been stripped away, one entity
|
|
remains obvious: there have been literally thousands
|
|
of credible UFO sightings that have lacked satisfac-
|
|
tory explanation. Millions of respectable people
|
|
have witnessed something in the heavens that simply
|
|
cannot be explained as natural phenomena.
|
|
|
|
Conclusions
|
|
|
|
After completing the UFO research and after scru-
|
|
tinizing the original Project Blue Book files, the
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
writers have concluded that both Project Blue Book and
|
|
the Condon report seem to lack credibility. Both
|
|
investigations appear to be biased, shallow attempts
|
|
at explaining the complex mysteries of UFOs. But why?
|
|
Why should Project Blue Book, with the world's best
|
|
facilities readily available, end in such dismal
|
|
failure? The lack of a satisfactory answer to this
|
|
question has given rise to other questions concerning
|
|
Project Blue Book. Was there political pressure on
|
|
the part of the Air Force or some other governmental
|
|
agency to cover-up or influence the investigation and
|
|
conclusions of the Project Blue Book staff? Why didn't
|
|
the Air Force transcribe their UFO findings to data
|
|
processing and a central memory bank for easier cross-
|
|
reference? Did the constant changing of Project Blue
|
|
Book's directorship upset the stability of the inves-
|
|
tigation?
|
|
|
|
The Question of Political Pressure
|
|
|
|
The writers feel that the Air Force did, indeed,
|
|
influence the conclusions reached by the Project Blue
|
|
Book staff. On September 23, 1947, the Chief of ATIC
|
|
sent a retter to the Commanding General of the Armed
|
|
Forces stating that UFOs were real. One year later,
|
|
the official Air Force attitude seemed to have mysteri-
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
ously reversed itself at a time when former Project
|
|
Blue Book Director, Captain E. J. Ruppelt, admitted that
|
|
UFO reports were getting better.(29:85) The writers
|
|
found that since late September 1947, the Air Force
|
|
apparently made it a standard operating procedure to
|
|
support their new-founded hypothesis no matter how con-
|
|
vincing the evidence was to the contrary. Although
|
|
many UFO sightings were admittedly easily explainable,
|
|
the Air Force and Project Blue Book repeatedly resorted
|
|
to trite unfounded explanations in an attempt to ex-
|
|
plain even the more credible UFO reports. Promising
|
|
leads were often dropped with unsatisfactory explana-
|
|
tions, questionable UFO reports listed as a "possible
|
|
balloon" or "possibly a planet" were changed to "balloon"
|
|
or "planet" for no apparent reason other than closing
|
|
the files on the cases. If there were many witnesses
|
|
to a UFO sighting, the Project Blue Book staff would
|
|
ask for further proof, such as photos. If photos were
|
|
supplied, they were branded as "fakes". If motion
|
|
picture footage was furnished, it was labeled as "natural
|
|
phenomena" and sometimes returned to the owner with
|
|
several frames of film missing. If supposed fragments
|
|
of a UFO were sent to a government lab for study, they
|
|
were "accidentally" destroyed while undergoing examina-
|
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
tion. In short, the Air Force seemed to repeatedly
|
|
exhibit bias and to conduct shoddy methodology in lieu
|
|
of professionally scientific investigation. The methods
|
|
used gave the writers the impression that there was
|
|
political pressure to influence the investigation and
|
|
conclusions of the Project Blue Book staffs.
|
|
It is difficult to determine whether or not pressure
|
|
was applied to Project Blue Book by any governmental
|
|
agency other than the Air Force. We do know that the
|
|
Robertson panel met in 1953 under the auspices of the
|
|
CIA and that the records of this meeting are "mysteri-
|
|
uusly" clipped from the original Project Blue Book files,
|
|
but the writers have not been able to determine who was
|
|
responsible for this censorship. We also know that Dr.
|
|
Edward Condon was selected by the Department of Defense
|
|
to conduct the investigation which ultimately led to the
|
|
demise of Project Blue Book. Why was Dr. Condon, of all
|
|
qualified scientists, selected? Was it simply because
|
|
he was a renowned scientist? Was it because he was
|
|
formerly Assistant Director of the Atomic Bomb Project
|
|
at Los Alamos Proving Grounds and could be trusted with
|
|
sensitive information? Or was it because Dr. Condon,
|
|
in his previous capacity, might have been affiliated
|
|
with another governmental agency such as the CIA? The
|
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
writers do not know. Any conclusion would merely be
|
|
speculation. It seems odd, however, that a renowned
|
|
scientist of Dr. Condon's stature, a man whose entire
|
|
life had been dedicated to careful research and sci-
|
|
entific methodology peculiarly conducted a very biased
|
|
and amateurish UFO investigation which was certainly
|
|
unworthy of a man of Dr. Condon's esteem. Why? Again,
|
|
the writers do not know for certain, but pressures
|
|
applied by another governmental agency cannot be ruled
|
|
out as the possible cause of such unorthodox action.
|
|
|
|
The Question of Project Blue Book's
|
|
Filing System
|
|
|
|
It would have been extremely beneficial to transfer
|
|
the various aspects of Project Blue Book's UFO sightings
|
|
to data processing and a central memory bank for valuably
|
|
future cross-reference, but no attempt was made to do so
|
|
Why? Would the cost have been prohibitive? This is
|
|
doubtful since the Air Force apparently had little trou-
|
|
ble in obtaining over $500,000 for the Condon Study.
|
|
Was it possible that the Air Force didn't want its UFO
|
|
information to be cross-referenced for future UFO
|
|
studies and correlations? This theory could conceiv-
|
|
ably possess merit. Not only did the Air Force fail
|
|
to commit its valuable data regarding UFO sightings to
|
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
data processing, but Dr. Condon completely disregarded,
|
|
and presumably destroyed, over 30,000 such computerized
|
|
inputs. These inputs were tabulated by a Condon Com-
|
|
mittee member, Dr. David Saunders, who was attempting
|
|
to put the UFO information in some useable order. Dr.
|
|
Saunders was later fired by Dr. Condon.
|
|
The writers feel it is extremely important that any
|
|
new UFO study be completely computerized and that all
|
|
data currently stored in Project Blue Book's files be
|
|
computerized for easy cross reference. If this were
|
|
accomplished, it would be quite simple to immediately
|
|
compare various aspects of sightings throughout the
|
|
world with other sightings that have taken place. A
|
|
lack of this type of methodical record-keeping was one
|
|
of the most significant criticisms of Project Blue
|
|
Book's filing system. The Barney and Betty Hill sight-
|
|
ing, for instance, had many things in common with the
|
|
Pascagoula, Mississippi and Bahia Blanca sightings.
|
|
Barney Hill, Charles Hickson, and Dionisio Yanca all
|
|
maintained under the influence of hypnosis or sodium
|
|
pentothal (truth serum) that their captives employed
|
|
a "humming-type" of speech, the skin color (or lack of
|
|
color) of the UFO occupants was basically the same in
|
|
all three cases, as was the description of the interior
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
lighting of the three space ships. These are extremely
|
|
important observations, but there is presently no method
|
|
to compare such facts as these without painstaking re-
|
|
search of each individual sighting. A computer memory
|
|
bank would eliminate the necessity for this time-con-
|
|
suming and methodical research, thus many comparisons
|
|
and conclusions could conceivably be drawn that might
|
|
otherwise be overlooked.
|
|
|
|
The Question of Project Blue Book's
|
|
Changing Directorship
|
|
|
|
Did the constant changing of Project Blue Book's
|
|
Directorship upset the stability of the Project's UFO
|
|
investigation? The writers feel that this is very
|
|
likely. While it is true that the Air Force has a
|
|
policy of shifting its personnel, the writers feel that
|
|
a better method of appointing and retaining Project
|
|
Blue Book Directors could have been followed. Instead
|
|
of appointing young officers with little background or
|
|
motivation to lead such an important project as Project
|
|
Blue Book, more importance should have been placed on
|
|
a potential director's background, his technical exper-
|
|
tise, and his familiarity with scientific research and
|
|
methodology. Project Blue Book's Directors should have
|
|
been appointed to at least a four year tour and their
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
successor should have possessed equal qualifications
|
|
and tenure. The writers are mindful or the fact that
|
|
the last Director of Project Blue Book remained at the
|
|
helm for over six years, but the writers believe that
|
|
there is sufficient evidence to assume that he was
|
|
retained because of his willingness to "go along with
|
|
the pretext".
|
|
|
|
The Question of a New Study
|
|
|
|
It is apparent to the writers that Project Blue
|
|
Book suffered from bias, faulty research, political
|
|
pressure, an inadequate staff, and a shoddy, antiquated
|
|
filing system. In short, Project Blue Book lacked the
|
|
necessary scientific methodology warranted by an impor-
|
|
tant study of this nature.
|
|
The writers feel that their research has proven a
|
|
new UFO study is definitely warranted. Any new study,
|
|
however, should profit from the mistakes of Project
|
|
Blue Book and the Condon Committee and incorporate the
|
|
lessons learned from their failures. Any new UFO pro-
|
|
gram should be free from bias and political influence;
|
|
it should also transcribe all old and new input concern-
|
|
ing UFO sightings to data processing and a central mem-
|
|
ory bank. Any new UFO study should carefully employ
|
|
scientific methodology in their investigation and should
|
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
maintain a stable, well-qualified, highly motivated
|
|
leadership. But once again, the writers must ask the
|
|
question: If a new UFO study is warranted, who should
|
|
undertake it?
|
|
It is doubtful that the Air Force, or any DoD agency
|
|
could conduct a truly scientific study in this politi-
|
|
cally volatile subject, considering the past history of
|
|
Project Blue Book. Any new UFO study should be inde-
|
|
pendent of the military and should be undertaken by
|
|
Prominent scientists and astronomers in the United States.
|
|
Ideally, these scientists could form a national organ-
|
|
ization whose prime purpose would be the investigation
|
|
of UFOs. Such an organization could cooperate and ex-
|
|
change information with scientists and astronomers
|
|
throughout the world, as well as with private agencies
|
|
such as Dr. J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO studies.
|
|
Such an organization should be financed by the govern-
|
|
ment and should report to a congressional sub-committee.
|
|
Hopefully, this would free the organization from poli-
|
|
tical influence, bias, and pre-judgement, and would
|
|
encourage an open discussion of questions and findings.
|
|
Ideally, such a national organization would divide the
|
|
United States into regions or sections. Each area
|
|
should maintain transportation which would be available
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
whenever needed to investigate UFO sightings and landings
|
|
within a few hours of their occurrence.
|
|
Much has happened since Congressman J. Edward Roush
|
|
remarked that he felt there was a little chance of
|
|
congress appropriating money for a new UFO study. A
|
|
new desire for truth from government officials and
|
|
agencies is rampant throughout the land. Perhaps in
|
|
today's world of congressional hearings and behind-the
|
|
scenes government exposes, the shallowness and hypocrisy
|
|
of the Project Blue Book and Condon investigations can
|
|
be more readily comprehended by members of congress.
|
|
This possibility together with the increasing cred-
|
|
ibility of current UFO sightings, some even supported
|
|
by hypnosis and sodium pentothal, could possibly con-
|
|
vince congress that there is indeed a definite need to
|
|
support a new UFO investigation.
|
|
|
|
Recommendations
|
|
|
|
As a result of this study, the following specific
|
|
recommendations are made concerning Project Blue Book:
|
|
|
|
1. A new UFO study should be initiated under
|
|
the guidance of a congressional sub-com-
|
|
mittee. No Defense Department agencies
|
|
should be directly involved in the study.
|
|
|
|
2. A national UFO organization should be
|
|
created whose membership is comprised of
|
|
scientists and astronomers with respected
|
|
professional reputations and proven ability
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
to conduct serious scientific research.
|
|
|
|
3. Ideally, such national organization
|
|
would divide the United States into re-
|
|
gions or sections. Each area should
|
|
maintain transportation which would be
|
|
available whenever needed to investigate
|
|
UFO sightings and landings within a few
|
|
hours of their occurrence.
|
|
|
|
4. Such a national UFO organization should
|
|
cooperate and exchange information with
|
|
scientists and astronomers throughout the
|
|
world, as well as with private agencies
|
|
such as Dr. J. Allen Hynek' s Center for
|
|
UFO Studies.
|
|
|
|
5. The Project Blue Book files at Maxwell AFB
|
|
should be completely catalogued, system-
|
|
atized, and computerized. This effort
|
|
should be accomplished by the new research
|
|
group as a method of familiarizing them
|
|
with the total past history of government
|
|
research in this area.
|
|
|
|
After more than a quarter of a century of evasion,
|
|
procrastination, and unsatisfactory explanations by the
|
|
Air Force, the American public has a right to demand and
|
|
receive an unbiased, scientific UFO investigation. The
|
|
writers feel that such an investigation conducted by
|
|
an organization comprised of prominent scientists and
|
|
astronomers free from political influence is an idea
|
|
whose time has arrived.
|
|
|
|
105
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY
|
|
|
|
Many of the footnotes in this paper are marked
|
|
"file". This indicates that the reference material
|
|
can be located in the Project Blue Book files at
|
|
the Albert F. Simpson Historical Research Center,
|
|
Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama. In
|
|
order to locate the desired file, one must ask for
|
|
the material by name, date, and location of sight-
|
|
ing (if applicable), and fire number (if known).
|
|
For example, a footnote listed as "(26:file)" indi-
|
|
cates it is the twenty-sixth item in this Bibliog-
|
|
raphy. In this case, it is a reference to Project
|
|
Blue Book's file on Barney and Betty Hill. To lo-
|
|
cate this file, one must utilize the information
|
|
from the twenty-sixth entry to this Bibliography
|
|
and ask the Albert F. Simpson Historical Research
|
|
Center personnel for "the Barney and Betty Hill
|
|
file, dated September 21, 1961, location of sight-
|
|
ing: Portsmouth, New Hampshire. File K243.6012-1."
|
|
|
|
1. AD 680-975, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
|
|
Objects", Boulder, Colorado. University of California:
|
|
Edward U. Condon, 1968.
|
|
|
|
2. AD 680-976, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
|
|
Objects", Boulder, Colorado. University of California:
|
|
Edward U. Condon, 1968.
|
|
|
|
3. AD 680-977, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
|
|
Objects", Boulder, Colorado. University of California:
|
|
Edward U. Condon, 1968.
|
|
|
|
4. "A Fresh Look at Flying Saucers," Time, Vol. 90
|
|
(4 August 1967), 32-33.
|
|
|
|
5. "Are Flying Saucers Real? Latest on an Old Mystery,"
|
|
U.S. News & World Report, Vol. 75 (5 November 1973), 75-76.
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
6. Davidson,Leon. "Flying Saucers: An analysis of the
|
|
Air Force Project Blue Book, Special Report No. 14"; New
|
|
York: Leon Davidson, 1956.
|
|
|
|
7. Eszterhas, Joe "Clawmen from the Outer Space,"
|
|
Rolling Stone (17 January 1974), 26-27, 38, 40, 42, 44,
|
|
46-47.
|
|
|
|
8. Flammonde, Paris. "The Age of Flying Saucers." New
|
|
York: Hawthorne Books, Inc., 1971.
|
|
|
|
9. Friedman, Stanton and Slate, Ann B. "UFO Star Bases
|
|
Discovered," Saga, Vol. 46 (July 1973), 37-56.
|
|
|
|
10. Fuller, John G. "Aboard a Flying Saucer," Part 1,
|
|
Look, Vol. 30 (4 October 1966), 45-48, 53-56.
|
|
|
|
11. Fuller, John G. "Aboard a Flying Saucer," Part 2,
|
|
Look, Vol. 30 (18 October 1966), 111-114, 116, 118-119.
|
|
|
|
12. Fuller, John G. "Flying Saucer Fiasco," Look,
|
|
Vol. 32 (14 May 1968), 58-62.
|
|
|
|
13. "His Little Green Men Haunt Him," The Atlanta
|
|
Journal and Constitution (20 January 1974), 21-A.
|
|
|
|
14. Hynek, J. Allen. "The UFO Experience a Scientific
|
|
Inquiry". Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1972.
|
|
|
|
15. Koch, Howard. "The Panic Broadcast". Boston-Toronto:
|
|
Little, Brown and Company, 1970.
|
|
|
|
16. "Lie Test Bears out Pascagoula Story," The Birming-
|
|
ham News (31 October 1973), 4.
|
|
|
|
17. Luttrell, John H. "I was Quizzed in Space Ship,"
|
|
Boston Traveler (27 October 1965), B-2.
|
|
|
|
18. Luttrell, John H. "UFO Chiller! Did they Seize
|
|
Couple?," Boston Traveler (25 October 1965), B-7.
|
|
|
|
19. Luttrell, John H. "Was this the Moment of Truth?"
|
|
Boston Traveler (30 October 1965), B-8.
|
|
|
|
20. Macomber, Frank. "More Americans Taking UFOs more
|
|
Seriously than in Past," Alabama Journal (13 December
|
|
1973), 20.
|
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
21. Page, Thornton and Sagan, Carl, UFOs a Scientific
|
|
Debate". Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972.
|
|
|
|
22. Personal correspondence: from Norman T. Hatch,
|
|
Chief, Audio-Visual Division Directorate for Defense
|
|
Information, Washington, D.C. to Allen F. Sandler,
|
|
President, Sandler Institutional Films, Inc., December
|
|
12, 1973. Letter on file at counter, Albert F. Simpson
|
|
Historical Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base,
|
|
Montgomery, Alabama.
|
|
|
|
23. Project Blue Book, Albert F. Simpson Historical
|
|
Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery,
|
|
Alabama File K243.6012, Synopsis of Headquarters Air
|
|
Material Command Technical Report "Unidentified Flying
|
|
Objects, Project Grudge," 31 Aug 1949.
|
|
|
|
24. Project Blue Book, Albert F. Simpson Historical
|
|
Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery,
|
|
Alabama. File K243.6012-12, Captain E. J. Ruppelt ADC
|
|
Briefing January 24, 1953.
|
|
|
|
25. Project Blue Book, Albert F. Simpson Historical
|
|
Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery,
|
|
Alabama. File K243.6012, History of Project, January
|
|
1956.
|
|
|
|
26. Project Blue Book, Albert F. Simpson Historical
|
|
Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery,
|
|
Alabama. File K243.6012-1, Barney and Betty Hill File,
|
|
Portsmouth, N.H. , September 21, 1961.
|
|
|
|
27. Project Blue Book, Albert F. Simpson Historical
|
|
Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery,
|
|
Alabama. File K243.6012, 1968 Project Blue Book Report
|
|
1968.
|
|
|
|
28. Richmond, Ann. "Russians now Lead the Race to
|
|
Decode Deep-Space Signals," The National Tattler
|
|
(17 February 1974), 22.
|
|
|
|
29. Ruppelt, Edward J. "The Report on Unidentified
|
|
Flying Objects". New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
|
|
1956.
|
|
|
|
30. Saunders, David R. and Harkins, R. Roger. "UFOs?
|
|
Yes! Where The Condon Committee went Wrong". New York
|
|
and Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1969.
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
31. Secretary of the Air Force Office of Information
|
|
(SAFOI), Information Program Bulletin, (1 October 1973),
|
|
1-4. Available at counter, Albert F. Simpson Historical
|
|
Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery,
|
|
Alabama.
|
|
|
|
32. "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects". Hearings
|
|
Before the Cornmittee on Science and Astronautics U.S.
|
|
House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, Second
|
|
Session, July 29, 1968, No. 7. Washington: U.S.Govern-
|
|
ment Printing Office.
|
|
|
|
33. "UFO, Still a Mystery Despite Explanations," The
|
|
Evansville Courier (19 October 1973), 6.
|
|
|
|
34. "Unidentified Flying Objects," The Illustrated
|
|
Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space, Vol. 13, Los Angeles:
|
|
A.F.E. Press, 1971.
|
|
|
|
35. Waddell, Les. "Old Probes Discounting UFOs Don't
|
|
Convince Key Capital Lawmakers," The National Tattler,
|
|
(17 February 1974), 17.
|
|
|
|
36. "What ever happened to UFOs?" Science News, Vol.99
|
|
(26 June 1971), 429-444.
|
|
|
|
109
|
|
|
|
=============================================================================
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |