We often hear "why don't scientists of renown take UFOs seriously?

" Atmo-
spheric physicist James E. McDonald was just such a scientist — and he did take
UFOs seriously. And now for the first time we learn the inside story of his strug-
gles, failures and triumphs in this stirring biography, deftly researched and superb-
ly written by well-respected researcher Ann DrufFel on the basis of complete
access to his privatefiles.Whether the reader be a skeptic, an enthusiast, or simply
curious, Druffel's riveting account of McDonald's challenge to the government
and scientific communities is a significant chapter in the UFO debate that must not
be missed!
— Hal Puthoff, Ph.D.,
Director, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin

As a scientist who knew and greatly admired Jim McDonald and who has
praised his outstanding ufological activities in hundreds of college lectures around
the world, I read this book with great interest and enthusiasm. Ann Druffel really
did her homework going through an enormous quantity of material. Jim was the
epitome of persistence, courage, comprehensiveness, and genius. His much too
early death deprived his family and the world of an outstanding contributor not
only to atmospheric physics, ufology, and the use of science for the benefit of
mankind. He was unselfish in his cooperation with others and was an inspiration
to those of us younger than he was. Ann has done a splendid job of documenting
his interactions with other much less courageous scientists such as J. Allen Hynek.
I was particularly impressed with the treatment of his suicide about which there
have been many false speculations. One can only wonder what Jim would have
thought about all the revelations of the government cover-up that have been pro-
vided by documents obtained under Freedom of Information andfromvarious ar-
chives. The book is very well referenced. I would give it 5 stars. A must read.
—Stanton T. Friedman, nuclear physicist,
author of UFOs, The Real Story, Top Secret/Majic

Firestorm is an intensely compelling account of the efforts of one man to cre-

ate a climate where unorthodox thinking could safely flourish. Ann Druffel de-
serves high marks for pulling together a vast mass of hitherto disconnected
information about McDonald'sfightfor an unbiased look at a taboo topic. She in-
terviewed family,friendsand colleagues and sifted thru his private journals and
other personal papers to recreate in page-turning detail a little-known period in
American ufological history. It's a bravura performance; don't just buy a copy,
lobby your library to do likewise.
—UFO Magazine
 .. .especially interesting reading, ...truly an outstanding job.... Firestorm is a
fascinating look into the mind, thoughts and actions of atmospheric physics pro-
fessor James McDonald as he excelled at science while simultaneously becoming
the outstanding leader within thefieldof U.S. ufology before his tragic demise in
1971. The field of ufology owes a great debt to Ann for her diligence and persis-
tence in gathering together the whole story of McDonald's combined UFO and
science careers, and presenting it so interestingly. The book is also a repository
for in-depth descriptions of many of the classic UFO events of the 1950s and 60s.
— Dr. James Deardorff, retired atmospheric scientist,
Oregon State University

A riveting read! The book is great and shows how McDonald in the last anal-
ysis was brought down by his unflinching belief in the honesty of others which
reflected that of his own. Based upon personal journals, lectures and inputs from
friends and opponents, Druffel provides readers with a masterful biographical
legacy of McDonald's brilliant contributions to science and his focused yet futile
attempts to obtain scientific recognition of the UFO phenomenon in the face of
dogmatism and government opposition. A job well done.
—Raymond Fowler, author of The Watchers series,
The Allagash Abductions

During a 1966 TV program on NBC-TV, NYC, with Betty and Barney Hill,
Dr. Carl Sagan, et al., I perceived Dr. Jim McDonald as intellectually brilliant,
buoyant, and verbally blunt in his comments to those of us who lacked his courage
to confront the "establishment" about UFO reports. Ann Druffel not only has de-
fined the man, but she also has described, in detail, his mission. Perhaps future
historians can use her monumental book to assess Dr. McDonald's work—and
life—as a megastep for the scientific investigation of the extraterrestrial presence.
— Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle, pioneer UFO researcher,
psychologist, and author of Soul Samples

This book offers a treasure trove of information about one of the most fasci-
nating periods in UFO history and one of its leadingfigures,Dr. James E.
McDonald. Thoroughly researched and heavily documented.... Ultimately it is a
sad and tragic story. However, for those of us who lived it, the time was exciting
and McDonald was a knight in shining armor.
—Richard H. Hall, CUFOS, former member of NICAP
 Firestorm
Dr. James E. McDonald's
Fight For UFO Science

Ann Druffel

Wild Flower Press

P.O. Box 1429
Columbus, NC 28722
 ©2003 by Ann Druffel All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any
form or by any electronic or mechanical means including information and retrieval systems
without prior permission from the publisher in writing.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Druffel, Ann, 1926-
Firestorm : Dr. James E. McDonald's fight for UFO science
/ Ann Druffel.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-926524-58-5 (alk. paper)
1. McDonald, James E., 1920-1971—Contributions in unidentified flying objects.
2. Unidentified flying objects-Research-United States.
3. Unidentified flying objects—Biography.
4. Meteorologists—United States—Biography.
I. Title.
TL789.85.M35D78 2003
001.942'07'2—dc21 2003002524

Cover Artwork: This photograph is used with permission from The Arizona Republic.
The photograph was taken during the terrible forest fires of July 2002 in that state.
Cover design by Pamela Meyer Crissey.

Manuscript editor: Brian L. Crissey

Printed in the United States of America.

Address all inquiries to:

Wild Flower Press
an imprint of Granite Publishing
P.O. Box 1429
Columbus, NC 28722

Granite Publishing, LLC is committed to using environmentally responsible paper.

 This book is dedicated by Ann and Charles Druffel
to their daughter, Charlotte Bridget Bressler.

The night started at sea and the fire brought crowding,

They say that her beauty was like music and love...
Like a gong that has rung, or a wonder told shyly,
And oh! she was the Sunday in every week.

—From an English translation of the Irish Gaelic ballad,

"AR EIRINN NI NEOSFAINN CE HI"
 VII

A cknowledgments
This book has brought joy to me. The idea for it came as I archived Dr.
James E. McDonald's voluminous UFO files, which his family had carefully
guarded in their Tucson home. The work was accomplished under a grant from
the Fund for UFO Research, and as they were deposited in the Personal Col-
lections section of the University of Arizona Library, Tucson, the idea of writ-
ing a biographical account of McDonald's study of the UFO question occurred
to me, spurred on by a deep sense of McDonald's influence on my own re-
search life.
McDonald's early death indescribably affected his family, his academic
colleagues and his numerous friends. To us in the UFO field, it was so unex-
pected and tragic that many of us could not get over our grief. The field seemed
abruptly cut in half, never to mend. While working on this book, though, I
sensed the grief might end. This has indeed occurred, at least for me, for Jim
McDonald is now shared with the world—the man his academic colleagues
knew and loved, the scientist who interacted with the UFO field during those
magical years. Jim McDonald lives on in the transcendental realm but also
lives now in written history, incomplete though it may be.
I thank Betsy McDonald for her constant help and encouragement in the
archiving of the files, for numerous interviews and for helping to transcribe
four handwritten journals McDonald left behind. Thanks to my editor, Brian
Crissey, and to my agent John White, whose tenacity brought about the publi-
cation. Thank you, Dr. Jacques Vallee, for writing the "Foreword" and for con-
tributing information which serves as balance to certain controversies in UFO
research history. Thank you, all of McDonald's academic colleagues at the In-
stitute of Atmospheric Physics and various Departments of the University of
Arizona at Tucson who granted me interviews or otherwise helped with docu-
mentation: Drs. Paul E. Damon, Benjamin Herman, Philip Krider, Richard
Kassander, Paul S. Martin, A1 Mead, William Sellers, Dean Staley, Cornelius
"Corny" Steelink, Raymond M. Turner. Thanks to his colleagues in other uni-
versity and government settings who kindly gave interviews: Professor
Charles B. Moore, Margaret Sanderson-Rae, James Hughes, Ethel Carpenter.
I thank our colleagues in the UFO research field: Drs. Eugene Epstein, Eric
Kelson, Mark Rodeghier, Dave Saunders, Bert E. Schwarz, Robert M. Wood,
and to Ted Bloecher, David Branch, Paul Duich, George Earley, Idabel Epper-
son, Marilyn Epperson, Richard H. Hall, Rex E. Heflin, Henk Hinfelaar, Breil-
da Hinfelaar, Gordon Lore, Marty Lore, Bill Moore, Paul Norman, Roy
VIII FIRESTORM

Russell, Pearl Russell, James Westwood. Thanks also to Philip J. Klass, Jan
McDonald, Dr. Robert Nathan, Stephan A. Schwartz.
Thank you, my writing buddies, for your constant help: Dorothy Shapiro,
Alice Nordstrom, Helevi Nordstrom, Elton Boyer, Dr. Louise Ludwig. And a
special thanks to my sweet husband, Charles K. Druffel, a true UFO skeptic
who recognized in Jim McDonald a genuine manifestation of the reality of the
UFO phenomenon and who, a few months before his own passage into the
transcendental realm, accomplished a final edit, with his own red pencil, of the
voluminous manuscript. Thank you all, and joyful reading.

Author s Note
Each chapter of this book is preceded by a few lines of Irish folk song
lyrics. Dr. James E. McDonald was deprived of his Irish heritage, due to cir-
cumstances beyond his control and never experienced "the joy of being
Irish." In spite of this, he was like the Irish in temperament— humorous, per-
severing, fearless, deeply concerned for other human beings. Like most peo-
ple with Irish backgrounds he had a darker side, that which Oscar Wilde calls
"the brooding Gael"— a melancholy musing which surfaced at times. Many
Irish balance their two-sided natures with faith and facile emotions; Mc-
Donald could not do either, for reasons that will be made clear. It is hoped
that the Irish lyrics at the beginning of each chapter will bring a measure of
comfort to those who loved him. McDonald was more than a brilliant scien-
tist; he also had a poetic side. He read voraciously from world literature in
all its forms and collected lists of his favorite passages. Selections from these
quotes also precede each chapter, so that the reader can sense the heart of the
man and contemplate what might have been.
 Table of Contents
Foreword xi
CHAPTER 1 The Man Who Was Afraid of Nothing 1
CHAPTER 2 Queries, Inquiries and Questions 18
CHAPTER 3 Confronting the Incompetents 40
CHAPTER 4 McDonald Enters the Ring 66
CHAPTER 5 Common Sense vs. Academic Pussyfooters
CHAPTER 6 Mazes and Monstrosities 109
CHAPTER 7 A Guy Made Out of Steel 134
CHAPTER 8 Forays Into Other Lands 157
CHAPTER 9 The First Attack 191
C H A P T E R 10 Battering the Gateway... 221
C H A P T E R 11 The Judas Kiss: Condon's Betrayal 252
C H A P T E R 12 The Pictures That Almost Proved It 287
C H A P T E R 13 What's Out There? 325
C H A P T E R 14 Secrets Upon Secrets 361
C H A P T E R 15 A Low Whistling Sound... 395

C H A P T E R 16 Strange Happenings 421

C H A P T E R 17 Predators in the Shadows 449
C H A P T E R 18 The Black Spot of Our Inner Lives... 484
About the Author... 526
 Table of Contents, continued

Appendix 2-A 528 Appendix 11-C 558

Appendix 3-A 529 Appendix 12-A 559
Appendix 3-B 530 Appendix 12-B 560
Appendix 3-C 531 Appendix 12-C 561
Appendix 4-A 532 Appendix 12-D 562
Appendix 5-A 534 Appendix 12-E 563
Appendix 5-B 535 Appendix 12-F 564
Appendix 5-C 536 Appendix 12-G 565
Appendix 5-D 537 Appendix 12-H 566
Appendix 6-A 538 Appendix 13-A 567
Appendix 6-B 539 Appendix 14-A 568
Appendix 8-A 540 Appendix 14-B 569
Appendix 8-B 541 Appendix 14-C 570
Appendix 8-C 542 Appendix 14-D 571
Appendix 8-D 543 Appendix 15-A 572
Appendix 8-E 544 Appendix 16-A 573
Appendix 8-F 545 Appendix 16-B 574
Appendix 8-G 546 Appendix 16-C 575
Appendix 9-A 547 Appendix 16-D 576
Appendix 9-B 548 Appendix 16-E 577
Appendix 9-C 549 Appendix 17-A 578
Appendix 9-D 550 Appendix 17-B 579
Appendix 9-E 551 Appendix 17-C 580
Appendix 9-F 552 Appendix 18-A 581
Appendix 10-A 553 Appendix 18-B 582
Appendix 10-B 554 Appendix 18-C 583
Appendix 10-C 555 Appendix 18-D 584
Appendix 11-A 556 Appendix 18-E 585
Appendix 11-B 557 Appendix 18-F 586

Glossary of Acronymns 587

Table of Figures 590

Index 593
Foreword
by Dr. Jacques Vallee

"You've betrayed your responsibility to science, Allen," said the tall,

intense man with black hair, pounding the astronomer's desk. "You should
have spoken out years ago!"
The contrast between the two adversaries was striking. Seated behind
the desk was an older man with a goatee speckled with silver hair. His eyes
narrowed as he registered the insult.
"You just don't understand the situation, do you, Jim?" He replied,
managing to hide his emotions by drawing several puffs of blue smoke from
his pipe. "Where were you when I tried to get support from the academic
community?"
The conflict between these two men, J. Allen Hynek and James Mc-
Donald, illustrates a great lesson about the potential of science to explore the
unknown and its relevance to the modern world. The book you are about to
read tells their story and draws that lesson.
Time and again in scientific history, new phenomena come to the atten-
tion of researchers or old phenomena suddenly appear in a new light. The
resulting increase in knowledge gives us new hope, because it brings a real-
ization that intellectual progress continues to be made, and that greater un-
derstanding of nature is always possible. At times, however, all that new
knowledge also brings new concerns: If the phenomena do not fit well with-
in the accepted framework, people raise strong doubts about the nature of the
discoveries and their relevance. Society has a great deal of resistance to
change; it may even reject the reported new facts on philosophical, religious
or political grounds.
Over the last fifty years we have witnessed the emergence of such a new
phenomenon — or was it an old phenomenon seen in a new light? It aroused
public passion and created an immediate controversy within the technical
community. That controversy centered on unusual flying objects. It contin-
ues to this day. And Dr. James McDonald, who was the most vocal champi-

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

XII FIRESTORM

on for their physical reality, embodied every facet of the challenge they posed to
the scientific establishment.
Pilots and military personnel began reporting UFOs during World War
Two. The sightings reached such peaks between 1947 and 1952 that official
commissions were hurriedly put into place and forceful attempts were made to
explain the observations in terms of natural effects or manufactured objects.
By the early '60s a few scientists had become involved in analyzing the cas-
es, but the descriptions were so strange, the objects so elusive, and the political
implications so troubling that academics rejected the notion that science would
ever be advanced by a full-scale effort to research UFOs. A few hardened skep-
tics, led by Donald Menzel and later Carl Sagan, militantly fought any attempt
to place the best cases under the scrutiny of analysis. Without embracing such an
extreme position, most researchers rested comfortably in the knowledge that the
U.S. Air Force had an ongoing study group, known as Project Blue Book, which
kept watch over the reports. They went on with their own business.
The heated exchange I described above took place at Dearborn Observatory
on the Northwestern University campus, just North of Chicago. I was a witness
to that explosive argument. I had met Dr. J. Allen Hynek in 1963, at a time when
he had already served for many years as the top scientific consultant to Blue
Book. He was a patient and contemplative astronomer who did not want to rock
the boat. When UFO sightings became so numerous and so well documented that
classical explanations failed regularly, he could have blown the whistle, as I of-
ten urged him to do, on the complacency of the military establishment, but he
feared isolation and believed that he would have been ostracized and ridiculed
by more senior voices in science if he did so. Better to stay quiet and at least pre-
serve the data, he argued, until people were ready to hear what he had to say.
Dr. James E. McDonald is the subject of this book. He was the man who
burst on the scene at that point, demanding action, digging into the cases with
great energy, exposing the false explanations. He was an atmospheric physicist
from the University of Arizona with a formidable reputation as an independent
thinker, an expert on weather modification who had successfully fought the mil-
itary on the implementation of missile bases, a first-class researcher and teacher.
His stormy, passionate life and his fight with the more conservative segments of
the scientific community have never been described in full detail and an account
of his involvement with the UFO problem is long overdue. It illuminates some
of the unsavory aspects of scientific life, at a time when the American public is
beginning to question the ethics of many academic pursuits and their relevance
to their own life.
As a young computer scientist at Northwestern University with a long-term
interest in the UFO problem who was privileged to know both of these men, I
FOREWORD XIII

tried to moderate their debate. Unfortunately their conflict ran far deeper than my
ability to bring about a lasting reconciliation. It left me with a feeling that an op-
portunity had been missed, and with a painful lack of closure. Therefore I am
grateful to Ann Druffel, a careful and knowledgeable researcher, for her marvel-
lous reconstruction of the world of Jim McDonald, his epic fights with the skep-
tics, his repeated efforts to bring his data before the Air Force, NASA and his
complacent colleagues, and his occasional brushes with the more fanatical, irra-
tional believers. She describes his private anguish and his public energy, his he-
roic attempts to shake his peers into action. She deals poignantly with his
eventual failure.
At a time when a few gutsy sociologists are becoming interested in docu-
menting the human aspects of science, its controversies and its conflicts, and the
personal motivations that shape it, the tragic life of Jim McDonald is a precious
source of data. It is highly relevant to our time in other ways as well.
Some 30 years after the events recounted so well and so vividly in this book,
the scientific community is once again challenged by the continuing presence of
unidentified phenomena in a sky newly crowded with the devices of modern
technology. The issues are as vexing as ever, but the attitudes of the scientific
world have not changed very much from the shameful denial and the closed-
mindedness of an earlier period. The skeptics are not the only ones to blame for
the lack of good research: Some of the more ardent believers in extraterrestrial
visitors are also busy rewriting the history of the field to serve their own biases.
Wild rumors about the early, formative years of the phenomenon, the decisions
of the government and the reactions of science are being manufactured and cir-
culated every day. In all this confusion, Ann Druffel's work rises above the noise
to remind the reader of the stark reality of the scientific and political context. It
forces us to reassess much of what we have learned over the last two decades. It
reminds us of the opportunities that have been lost.
Did James McDonald underestimate the subtlety and the complexity of the
UFO phenomenon? Was Allen Hynek right to warn him that his blunt, forceful
approach would lead nowhere? Would an alliance between these two men have
produced, as I once hoped, the germ of a unique scientific breakthrough? We
may never know the full answers to these questions, but Ann Druffel, who pa-
tiently tracked down and interviewed many of those who witnessed this drama,
pushes us closer to the answer by bringing the protagonists back to life for us in
these pages. As I read her book I felt I was sitting with them again, listening to
their heated arguments.
The lesson Jim McDonald taught us is an important one, and it should not
be forgotten: Science is made up of mysteries and of challenges that require
more than good work. They demand energy, integrity, focus. They are to be
XIV FIRESTORM

tackled tirelessly. Some of these challenges touch on the extreme borders of

our comprehension. They mock our efforts to force them into the rational
framework of today.
From the moment when their confrontation began at Dearborn Observatory,
Hynek and McDonald certainly had diverging views about the appropriate poli-
cies to deal with UFOs, but they did agree on one thing at least: They shared in
the certainty that one day science would take notice, and that its very fabric
would be altered irreversibly when it began to understand the UFO phenomenon
with all its implications.
Another one of Ann Druffel's discoveries came as a special source of fasci-
nation to me: She found out that Jim McDonald had kept a diary or, more pre-
cisely, a series of four journals.
Over months that stretched into two years, she carefully transcribed this text,
edited it, and selected the salient parts for us. As a source of information about
one of the major mysteries of our time it is remarkable. It also shows how a great
scientist tackles a new problem. I had kept a journal myself during that period,
and it is with special trepidation that I compared Jim's entries with those I had
made. Ann was kind enough to allow me access to the transcribed text, which I
perused in her study in Los Angeles, sitting at the keyboard of her Macintosh
computer. Jim's descriptions of shared events often dovetailed with mine, and
our impressions of other people correlated well, even when our opinions differed
about what should be done. I found it a sobering experience to read his reactions
to these moments, revealed at last through his own words.
James McDonald's diary makes it clear that he ran into precisely the kind of
doctrinaire skepticism about which Allen Hynek had warned him many years be-
fore. Perhaps it is to his credit that he still went ahead with his crusade. But his
tragic end contains a warning: The notion of academic purity is nothing but a
charming myth. We must deal with a scientific establishment that is extremely
reluctant to take stock of new, disturbing phenomena, just as the Church of the
Middle Ages refused to consider that the Earth might be revolving around the
sun. The learned clerics would not even look through the telescope. Contempo-
rary academics do not behave much better: They refused to study the UFO cases
selected by McDonald, just as they rejected Hynek's pleas to let him publish his
best data in their official journals. A world where people like Allen Hynek are
ignored, a world where someone of the caliber of James McDonald is left to die
alone and misunderstood, is a world crying out for drastic reform of its intellec-
tual institutions. The issue goes far beyond the question of knowing whether or
not there are unidentified flying objects, and where they may originate. What is
at stake here is our own spirit, and the uncertain future of human intelligence.
CHAPTER 1

The Man Who Was Afraid of Nothing

Slowly, slowly walk the path, and you might never stumble or fall,
Slowly, slowly walk the path, andyou might neverfall in love at all...
— "Golden"
One nourishes the tree of science without knowing which branch
will bear the apple.
—R. H. Ellis
repare for an adventure into the unknown. Between 1966 and 1971
P a scientist of impeccable credentials and international reputation
dared to openly study one of the major riddles of our age—uni-
dentified flying objects (UFOs). Dr. James E. McDonald was an atmo-
1

spheric physicist, whose many brilliant accomplishments in the field of

cloud physics and weather modification were greatly respected by his
colleagues. Braving criticism, he forged ahead for five incredible years,
studying UFOs, which he considered a scientific question worthy of seri-
ous attention. With his high-level contacts in government, the military
services, and in the scientific establishment, he seemed on the verge of
unlocking much of the mystery which has puzzled the world since 1947.
McDonald's fight to bring respectability to a subject besieged by rid-
icule might read like science fiction, but every word is true. He shone the
light of pure science onto this most difficult of subjects and wrested media
attention away from the kooks and contactees who were blighting it.
In 1992 Dr. Jacques Vallee, another fine scientist and author of sev-
eral fine books on the UFO subject, was often critical of James Mc-
Donald's methods but nevertheless described him as being "afraid of
nothing." Hence this chapter title—and McDonald's unwritten epitaph.
2

Although he died tragically in 1971, McDonald's spirit is still with us.

1. All acronyms defined in parentheses are listed in the Glossary, page 587.

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

 2 FIRESTORM

He is remembered by scientists and other professional researchers who qui-

etly probe the UFO mystery today. His spirit also exists subliminally for oth-
ers, many of whom are only dimly aware of his name.
McDonald's friend and colleague, Dr. Paul E. Damon of the University of
^ Arizona, feels that McDonald's intense interest in UFOs may have started in
the early fifties at an international meteorological conference in Italy. T h e r e
. . . . . 1
- had been a new report of an Italian UFO sighting, which intrigued McDonald.
<JV V He discussed the sighting with some senior colleagues at this conference.
They reminded him that the United States Air Force had a group, Project Blue
Book, that was specifically in charge of investigating UFOs. These colleagues
reasoned that, if there were anything to the report, the Air Force would have
^ 0 found this out and would have alerted the scientific community. This satisfied
McDonald for a while, but in 1958 when public UFO reports in his own home
town of Tucson began to come to his attention, McDonald's curiosity was
piqued. And when his friends and colleagues also began to confide their own
sightings to him, he felt it was vitally necessary to study the question.
5v ^
As an atmospheric physicist, McDonald looked for physical data which
would prove the existence of unidentified flying objects. Through his years of
effort he found^evidence which pointed to the physical reality of UFQs—not
\ solid proof, but enough evidence to convince him that the problem should be
accepteJby scientists as a serious question. His death at the age of 51 stunned
V j ^ h i s fri ends and colleagues, but he left behind a magnificent legacy.
Although McDonald's involvement in the UFO field has been written

aabout previously by a few authors, a biographical account of his total involve-

ment in the UFO research field has never before been written. His efforts were
swept from the public mind in a calculated manner, as we shall demonstrate.
e ^This book will hopefully revive his memory and renew the importance of his
j s P research. Hopefully, too, in the not too distant future, a united effort will be put
cy s into effect which will establish beyond doubt whether or not unidentified me-
v-* tallic aeroforms are flying in Earth's atmosphere.
James E. McDonald was born in Duluth, Minnesota, on May 7, 1920, of
^ v Irish-Scandinavian heritage. He was a lean six-footer, whose dark hair and
t ^ blue eyes favored his Celtic background. During his service in Naval Intelli-
J ^ ^ e n c e during World War II he formed friendships and contacts which later
VL
' V A2. Vallee, Jacques, Forbidden Science: Journals 1957-1969, Berkeley, California, North
Atlantic Books, 1992, p. 186.
' x f ' 3. Author's interview with Dr. Paul E. Damon, 27 February 1994.
b __
3 4. Notably Jacobs, Dr. David Michael, The UFO Controversy in America, Bloomington &
^ London, Indiana University Press, 1975.
THE M A N W H O W A S AFRAID OF NOTHING 3

served him well in his efforts to persuade high-level officials in government

and science to treat the UFO question seriously. His keen intellect—which was
close to genius, although he never himself believed it—impressed all who
knew him.
During World War II, McDonald met Betsy Hunt Both had joined the U.S.
Navy at the start of World War II when they were both at MIT as part of their
Navy duties. In the early days of the War he was an instructor in aerology at MIT,
and she was one of his students, enthralled by his "love of words." Betsy was a
diminutive, lively young woman from a working-class background, who was
serving in the WAVES. She was his first and only love. During the war, they
married and afterwards had six children—two sons and four daughters.
In early 1954, McDonald was selected by the University of Chicago to
help establish an Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP) in Arizona. A wealthy
Arizona rancher, Lewis L. Douglas, was involved in its beginnings. Arizona is
a state with unique atmospheric properties. The University of Arizona at Tuc-
son was selected as a logical site for the new Institute, and the University of
Chicago sent McDonald down to get the facility started. He served as Associ-
ate Director under another older scientist, who was in charge of cloud experi-
ments in Chicago. The scientists who became involved in the new Institute
sought to provide a scientific program for gaining insights into the fundamen-
tal physical processes of the atmosphere, one result of which might be the de-
velopment of efficient rain-making mechanisms.
McDonald quickly discovered that being Associate Director wasn't much to
his liking. His forte was active research, not administrating. He suggested to the
University of Chicago that Dr. A. Richard Kassander come to Arizona to be the
Co-Associate Director for Administration, and he would be the Co-Associate Di-
rector for Science. Kassander was a close friend who had attained his doctorate
at the same time as McDonald.
McDonald embraced Arizona enthusiastically. He scouted out Tucson for
a suitable house for his wife, whom he called "Bets," and their children, and
on April 13, 1954, he wrote to Kassander,
After quite a fair amount of hunting, I ran down a small want ad and
found what Ifeel is a rare gem... Has three bedrooms, kitchen, 14x28
living room, plus an attached guest room with bath. It, like the porch,
opens onto a large flagstoned terrace. Has a carport, and scads of
flowers and shrubs. ...I didn 't think there were many flowers grow able
here, but was I ever wrong.
4 FIRESTORM

McDonald bought this house, which, in 1954, was on the fringes of Tuc-
son; Kassander followed soon after with his own family. Some of the Mc-
Donald family still live in their rambling home (see Figure 1). McDonald
loved to hike in the hills and mountains around Tucson, where several of the
Institute's smaller facilities were later built. He grew to know the Rincons,
the Catalinas, and other nearby ranges intimately. He formed a hiking club
with his associates and often took his two growing sons along on the day-
long hikes. His family, too, hiked together often, Betsy enjoying the outdoor
activity as much as McDonald.
Another desert lover was Dr. Paul S. Martin, a paleo-ecologist who first met
McDonald in the summer of 1956 when Martin came to Tucson on a visit, look-
ing for employment at the University. IAP was still in the process of being built,
and Martin found McDonald in a temporary office, called "the Barracks." The
two scientists had a lively discussion about the summer monsoon season—daily
brief thunderstorms which provide lightning shows for Tucson residents, rancher
and city dweller alike. Martin became a university faculty member in 1957 and
established what became known as the Geochronology Laboratories.
"When people come to Tucson they're not really sure they're going to stay,"
muses Dr. Martin. "This is a new part of the country, which has few traditions
and such a strange environment that it takes a newcomer quite a while to get a
sense of what the land is all about. My experience with people here is that they
have an extraordinarily fascinating environment to live in and have a very poor
idea of what it's all about. But McDonald took to it."5
THE M A N W H O W A S AFRAID OF NOTHING 5

Betsy McDonald loved Arizona, too. Blessed with a remarkable intellect,

she looked after the home and children. She had a B.S. degree in food chemistry
from the University of California at Berkeley, and insisted on feeding her hus-
band and their children only balanced, wholesome meals. She devoted herself to
raising the "perfect family," and thought that six children was a perfect number. 6

Both McDonald and Betsy were voracious readers. His interests extended
into philosophy, politics, psychology, sociology, and a myriad of other sub-
jects. He invented games to encourage his children to study far beyond their
courses at school. Consequently, they absorbed challenging concepts in the
course of their daily lives. Dinner time was never dull. Even when some of the
children were still very young, mealtime discussions revolved around not only
science but social issues, including the Cold War, civil defense and civil rights.
Later, subjects such as the draft, the Vietnam War, the feminist movement, and
other numerous questions were topics of conversation.
McDonald was already noted in his field for brilliant research and had a
score of impressive papers published in scientific journals. His personality
seemed suited for the administrative duties associated with the important new
facility. His nature was intense, and he spoke out bluntly whenever he felt the
situation demanded it, but with his friends and family, his colleagues and the
public, McDonald was a congenial man with a unique, sometimes impish,
sense of humor. His powers of verbal persuasion were strong and persistent.
Even Co-administrative work, however, proved not to his liking. He longed to
go back to pure research and to be freed from supervisory responsibilities on
other scientists' research. On March 1,1957, he sent this memo to the Institute:
Because ofstrong personal desires to devote much greater attention to
active research within the Institute, I have asked the President of the
University to accept my resignation from the position of Scientific Di-
rector. ...I have also strongly urged that Dr. A. Richard Kassander. ..be
named Director at this time. It is with real pleasure that I am able to
report that President Harvill has taken the second step concurrently
with accepting my resignation. Dr. Kassander's outstanding abilities
will enable him to absorb quite easily those additional burdens that he
assumes at this time. 7

McDonald was now free to do what he loved best. He was put in charge of
the cloud-physics program and continued to contribute ingenious research which

5. Author's interview with Dr. Paul S. Martin, 16 July 1994.

6. Author's interview with Betsy McDonald, 7 December 1992.
7. Memo dated 1 March 1957, in McDonald's Personal Collection, University of Arizona at
Tucson Library.
6 FIRESTORM

touched on every aspect of atmospheric physics. He also freely contributed

ideas, which others took on as projects. His impeccable credentials earned him
an international reputation. His title was changed to Senior Physicist, the position
he held for the rest of his life.
He was a brilliant teacher; he taught everything from undergraduate to post-
graduate meteorology classes and guided students through their own doctoral
work. McDonald loved words, but he also had a gift for explaining the most com-
plicated scientific theorems in simple terms. The University of Arizona devel-
oped full-blown undergraduate and graduate curriculums in atmospheric
physics, and it was McDonald who started it all. His brilliance puzzled some of
his colleagues, for they never saw him using notes for his classes. It is laughingly
said that he must have had notes hidden under the table in front of him, his lec-
tures were so logically given. He provided summaries of these lectures for his
students, but he didn't speak from these notes; he spoke off "the top of his head."
"He loved to teach, and he loved people who would learn," relates Betsy
McDonald. "He was constantly helping the children with their school work,
whenever they asked."
"He would get down on your level," relates his daughter Jan. "I remember a
fifth or sixth grade science fair project that I did with his help. The other kids
were planning complicated projects they got out of science workbooks, using test
tubes, dials, and lots of paraphernalia. Dad said, 'Ask a simple question about
something in your life—something ordinary that you're curious about—and then
figure out a way to try to find out more about it.' He felt that curiosity was the
heart of science, and even the simplest questions a child might have about the
world were important.
"The question I asked was about human hair—whether its color and texture
have anything to do with how strong it is. This probably interested me because
of my own wispy hair. He helped me design an experiment that involved collect-
ing hair from different people and testing it with nickels piled up on a little tray.
It was nothing fancy at all. Well, the class...thought this was so goofy! They were
doing real experiments they got out of books. But Dad's approach was, 'This is
real science. It doesn't necessarily require complicated equipment. It requires a
question that you really want to answer.'"
"Also, he talked about creativity in science," adds Betsy McDonald. "That
it often does come from extraneous thinking.8 Scientists don't always know how
they get the ideas that come to them."

8. "Extraneous" in this context means "random," "involuntary," or "chance," and may at times
even verge on "intuitive," such as in the case of Einstein, Edison and other scientific
geniuses.
THE M A N W H O W A S AFRAID OF NOTHING 7

McDonald's attitude about science was both common-sensible and sophis-

ticated. He knew how to make meteorology and related subjects interesting to his
students. In periodic exams, he asked sensible questions, such as "How would
you explain to somebody the idea of barometric pressure?" Down-to-earth ques-
tions translated into good teaching.
By 1971 he had 50 technical papers published in prestigious scientific
journals such as Nature, Science, and the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.
These were all based on original research he'd accomplished on numerous as-
pects of the Earth's atmosphere. McDonald also wrote another 60 semi-tech-
nical papers based on other projects. These appeared in publications such as
Scientific American, Weatherwise, and the Bulletin of The American Meteoro-
logical Society. Although these were less technical, they were no less scientif-
ic. Some of his papers were co-authored with colleagues at the Institute of
Atmospheric Sciences, such as Drs. Kassander, Dean Staley, and Benjamin
Herman. Besides McDonald's impeccable scientific contributions, he wrote
several articles which appeared in lay publications like Saturday Review. His
writing style was flawless, flowing, and simple, and he brought to the attention
of the public many subjects pertaining to Earth's atmosphere and related fields.
Together with two other scientists, he wrote a glossary of7,000 meteorolog-
ical terms still in use today. Even here, his mischievous humor asserted itself, for
in the glossary McDonald distinguished between a prognostic chart, which gives
the distribution of meteorological parameters a meteorologist believes will occur
at a future time—say 48 hours beyond the present—and an "agnostic" chart,
which "nobody believes." He also contributed a chapter in a textbook on meteo-
rology—a piece which is still considered the classic explanation of cloud physics
for beginning students of atmospheric physics. 9

Besides his technical papers, McDonald frequently wrote reviews of scien-

tific literature which were published in refereed journals, as well as numerous
"Letters to the Editor" on various aspects of atmospheric sciences, some of
which caused lively controversies in the field. In all, 231 items appear in his bib-
liography, which was compiled in 1990 by Valerie Vaughan, who at the time was
a librarian at IAP. 10

McDonald's keen intellect was widely recognized by his colleagues, but he

invariably shrugged off praise; he simply did not want to hear it. To his own

9. McDonald, James E., "The Physics of Cloud Modification," Chapter in Advances in Geo-
physics, Academic Press, Vol. 5 1958, pp. 223-303
10. Vaughan, Valerie, "Science and Conscience; An Annotated Bibliography of the Writings of
Dr. James E. McDonald," April 30, 1990. Vaughan, at the time, was the librarian for the
Institute of Atmospheric Physics.
8 FIRESTORM

mind, the main reason for existence was to obtain knowledge. His longtime sec-
retary and assistant at the Institute, who has academic degrees from two univer-
sities, was Margaret Sanderson-Rae. She describes the way his mind worked:
"He could be having a conversation with you, and you could say some-
thing which would spark a thought in his mind about an aspect of the world,
be it politics, be it a natural phenomenon, whatever," Sanderson-Rae laughs.
"He'd realize there was something about it he did not know. He was going to
have to find out...and he'd take off for the Science Library." 11
James Hughes, a longtime friend who later became his contract monitor at
the Office of Naval Research (ONR) states:
I regarded him as a highly competent scientist, and one who very thor-
oughly checked everything he did. He was very intolerant of sloppi-
ness in scientists. He was very dependable and trustworthy. I was in a
position in the ONR where people wrote various research proposals to
me. Every once in a while, I'd want an opinion on some scientific sub-
ject, or where we stood in the field of Cloud Physics, and I could de-
pend on McDonald for trustworthy information.12
Another friend and colleague, Dr. Cornelius "Corny" Steelink, remem-
bers. "He was a very serious guy, totally immersed in science, worked 25 hours
a day, seven days a week. He had probably the most curious mind of anyone
I've ever met in my life. The guy was intensely interested in all sorts of phe-
nomena, and he used his energy and drive to explore whatever interested him.
He applied himself, of course, to the UFO thing with an intensity that absolute-
ly left us all exhausted.... It's interesting, how he brought the same type of in-
vestigative science to UFOs that he brought to everything."13
His colleague Dr. Dean Staley, tells of McDonald's background in intelli-
gence work:
During WWII, he was a cryptographer in the Navy.... There was a
book I was showing him called The Codebreakers, a kind of a defini-
tive work, and we were looking at some of the pictures in there and
Mac said, "Oh, I remember that guy, " and so forth. And he went on to
point out that he, himself, "was just one of the flunkies." But he would
have had to have the highest I. Q. to get into that particular military
specialty. The crux of it was he was one of the guys working on a sep-
arate piece of the problem. They needed a lot of different people to

11. Author's interview with Margaret Sanderson-Rae, 16 July 1994.

12. Author's interview with James Hughes, 21 December 1994.
13. Author's interview with Dr. Cornelius Steelink, 20 July 1994.
THE M A N W H O W A S AFRAID OF NOTHING 9

handle different things. I don't think they handed him something and
said, "Here, McDonald, solve the Japanese J-1 code. " 1 4

But cryptography was really not to McDonald's liking, though he did his
work well, out of a sense of patriotic duty. He preferred working on whole puz-
zles, the solving of which he was totally responsible, and from which he could
learn new things. He once remarked to Dr. Staley that he didn't like working
on man-made puzzles such as crosswords and chess. He preferred to work on
nature's problems.

FIGURE 2. In a semi-technical article intended for public information,

McDonald described the shape of raindrops as "like a
hamburger bun."

His quest for knowledge was endless. He studied the advisability of seeding
hurricanes, the Earth's electric charge as related to thunderstorms, the climatol-
ogy of arid lands—an almost endless list of scientific subjects. In a semi-techni-
cal article intended for public consumption, he explained the shape of
raindrops. (See Figure 2). It was of McDonald's impeccable research on the
15

shape of raindrops, which had also been published in a technical form in a lead-
ing meteorological journal, that his friend Dr. A. Richard Kassander states
16

14. Author's interview with Dr. Dean Staley, 28 February 1994.

10 FIRESTORM

"What he postulated there was to the surprise of a great many people, who
said, "Why didn't I do that?" It was good research, but research that could not
have been done by just anyone."17
McDonald's endless curiosity even attacked the question of the physical
factors which produced home runs in a baseball game. Jim Hughes relates:
When McDonald was at the University of Arizona, there was a man by
the name of Lou Battan, who was Head of the Department [of Meteo-
rology]. McDonald complained to him that "Editors are sitting on
[UFO] information—why didn't editors of newspapers let out the sto-
ries of reputable citizens who 'd reported they'd seen amazing uniden-
tified objects in the sky? " He was complaining about it and comparing
it with baseball. Why did baseball get so much attention?
Lou Battan said, "Have you ever been to a baseball game? " And
McDonald said, "No. " So Lou said, "Let's go to a baseball game. "
So McDonald went with him, and he didn't care which side won. He
wasn 't interested in that stuff. But he got very interested in what the
tip speed of the bat had to be to get a home run!
When McDonald's interest in baseball became known, various teams started
delivering bats and baseballs to him. He got the university's baseball team in-
volved, and had it hitting baseballs, measuring bat-tip speed.
"The Cleveland Indians wintered in Tucson," continues Hughes, "and he got
some of their heavy hitters and measured tip speeds on their bats."
After extensive research, during which McDonald even used some of the
University's professors as bat-swingers, he concluded that the most important
factor in achieving home runs was indeed the tip speed of the bat. Although most
home-run hitters at the time typically used very heavy bats, McDonald's research
proved that lighter ones achieved greater speed in the swing. His conclusions
were quoted widely in newspapers of the time. Today, many home run hitters use
lighter bats.

15. For an example of McDonald's clear, often amusing writing style for the general public, see
"The Shape of Raindrops," Scientific American, February 1954, Vol. 190, No. 2. The intro-
duction to this article reads: "[Raindrops] are not handsomely tapered but often resemble a
small hamburger bun. This unpoetical form, frozen by high-speed photography, is analyzed
to reveal the forces that mold it."
16. McDonald, James E., "The Shape and Aerodynamics of Large Raindrops," Journal of
Meteorology, Vol. II, #6 (Dec. 1954), pp. 478-494.
17. Author's interview with Dr. A. Richard Kassander, Jr., 19 November 1993.
THE M A N W H O W A S AFRAID OF NOTHING 11

"He wrote all this up...and attributed it to ONR support," Hughes concludes,
chuckling. "And I didn't care about that. It was good, solid physics, and I
18

closed my eyes to it."

McDonald's mind was endlessly roving; he retrieved ideas as if out of the
blue. Dr. Paul Martin describes how McDonald became intrigued with the loudly
voiced dilemma of Arizona ranchers whose perception of local monsoon thun-
derstorms was that "it rains everywhere but on my land."
"This started McDonald on an analysis of the probability of a storm event
which has storm cells distributed across the landscape," explains Martin. "[The
precipitation] doesn't fall in a continuous blanket of rain all over the county,
leaving a particular rancher with the impression that, although it is raining buck-
ets, he isn't getting any and everybody else is."
McDonald dove into a study of these ranchers' statements. "The statistics
of the problem indicate there'll be a number of ranchers in the same boat, and
it's just the way the storms are distributed relative to one's perception," recalls
Martin. "He wrote a little paper on that.... No one went to the trouble of sub-
mitting papers [on these kinds of problems], but Jim did. 19

"And then he wrote a little paper on the abstract idea of how big a body
of water it would take, in a desert region like Arizona, to evaporate enough
moisture to increase rainfall downwind of the reservoir," continues Martin.
"People believed that if we put in more dams and reservoirs on the Colorado
River, and other parts of the Southwest, we'd increase the probability of rain-
fall, because more moisture would evaporate on these reservoirs, and that
would add to the opportunity for storm systems to bring more rain back down
out of the skies. And without trying to recall the details of the argument,
which had some good mathematics in back of it, [McDonald calculated] to
appreciably help rainfall in this state, we'd have to construct reservoirs that
would cover something like a tenth or more of the area of Arizona...from
Yuma to Tucson would have to be under water, to make it rain enough in Co-
chise County to make a difference in the rainfall records." Martin laughs as
he recalls the controversy. "That was an unforgettable publication that de-
bunked the idea of reservoirs helping make rain." 20

18. McDonald's home-run research was never published in a scientific journal, although it was
cited and gained wide publicity through newspaper accounts. By the time he finished the
study, his inquisitive mind had latched on to other problems. However, an article appeared
in the Arizona Alumnus, Vol. 39, #4, April 1962, pp. 6-7, which referred to his study on
home runs. The full ONR baseball manuscript has never been made available to the public.
19. McDonald, James E., "'It Rained Everywhere But Here!' —The Thunderstorm-Encircle-
ment Illusion," Weatherwise, Vol. 12, #4 (Aug. 1959).
 12 FIRESTORM

McDonald was first and foremost a laymen's scientist. He felt keenly that
science was to serve the people, not to exist in ivory towers. Not only was he cu-
rious about numerous unanswered questions in pure science and worked with
diligence to solve them, but he was equally attracted to controversial situations
W ^ j v Ringing upon both science and the social order. In 1960, when the United States
Air Force decided to ring Tucson and other American cities with Titan and other
. defensive missiles (ICBMs), he fought for two full years against these plans.
^ He was astounded that the Air Force was not addressing the simplest of
^ problems—that if missile silos are placed upwind of a city, and if these silos are
.^ hit by enemy missiles, the prevailing winds would blow the resulting radioactive
^ d e b r i s over the city, killing the entire populace. He pleaded eloquently for the Air
Force to change its plans and, at the very least, to put the silos downwind of ma-
x^v/" jor population centers. Then, if the silos were destroyed in a nuclear war, the ra-
£ - ^ dioactivity would be carried away from the city instead of toward it and the
v population would have a chance to survive.

F I G U R E 3. In a room designed originally as a memorial for McDonald, his

most important works are displayed in a locked cabinet.

20. McDonald, James E., "The Evaporation-Precipitation Fallacy," Weather, Vol. 17, #5 (May
1962), pp. 168-170, 172-177.
THE M A N W H O W A S AFRAID OF NOTHING 13

The Air Force ignored McDonald's logic. He intensified his fight and
formed a committee to change the Air Force's plans. He was opposed by many
influential people who were worried about the growth in Tucson, for building
missile sites meant jobs and a booming economy. Nevertheless, "The Committee
Against Ringing Tucson With Missiles" included the Mayor and other dignitar-
ies. Even Arizona's Senator Barry Goldwater, whose political views were almost
diametrically opposite to McDonald's, eventually lent support.
McDonald took his fight to the halls of Congress, testifying on the matter at
a Congressional hearing, but by that time the Air Force plan was afait accompli.
Tucson and a dozen other American cities were ringed with atomic missiles. Lat-
er, the Air Force apparently saw the error of its ways; when defensive silos were
constructed near subsequent cities, the missiles would have to be placed down-
wind. McDonald was never given full credit for the Air Force's change of mind,
but this did not bother him. To his mind, some American citizens would at least
have a chance to survive an atomic war, in the event one broke out.
With his mind continually active, McDonald lived fast. His speech was of-
ten hurried, as if the physical part of him was straining to keep up with his re-
markable mind. When he found a scientific problem which puzzled him, he
would explore it until he found the answer. If the papers he wrote on these
projects were not immediately accepted by scientific journals, or needed fur-
ther polishing, he would often leave them in his files and go on to the next
problem that caught his attention. He never allowed any of his work to be pub-
lished until he was satisfied that it was written as perfectly as possible. Conse-
quently, by June 1971 there were about 70 unpublished research papers in his
files which had not been honed to his satisfaction.
Besides his published work on atmospheric subjects, he wrote over 40 pa-
pers on his UFO research. Time was the only thing he lacked. He gave some
of his friends and colleagues the impression that life was short and that too
much was calling out for attention.
Unlike many scientists, he ranged far from his own field of atmospheric
physics to accomplish significant research in peripheral subjects. Perhaps it
was this endless curiosity that attracted him first to the subject of UFOs. He
quietly studied Tucson UFO reports for eight years and came to the conclu-
sion that a small fraction (from 0.5% to 2%) of the reports could not be ex-
plained in terms of conventional objects, even after exhaustive investigation.
When he discovered that the question of UFOs was being neglected by sci-
ence and government alike, his innate sense of fairness was offended. He felt
the public had the right to know.
Besides his major scientific works which are preserved reverently in the In-
stitute (See Figure 3), he left behind voluminous files related to his UFO re-
14 FIRESTORM

search. They include 600+ case reports he had meticulously researched; his
library of UFO books, some heavily annotated; hundreds of pages of formerly
classified government documents; a multitude of handwritten and typed pages
which were apparently initial drafts for a comprehensive book on UFOs which
he had planned to write—and his journals.
McDonald's four handwritten journals detail events during his years of UFO
research. The journals are composed of hundreds of handwritten pages, describ-
ing conversations, events and personal UFO sightings confided to him by scien-
tific and military colleagues. For over 20 years, they lay among his UFO files,
their value unrecognized.
In his UFO talks before scientific groups, of which he gave hundreds be-
tween the years 1966 and 1970, he often spoke extemporaneously for an entire
hour from one-half page of handwritten notes, and usually provided his audi-
ences summarized, multi-page "handouts" of the material he'd covered. Be-
sides his brilliant lectures, his formal talks at scientific conferences, and the
multitude of scientific projects published in scientific journals and textbooks,
McDonald contributed to atmospheric sciences in other ways. From the earli-
est years of the Institute, the history of climate in Arizona had intrigued many
of the scientists there.
McDonald offered Rod Hastings, an historian, a summer job to go out
and look into the history [of the Arizona climate]," relates Richard
Kassander. "Originally the idea was that while a few old timers last-
ed, it would be highly desirable to get interviews with them, as to their
reflections on the climate, and what it was really like. Such as the
member of the Mormon Battalion [who] wrote that anecdotal informa-
tion, could be very, very useful. And Mac was an imaginative guy in
trying to get to these people before they died, to get their recollections,
which were generally good and consistent. I think if one considered
the product of breadth and depth of a person's scientific knowledge,
Mac might have been the best scientist I ever knew.
Dr. Benjamin Herman, who is now the Director of IAP, was James Mc-
Donald's first graduate student. His regard for McDonald is evident:
McDonald was the most thorough scientific researcher I have ever
known," Herman states. "When he started on a problem and re-
searched it, by the time he was finished, he probably knew more than
every expert in the world on that problem. He researched every detail,
and he did not just talk without understanding what he was talking
about. He left no stone unturned. He had insight that just wouldn't
quit.
THE M A N W H O W A S AFRAID OF NOTHING 15

In my opinion McDonald was the closest thing to a genius, ifhe wasn't

a genius, that I ever saw. He staggered you. You could go in to Mac
with a problem, and before you finished explaining the problem he
would have a method or solution for you, and you hadn 't even fully ex-
plained the problem yet. The guy's insight was unbelievable; he would
just run circles around us mortals here. And yet in the end he was very,
very mortal in that it was this brilliancy that really did him in, because
it led him into all these controversial issues....
Dr. Bill Sellers, a Meteorology Professor at the University of Arizona at the
same time McDonald taught there, and who holds a dual position as Full Profes-
sor of Atmospheric Sciences and IAP researcher, states:
I always admired him. I thought he was a wonderful person. It would
be wonderful to have him still around. We used to have department
hikes which he pretty much was in charge of, and we'd go hiking up
into the Catalinas or the Rincons. He was a terrific hiker; he liked to
do it.... So he was unifying the Department, probably, more than any
other faculty member ever has. Just talking to him in general, he 'd
show a keen sense of humor. I can't recall any particular incidents
right off hand. You should have asked me 30 years ago.
At this point Dr. Sellers laughs lightly, thinking about the young people
with whom McDonald's wife Betsy worked diligently in activist causes, and
whom McDonald himself knew well.
He was just a pleasant person. He always had a short haircut and was
always very neat-looking. It was sort of hard to picture him with the
guys with beards and long hair, but he seemed to relate pretty well to
them.
Dr. Sellers is referring to the swirl of agitation, dissent, picketing and civil
activism which were very much a part of campus life during the '60s. Betsy Mc-
Donald was very much involved in all of this. McDonald, too, had deep feelings
about civil rights, the Vietnam War, and the use of napalm and chemical warfare.
Occasionally, he expressed his opinions at "speakouts," but for the most part
kept to the background, for his concern about the UFO question occupied much
of his spare time during the last half of the 1960s. His UFO involvement was in
addition to his own professional responsibilities as Senior Physicist of the Insti-
tute and as a Professor of Meteorology.
McDonald and Betsy were humanists and keenly aware of their responsibil-
ity toward all other human beings. Like many scientists, he was not intellectually
convinced of the existence of a Supreme Being but was curious about what other
scientists believed. The McDonalds' conversations with Sellers did not involve
UFOs; Sellers had little interest in the subject. McDonald, however, had several
16 FIRESTORM

long discussions with him during the late '60s, inquiring closely why Sellers, a
Baptist, thought as he did about God.
"He seemed to want to believe in a higher authority than man, but
couldn't. He may not have been searching for something beyond man, but he
certainly was very inquisitive about what other people believed and what they
thought," states Sellers.
My contacts with him, other than the recreation from the hiking, were
very much professional. 1 stayed out of the Titans and the UFOs. 1
didn V personally feel that they were worth the effort he put into them.
Other people believed differently.
From these comments of McDonald's closest colleagues at IAP, it is plain
that James E. McDonald was a complex man caught up in a complex world.
He seemed to burst upon the UFO scene in June 1966, but actually his entrance
into the field was far from sudden. Before he ever spoke out publicly on the
subject, he silently worked with the directors of the lay research organization,
National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), head-
quartered in Washington, D.C. He was the first eminent scientist to work close-
ly with civilian researchers toward a common goal.
During his eight quiet years studying local reports, he became known to
Arizonans as an approachable, courteous professional who did not laugh at
their UFO reports but instead doggedly studied each event which came to his
attention. He found conventional answers to most reports, as all good research-
ers do. He found that about 0.5% to 2% of all raw reports could not be ex-
plained, no matter how thoroughly he investigated them. Gradually he came to
realize that similar, mystifying cases were occurring worldwide.
After eight years, he decided to go public with his interest and to tap his
many scientific, governmental, and military sources in probing for the truth.
His original plan turned out to be ironic: He thought, by devoting the summer
months of 1966 to the subject instead of going on vacation, that he could per-
suade his peers that the subject should be investigated openly and fairly by
government agencies, branches of the military, and the scientific community
combined. His plans for a summertime of research stretched into five long
years, during which he became the chief scientific spokesman on the subject.
In spite of his family and professional responsibilities, he publicly went out on
a limb, disregarding the professional and financial risks involved.
James McDonald had seemingly boundless energy. His modus operandi,
even for a scientist, was incredibly thorough, as he became fully aware of stun-
ning cases which were being passed off by the Air Force's Project Blue Book
as stars, meteors, balloons and the like. If he had lived out a normal life span,
ik
|> V SJS THE M A N W H O W A S AFRAID OF NOTHING
Ji J
17

4 the UFO field today would be very different from the chaos into which it has
- been tossed. At the very least, he might have been able to help put together a
\ i^L nationwide monitoring network, to bring us closer to a solution of the puzzle
' -i ? of these unknown objects.
5 -
The following chapters will attempt to place in logical sections the cha-
n 5 j " otic controversy into which he was swept. It would be impossible to tell the
"" full story of his involvement in UFO research, even in the thickest of books;
t this is merely a beginning. Other books by other authors hopefully will fol-
low, and the basic scientific facts which were uncovered by McDonald in his
efforts to unlock the riddle of UFOs might some day be developed into proof.
Some day, it is hoped, competent science writers will relate the entire story
of his life in Atmospheric Physics; this present book must necessarily be lim-
ited to his study of the UFO question.
We begin the adventure, joining James E. McDonald as he brought the
bright light of pure science to the UFO question. It is a trip into the hidden
world in which he moved. You will read portions of his journals, view his per-
suasive maneuvers among powerful men and women of science, the military
and government. Darkest of all, you will be at his side during the attacks by
those who sought to silence him. Parts of this book might be difficult to be-
lieve, but every word is true, from his own files and journals and from those
who knew him best.
It is the chronicle of an intellectual giant who took on an incredible
task—a fearless fighter who seemed on the verge of accomplishing what no
one else has ever been able to do. Above all, it is the story of a compassionate
man, a man with human failings, who was caught in the middle of mystery
and intrigue.
CHAPTER 2

Queries, Inquiries and Questions

"On Raglan Road, of an Autumn day, I saw her first and knew
That her dark hair would weave a snare, that I might one day rue. "
—from "Raglan Road"

"Science may be advanced by rejecting bad hypotheses as well

as by forming good ones. "
—H. A. Newton,
1886 AAAS address, re. origin of molecules.

Donald and his family had been in Tucson for four years,
when his interest in the UFO question seemed to burst forth
suddenly. Before he began to investigate local sightings
personally, he had accepted the official "explanations" which the Air Force
disseminated widely every time the news services picked up on a particular-
ly interesting report. A few objective civilian research groups were actively
working on the UFO problem in those early days, chief among them the Na-
tional Investigation Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), the Aerial
Phenomena Research Group (APRO), and CSI (Civilian Saucer Intelli-
gence). They were on the scene around the country where public reports
originated. These volunteer investigators competently documented every re-
port which came to their attention; their conclusions frequently were very
different from those of the Air Force.
Two brief examples may illustrate the problem: On July 3, 1954, nine
greenish spherical UFOs entered a restricted flying area, were detected by
an Air Defense Command radar 20 miles north of Albuquerque Field in
New Mexico, and were also sighted visually. A radar station message con-
cerning this was accidentally intercepted at Chicago Midway Airport by an
airline employee. The Air Force quickly hushed up the event.1 And on July
14. 1952, six fiery red objects, estimated as 100-feet diameter, startled Capt.
William B. Nash and Second Officer William Fortenberry as they flew a Pan

Firestorm - Ann Druffei

 QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 19

American airliner en route to Miami. The discs flew in precise formation and ex-
ecuted incredible maneuvers impossible for any known or experimental U.S. air-
craft. The USAF quickly explained the report in conventional terms.
2

Some reports McDonald investigated received wide publicity. Conse-

quently, he became aware of multiple UFO encounters which occurred in and
near Levelland, Tex., in the evening and early morning hours of 2-3 Novem-
ber, 1957. These dramatic incidents began just one hour after the Russians had
launched their second dog-carrying satellite! Drivers on Texas highways near
Levelland reported that their cars were approached and/or overflown by a
large, elliptical object. The huge UFO sometimes looked like "a great ball of
U Ve< fire," sometimes like an unlighted opaque object, and sometimes was seen
1

^pulsing between these two phases. Its near presence apparently affected the
\ electrical systems of cars and trucks on the highway as well as two grain com-
bines in a field. In most of the cases the electromagnetic (EM) interference
ceased after the object passed.
Headlines screamed all over the nation, but the Air Force promptly wrote
off the sightings as "ball lightning." McDonald wondered about this "explana-
tion," for in 1957 ball lightning was not generally accepted by scientists, even
though the phenomenon was commonly experienced by pilots and by individuals
living in mountainous areas. But for the American public and the scientific es-
tablishment, the Air Force "explanation" for the Levelland sightings sufficed.
McDonald had himself seen a bright, anomalous object in the daytime sky
when he first came to Tucson in 1954. He was driving with four other meteorol-
ogists on a highway between Tucson and Nogales near sunset. As they drove,
they could see the Santa Rita Mountains to the south and east. During part of the
trip, they viewed a shining object, with the appearance of aluminum, hovering
high over the Santa Rita mountains to the south and east. In spite of their com-
bined expertise, none were able to identify the object. McDonald checked with
the Astronomy Department when he arrived back at the University and learned
that the object was not Venus or any other star or planet. He checked through a
number of possibilities, including balloons, but none of them fit the facts. At this
point, McDonald wrote a letter to the Air Force, carefully outlining the facts of
the sighting and the efforts he had made to identify the object. He even asked the
Air Force if the objects could possibly be "flares."

1. The UFO Evidence, Edited by Richard H. Hall, Wash., D. C., Published by National Inves-
tigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena, 1964, p. 85.
2. Keyhoe, Maj. Donald E. (USMC, Ret.), Flying Saucers From Outer Space, New York,
Henry Holt and Company, 1953, pp. 57,124-36.
2 0 FORV^VA* ^ W I W B — ^ F I R E S T O R M

McDonald received an answer from the Air Force. They were unable to
identity the object, their letter stated, but they "were happy to receive such a
thorough account from an expert observer." The Air Force promised that their
"analysts" would look into the matter and report back whatever they found out.
They never did. McDonald never spoke publicly of this sighting, but it contin-
ued to puzzle him.
"To his family and the public, he'd say, 'I've never seen a UFO,'" relates
Betsy McDonald. "If anybody would ask him, 'Have you ever seen a UFO?'
his answer was, 'No,' meaning he'd never seen an unidentified craft. He might
have seen an aluminum object, but he didn't know what it was at that time."
To McDonald, the
term £UFO" was reserved for craftlike, unidentified
objects which were seen at close range by credible witnessesjThe 1954 inci-
dent, however, probably served as a subtle factor in his later decision to devote
time and energy to studying UFO events.
From 1954 to 1958, he relished his work at the growing IAP, enjoyed
the camaraderie of his colleagues, such as Dr. Cornelius "Corny" Steelink, a
professor in the chemistry department. Steelink and he taught Sunday school
together in an "essentially humanist" way. These were "the salad days" for
the McDonalds. The six children, with their two caring parents, were consid-
ered the ideal family, and they formed many deep, lasting friendships in the
Tucson community.
He left no diaries about raising his family, but his first handwritten journal
gives us clues about his first UFO investigations. The earliest notes available
concern a mechanical engineer named Jack Craig from Bisbee, Arizona, a
town about 90 miles southeast of Tucson. Craig had called McDonald on Feb-
ruary 16, 1958, describing an object which he'd seen the previous November
or December—a black, wingless object approximately 100 ft. across and 10-
15 ft. high, flying about 300 feet above the ground. It emitted white smoke for
a brief time, but no flame or lights were seen. It climbed higher as it flew south
over Mexico, and disappeared into the distance.
This first account was fragmentary, but the second unexplainable case
which came to McDonald's attention was far from brief. It was reported by doz-
ens of citizens to Tucson newspapers, radio and TV stations and was of such
broad interest and complexity that it presented a challenge to him. His first jour-
nal, which includes a four-part account of his investigation of this event, is 44
handwritten pages long; it also contains other cases he investigated from 1958 to
1962. This journal is written in his precise script, and gives valuable insight into
his methodical mind.
QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 21

Between about 5:35 and 6:00 A.M. on April 1, 1958, hundreds of people
in and around Tucson observed a group of unusual aerial objects pass over the
city and disappear in the east over the Rincon Mountains. The anomalous set
of objects was followed minutes later by at least two separate groups of mili-
tary jets. Local newspapers of April 2 carried accounts of the observations by
several different individuals at fairly widely scattered points. McDonald wrote
in his journal:
The reports were sufficiently similar in nature to suggest that some
actual phenomenon had been observed, optical or otherwise, so I con-
tacted those persons whose reports had been described in the press....
[B]y the time that I had interviewed, chiefly by telephone, some twenty
persons, a barely consistent pattern seemed to be emerging.
[B]y using newspapers in Tucson and in five communities throughout
southeastern Arizona and local radio and television stations.... I ob-
tained a total sample of seventy-five interviews plus five letters from
persons too far from Tucson to be interviewed. 3

The sheer amount of work he describes so easily might seem exhaustive, but
McDonald was attacking what he considered an interesting scientific question.
In his opinion, the large number of independent observations—from localities
extending about 25 miles in a north-south direction and 70 miles in an east-west
direction—removed all suspicion of "hallucination" as a causal factor.
Individual accounts differed in details, but this did not surprise him, given
the anomalous nature of the event. In general, however, the observers saw sev-
eral rather small silvery or golden oval-shaped "objects" in the eastern sky pri-
or to sunrise, which on that date occurred at 6:12 A.M. Nearly every observer
was impressed by the leisurely pace of the objects. Many reported no discern-
ible motion over several minutes, while others who watched them longer de-
scribed very slow eastward drift. The majority of witnesses described the
objects as well-defined, with definite outlines.
Using triangulation, McDonald calculated that the objects were at least
25 miles away from the observers. Dr. A. Richard Kassander describes the
precision with which McDonald went about calculating their altitude.
"He was extremely clever in how he would go to a person's house and find
out which window they were looking through, and whether they saw the ob-
jects near a telegraph pole, or a tree, so he could get some sort of an angle,"

3. From an untitled 38-page paper found in McDonald's files, p. 1. It is very likely that
McDonald planned to finish the paper but never had the time, for it is heavily edited and
annotated in his own handwriting, ready for re-typing.
22 FIRESTORM

relates Kassander. "And then after about 20 or 30 of these interviews, the lines
would converge at a point where they would become very significant."4
Because of the oval shapes of the objects, one observer felt positive that
he was viewing parachutes from some aircraft in difficulty over the Rincon
Mountains, but other interviewees who were working beside this observer in-
dependently pointed out that the shape of standard parachutes probably could
not be distinguished at such a distance. The officials at nearby Davis-Monthan
AFB promptly "identified" the first flight of anomalous objects as "possible jet
aircraft," but many witnesses whom McDonald regarded as reliable, profes-
sional observers were vehement in stating that what they viewed could not pos-
sibly have been aircraft or contrails from aircraft.
The mysterious group of objects was seen by ten groups of multiple wit-
nesses. McDonald interviewed each witness carefully, and at every sighting lo-
cation he determined angles of elevation by using a transit. Since the "official"
answer that was being bandied about by the Air Force was that the objects were
either clouds or vapor trails, McDonald could have easily concurred. Instead, in-
trigued by the professional attributes of many of the witnesses, he could not let
go of an unanswered question.
McDonald was an expert interviewer—courteous, interested and willing
to listen as long as the witness was credible. When several observers were be-
ing interviewed, as at their place of business, he interviewed each one separate-
ly when at all possible, in order to maximize independence of observations. He
did some of the interviews in his IAP office, where his secretary, Margaret
Sanderson-Rae, heard many of these conversations.
"He was very careful never to ask leading questions," states Sanderson-
Rae. "He never led them into answers that he wanted. It's how you ask a ques-
tion. The person you're talking to wants to please, and so they come across
with the answer that you wanted. He was very careful not to do this. He went
at it scientifically. He didn't go at it with preconceived notions."
Newspaper accounts of the April 1,1958, occurrence referred directly or in-
directly to "flying saucers" or "UFOs," but McDonald noticed that of the 75 wit-
nesses he personally interviewed, only about five referred to them in such terms.
Most observers simply described what they saw and that was the end of their
comments, aside from asking McDonald what he thought they were. He was
non-committal; it would be weeks before he would allow himself to form even a
tentative hypothesis.

4. Author's interview with Dr. A. Richard Kassander, Jr., on 19 November 1993.

QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 23
n " r v ^ w
{ ' 1 1

Of the 75 witnesses, McDonald felt reservations concerning the reliability

of only two. There was also a 76th witness, whom he kindly never named, who
gave a report which McDonald concluded was hallucinatory. This witness re-
ferred to "a luminous ball, one third the size of Mica Mountain,' which pen- 0

etrated the mountain and emerged a dirty brown color on the far side!
Of the remaining 73 accounts, McDonald noted that a number were vague
and fragmentary, but he also noted that the witnesses themselves told him that
their own observations were poor. He also noticed what he called "an interest-
ing reluctance" on the part of many regarding publicity. This was intriguing,
and he questioned the witnesses about it. They made it very clear that they
didn't want to be subjected to the media's typical handling of UFO reports—
the levity or ridicule which was almost invariably incorporated into news sto-
ries or headlines. 6

"This seems unfortunate," wrote McDonald, "for observations of any un-

explained phenomenon are of some kind of scientific interest and should be re-
ceived and disseminated in this spirit, when not obviously hallucinatory."
Several observational shortcomings become glaringly evident to James
McDonald, while interviewing the April 1 witnesses. He learned that very
few laymen understood the concept of "angular size." Of those who did, al-
most all seriously overestimated angular size. McDonald solved this prob-
7

lem by asking them to pick out some visible object of similar angular width,
once he'd clarified this term. He would then measure that object with instru-
ments and obtain a better estimate.
He met similar difficulty in obtaining witnesses' estimates of elevation of
the object, "elevation" meaning the number of degrees an object is located up
from the horizon. When the term was explained to them, some witnesses did
well and others did not. He noticed, as do most good UFO researchers, that a
true elevation angle of 15°-20° is usually reported as about 45°. A third diffi-
culty he encountered was the fact that only a small number of the observers had
immediately checked the exact time of the overflight. "Time-fixes to within
one minute would have been extremely helpful," he wrote.
X ' -te _ f P A ^_—
rl c <^pPI , . ii H . c

5. A prominent peak near Tucson. ^ WuFOhJ. X ^ " a

6. To a certain extent, this is still true. X eH ^

7. This difficulty had been evident since the first UFO researcher interviewed the first witness-!
in the late 1940s! When asked to describe the apparent size of the object in the sky, many K;
witnesses give a numerical estimate, such as "about 50 feet across." When it is explained " J

that "apparent size" means the area of sky the object filled, many witnesses will say, for
example, "about the size of the moon, or a grapefruit," not realizing that the angular diame- r 1

ter of the full moon at zenith can be covered by an aspirin tablet held at arm's length! It is
the problem of apparent size.
^J c^ Jso, 0 c
24 FIRESTORM

McDonald also wrestled with the problem of azimuthal position, that is,
at what compass point the objects were visible. Only a few observers had the
presence of mind to step into a position where several easily-remembered
foreground objects could be lined up, to serve later as reliable reference
points in discerning position and motion. Finally, only one or two thought to
make even a crude sketch to assist in recalling details. "Needless to say,"
wrote McDonald, "none of these shortcomings is really surprising consider-
ing the adventitious nature of all of these observations." Terms like "adven-
titious" in McDonald's writings are not unusual. Anyone wishing access to
his files should bring along a dictionary. His vocabulary was prodigious,
both in the printed and written word.
It is fascinating to compare this patient McDonald—who was attempting
to derive scientifically usable information from non-scientific, lay observers—
with the McDonald his colleagues knew and loved.
"He was a joy to have lunch with," states his friend Dr. Dean Staley. "He
could be seemingly at ease and capable of small talk.... Then things would
come up and he was always interested in the physics of them. For example,
if a question came up about the efficiency of an air filter, he would start
working on it in terms of the diameter of the fibers that made up the filter and
how efficient they should be in collecting dust, given a certain flow rate of
dust through the filter. And he would start working this out in his head and
get at the heart of the physical problem that was involved.
"I miss that kind of thing," Staley says, "and his interesting sense of hu-
mor. Mac could be very puritanical when perceiving lapses of scientific rigor
or ethics, but had little of the traditional sense of puritanism. One day at lunch
one of our colleagues arrived at the table with his tray, and on the tray was a
large, impressive German sausage." McDonald looked at the sausage and
made a rather direct remark about what those sausages were called in the Navy.
That time, it was the lunching professors who laughed.
"But on the other hand," Staley continues, "he drove fast, and had the ca-
pability of frightening people. When he was the passenger, other people didn't
drive fast enough. [Dr. Gerard] Kuiper came here around 1960 with his entou-
rage and was setting up his Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, which used facil-
ities on Kitt Peak. There was, at that time, just an old road leading up there.
McDonald drove Kuiper over there and scared the daylights out of him. They
drove out there at 70 or 80 miles an hour."
The credible UFO witnesses whom McDonald interviewed in those early
years never saw his impatient side. He was invariably cordial and listened to
what they had to say. This was because he was studying the UFO question, and
 (J) ' /(. laL T i / rr| I/iv*.;; > i j , i / f i | f » r r
0/

3J
-I QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 25
;; p
-S how better to study it than by listening to rational observers who'd seen them?
J * The impatient part of his nature was thrust aside in the learning process.
%
4
ix He obtained precise meteorological conditions and possible optical expla-
3^T; nations for the
, , showed
,
Aprill i1,l 1958,
, completely
Tucson
lclear skies
sighting. Weather
I ' ffor iL
Bureau
Lhours preceding
records for. that
j« the 6:00 A.M. ..
date the six
J]
1
ftA

i .
h observation with visibility at 60 miles. He also checked the temperature, dew
j i point, relative humidity, and surface and upper level winds. 8

The Weather Bureau's regular morning rawinsonde balloon was released

at 4:10 A.M. and burst at 5:34 A.M. at about 90,000 feet altitude, almost one-
half hour before the first observation of any unusual aerial phenomena in the
Tucson skies. McDonald did not consider it further.
In his write-up of the investigation, McDonald specified the upper layers
^ 11' 'of atmosphere, the conditions under which jets would form contrails and even
, § > the length of contrails which would be left. The information is too technical to
1

include here, but suffice it to say that, "applying Appleman's standard criteria
; l, for prediction of contrail-formation regions," McDonald concluded that con-
<~i £ t trails over Tucson that morning were inevitable only from 35,000 ft. to 53,000
s ft., and that low humidity in the lower stratosphere would produce only short
c , ' contrails. Observers who saw what they regarded as jets, apparently pursuing
9

the anomalous set of objects, reported only short contrails.

ojf
J Q.4 sj McDonald also considered the possibility that refractive effects—i. e.,
(~r mirages—of the type frequently seen in the Southwest near dawn might have
'1 contributed to the April 1 phenomena but promptly disproved that explana-
tion. He had read some of the writings of Dr. Donald H. Menzel, who was
10

a Professor of Astronomy at Harvard and a Senior Scientist at the Smithso-

nian Astrophysical Observatory. Menzel was strongly against assigning
11

any credence to UFOs. One of his favorite "explanations" was "mirages," but
this explanation never fit the facts of the best sightings. The fact that he was
8. McDonald, op. tit., p. 5.
9. Ibid., pp. 5-6.
10. "First, the angular elevations of the phenomena sighted were nowhere much below 2°."
McDonald wrote. "This is, of course, too large an angular elevation to fall into the category
of surface mirages. Second, no inversions of even a weak nature were present in the 0500
sounding—certainly nothing capable of yielding total refraction angles of 3* to 6' such as
would be required to fit an hypothesis that the image of the sun was somehow being
refracted over the eastern horizon by density discontinuities in the free air. This pair of cir-
cumstances considerably simplifies interpretation here, for it completely removes necessity
of considering refraction effects."
11. For a later Menzel work, see The World of Flying Saucers: A Scientific Examination of a
Major Myth of the Space Age, Garden City, NY, Doubleday & Company, Inc., by Donald H.
Menzel & Lyle G. Boyd, esp. pp. 63-66.
26 FIRESTORM

obliged to ignore most of the observers' statements to squeeze them into his
"mirage" rationalization never troubled Menzel.
The winds at higher levels for that day also worked against an explanation
of "wind-blown" objects. Although the winds were strong at upper levels—from
7,000 to 10,000 feet—groups of multiple witnesses had seen the objects hover
for several minutes at a time. McDonald also made systematic inquiries to deter-
mine all air activity occurring near Tucson during the entire period of the obser-
vations. It was clear that if the first set of anomalous objects (which passed over
between 5:35 and 6:00 A.M.) were aircraft, they were either helicopters at mod-
erate range or jets at very high altitude. There had been no helicopter flights that
morning, but helicopters were really not a plausible explanation anyway, since
their angular size, at the distance reported by the observers, would have been just
at or below the resolution limits of the human eye.
This left high-altitude jets as the only other type of conventional aircraft
which might possibly explain the first set. McDonald queried all four possi-
ble sources of local information, but none shed light on the problem. The Air
Force radar station on Mt. Lemmon, an AF radar installation about 30 miles
north-northeast of Tucson, had logged two flights of one or two jets each, but
the anomalous group had five or six objects in loose formation. McDonald
experienced his first tangle with Air Force officialdom when he tried to get
radar information from Mt. Lemmon. The Operations Officer, a Captain
Murphy, told him that "they had no fixes of any kind that weren't accounted
for." He also told McDonald he had no information on the six jets which had
followed just minutes afterward! "But there's nothing there that weren't our
own," he said.
McDonald pursued the issue. Murphy, apparently backed into a corner,
stated, "Even if there had been anything there, I can't say anything about it
since radar information is classified!" McDonald carefully wrote down this
conversation and placed after it the first of the very few exclamation points
which appear in his journals. He also wrote down the conundrum: "But he'd
just said they had no fixes there that weren't accounted for." This was the
first of many puzzling remarks McDonald was to encounter while attempting
to get radar confirmation on Tucson sightings.
Persisting, McDonald went higher up. He phoned Lt. Colonel Robert C.
Smith, Mt. Lemmon's commanding officer. Col. Smith also denied radar read-
ings on the anomalous flight of objects.
"I'm not pulling the wool over your eyes," Col. Smith told him. "There's so
much traffic through here that it's fantastic." He listed the various air fields and
airlines around Tucson and told McDonald that planes came through at fantastic
QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 27

speeds and altitudes—such as F-104's and B-58's. In addition, there was unusual
traffic coming from California, he said, "experimental planes, etc."
McDonald apparently insisted, because Col. Smith agreed to check once
again and phone back "on an unofficial basis." But it was the same story. At
5:20 A.M. two jet aircraft had passed over at 35,000 feet west-bound, and at
6:00 A.M. one or two others had passed over at the same altitude west-bound.
Col. Smith theorized that the unidentified objects viewed between 5:40 A.M.
and 6:00 A.M. were "probably test stuff—higher speed aircraft." He also told
McDonald that "people get fooled, by objects like balloons." 12

McDonald still persisted and was given the extension of a General Wil-
son, Commander, 36th Air Force Division. General Wilson, he was assured,
could check to see if there had been a Strategic Air Command (SAC) exercise
with aircraft in those numbers. However, when McDonald stated to a repre-
sentative at Davis-Monthan (D-M), an Air Force base just south of Tucson,
that the Mt. Lemmon radar had failed to detect the overflight, he was told that
"Lemmon radar might not know about SAC exercises going on." When 13

McDonald called General Wilson back, he wasn't available; Sgt. John W.

McDonald of the Central Air Traffic Control took over. The Sergeant stated
that D-M did not receive all flight plans and that only two agencies had
records—local air traffic control monitoring flights originating from or ter-
minating at Tucson and Tucson Radio Control (TRC), which monitored
through-flights.
McDonald called TRC and learned that only a log of radio contacts was
kept. In fact, between D-M, TRC and the CAA he was given conflicting infor-
mation. The Sergeant McDonald to whom he spoke had been quoted in the
14

April 3 Tucson Star and had told reporters that F-102 jet fighters, "presumably
from George AFB at Victorville, California," fly over Tucson and always in
groups of four. He intimated that they could be flying as high as 50,000 to
70,000 feet. McDonald clipped items about this event from local papers, un-
derlining the words "presumably" and "50,000 to 70,000 feet" and, in a margin
of one of the photocopies, noted the sunrise point as being 5° north of east (see
Appendix Item 2-A, page 528).

12. McDonald's first journal, p. 39.

13. In the words of the late Elton Boyer, who was a consultant on this book, a professional pilot
extremely knowledgeable in aviation affairs, and a man who often flew into the Tucson
area, "If the Lemmon guy had said anything to McDonald about SAC exercises, he would
have been severely dealt with by General Le May, who was deadly on security."
14. Ibid., p. 41.
28 FIRESTORM

Even though he received no satisfaction from official sources, McDonald

continued undaunted. He called the Sergeant back a few days later to inquire
about regulations governing flights above 30,000 feet. He again received con-
flicting information from D-M and the Civilian Aeronautics Administration
(CAA). The CAA representative called D-M himself, checked with the Opera-
tions Officer and called McDonald back, stating, "[The Sergeant] must be
wrong."15 Aircraft flying over 29,000 feet had many complicated rules that were
different from those for ordinary jet flights. McDonald's notes on these conflict-
ing conversations are completely objective. However, he would have been less
than human not to feel some frustration.
"He did feel that he was not getting the straight stuff from the Air Force,"
states Dr. Dick Kassander. "And since that was not only a matter of Davis-
Monthan, the supposition might reasonably be made there were things that, as a
matter of policy, the Air Force did not wish discussed."
McDonald's confidence that "the Air Force was taking care of things" be-
gan to crack when he first met this resistance from Air Force officialdom.
Friends in the D-M tower had told him unofficially that when an object report-
ed as a UFO was caught on radar there, higher officials would subsequently
deny it. This situation only served to increase his interest in UFOs. UFO sight-
ings were to him only subjective, anecdotal reports, no matter how multiple
and credible the observers might be—the same attitude any objective research-
er would take. However, if a radar lock on the same target could be confirmed,
the subjective reports took on a type of objective reality. This is precisely what
he was seeking. It could answer his basic question: Were physical, unidentified
objects operating in Tucson skies?
As regards the April 1, 1958, objects, Air Force personnel at D-M south of
Tucson denied observing the "principal phenomena," as James McDonald
termed the first set of anomalous objects. D-M confirmed, however, that they
had viewed a flight of five or six jets at 6:10 A.M. traveling east, but had no radio
contact with them. He was informed that through-flights of high-altitude aircraft
are not required to establish radio contact with the ground.
Only one source in the area, the Tucson Municipal Airport, had monitored
aircraft movements in the Tucson area on that April 1 st morning. At 5:45 A.M.
a Tucson woman phoned the Weather Bureau, based at the airport, to report
some unusual objects low over the Rincon Mountains east of Tucson. Three
Weather Bureau staff members went outdoors and studied the group, which
was comprised of one large and four small white objects. The Bureau was
again alerted when the same woman phoned in again about 6:00 A.M. to report

15. Ibid., p. 41.

QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 29

that six other objects had just passed overhead. Three Weather Bureau person-
nel once again stepped out to examine these and concluded that they were jets.
A large number of Arizonans saw this flight of six jets, heading east or
east-southeast, pass over the city at about 6:10 A.M. However, McDonald, in
spite of his best efforts, could find no official agency who could identify
these jets, which were apparently following the same path the "principal phe-
nomena" had taken just minutes before.
This was the first prolonged period of frustration McDonald experienced
from lack of cooperation from officialdom. Dick Kassander, his longtime
friend and colleague, relates. "Some of these observations were really quite un-
canny. They were very interesting. He'd say, 'If I asked the Air Force whether
they saw anything on the radar they would say 'no," when immediately before
he'd talked to a friend who was on the radar who said, 'Hell, yes!'"
"Then there were pilot reports," Kassander continues. "Those were the
toughest of all to argue against, because these guys were skilled observers and
there were a number of them. [With] the pilots, it was, 'You're damn right I saw
it! And it was on the radar.' And these fellows had no ax to grind one way or the
other, and were not likely to be fooled by the sorts of phenomena you frequently
see in the sky." In McDonald's first journal, however, there are no notes regard-
ing any confirmations on radar of the April 1 sightings; neither are there notes of
conversations with "friends" or "pilots." The reason for this will be become
abundantly clear in later chapters—he kept confidential material to himself.
McDonald was forced to conclude that confirmed aircraft movements
over Tucson early on April 1 failed to provide any positive information bearing
on the nature of the "principal phenomena," as he termed it. Two military op-
erations offices, two control towers, a radar station, and a radio navigational
facility "cooperated" by offering what they claimed was all available informa-
tion, yet none of it clearly established that the principal phenomena were ex-
tremely high-flying aircraft.
In McDonald's unpublished paper concerning the April 1 overflight, lack
of space precluded giving detailed information from each of the 75 witnesses,
although his first handwritten journal contains most of it. Instead, he chose to
cite enough observations to illustrate the different kinds of reports he received.
The earliest observation was made within a minute or two of 5:35 A.M. by Mrs.
D. K. Wood of Tucson, who had just returned from driving her husband to the
bus. Just as she returned home she detected six pencil-shaped white streaks in
formation, at 8° elevation, 110° azimuth, ESE, as checked later by McDonald
with a transit he set up in her yard. She'd seen these streaks just above a neigh-
bor's television antenna, and McDonald ascertained that the angles were reli-
able to about 2°. Each streak was about 5° in apparent length, grouped into two
 3% FIRESTORM

c - V

irregular V-formations. She watched them about two or three minutes and
could not detect any motion, nor did they evaporate or shift position, as they
| ? would if they had been contrails.
The streaks were silvery white, strongly suggesting that they were sunlit.
At 5:35 A.M., the sun was 9° below the eastern horizon. In order for any object
seen at 8° elevation to be sunlit, McDonald calculated its altitude would have
had to be about 25 miles high. No groups of experimental planes were known
to fly at 130,000 feet, plus their lack of movement made it difficult for him to
; accept them as jets. If their luminosity was due to direct sunlight, they could
not possibly have been conventional aircraft. He thought it regrettable that no
information was at hand concerning the manner of their disappearance, for he
received no other reports closely similar to Mrs. Wood's. Whether the uniden-
tified woman who had phoned the Weather Bureau at 5:45 A.M. saw these
streaks, McDonald could not pin down, for the Bureau hadn't taken down her
name or address. The Weather Bureau and the CAA confirmed the 6:00 A.M.
set of high-flying jets but later denied seeing the earlier overflight of anoma-
lous objects.
While Mrs. Wood was viewing the six motionless "streaks" in the sky,
two Greyhound buses were taking civilian personnel to the Army Electronic
Proving Ground (AEPG) at Ft. Huachuca. The buses were heading east on the
Benson Highway, and a number of people on these buses observed unusual
aerial phenomena. H.A. Ide, a member of the civilian scientific staff at AEPG,
viewed six oblong objects for a full 25 minutes, beginning at 5:40 A.M. When
first detected, the objects were at elevation 25°-30°, heading east-southeast. Ide
felt fairly certain that they were reflecting sunlight when he first detected them;
he did not believe they were self-luminous.
The first four objects Ide saw were in a loose formation, with two others
behind; they held this arrangement throughout. Ide first thought they were
specks of cloud but then noted that the sky was cloudless. They appeared to
have blunt ends and no wings. The one in the rear looked larger than the others,
but when they had passed on ahead of his bus, he could see that this appearance
resulted only because two of them were very close together. Each object had
an angular width of about one-half the diameter of the full moon.
McDonald interviewed all the bus passengers who saw this 5:40 set. Dean
K. Wood described them as somewhat oval in shape, long axis horizontal, and
sharply outlined. Two other witnesses were LeRoy Gaskins, a former Navy
seaman, and Eugene Ford, a former military pilot, both of whom independently
reported that these objects were not aircraft. Neither witness had any idea what
they could have been.
QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 31

Ford illustrates the type of witness which impressed McDonald the

most—professional, objective, unable to understand the experience of seeing
something unidentifiable. Ford, like most of the others, had been reluctant to
talk to the media but trusted a scientist who showed interest. The following en-
try from McDonald's journal regarding Ford's testimony is a sample of his
careful notes:
Eugene Ford: a pilot during war.... About 15-20 miles noted unusual
"cloudformations^... Were 4 in a group. Flat, like a saucer.
Off to left of group was one @ 3 X larger.... Sun reflection made it
bright white, but not shiny. Seemed much larger than any plane he 'd
ever seen. Squashed ball, symmetrical. Fuzzy edges. Shape doesn V
match vapor trails.
Couldn't see any motion. Doesn't understand this.... Appeared to get
smaller as if receding... Did get lower on horizon, as if were reced-
ing.... Looked up & saw group of jets. Altogether different.... Obvious-
ly moving & overhead, heading east.
The lead Greyhound bus had a flat tire a few miles east of Tucson and was
overtaken by the second bus. While passengers were standing around outside,
many observed six high-flying jets heading east at about 6:00 A.M. They
seemed to be pursuing the first unidentified set of whitish, oval objects. Every-
one who saw them were definite that these were six jets, heading in the same
direction as the first six unidentified objects. These jets were leaving fairly
short vapor trails. The anomalous objects were just disappearing over the Rin-
con Mountains to the east when the six jets came over.
At 5:40 A.M., when Mr. Ide first detected the unidentified objects, the sun
was about 8° below the horizon. At that moment, the lowest altitude at which
an object could be sunlit when passing overhead was 40 miles. This raised the
objects' estimated altitude to 215,000 feet! If Ide and other witness on the bus-
es were correct in attributing their silvery-white appearance to reflected sun-
light, these objects were at altitudes not attainable by any known aircraft. On 16

the other hand, if the objects were self-luminous they were also not conven-
tional aircraft.
The witnesses on the two buses saw the anomalous set of objects only about
five minutes after Mrs. Wood was observing the six motionless streaks from her
back yard, and three Weather Bureau personnel were observing five objects due
east, very low on the horizon. The peculiar fact, McDonald wrote, is that the 5:40

16. The X-l 5 experimental plane was the only one ever flown at altitudes like this, but it
always flew singly.
32 FIRESTORM

A.M. set of objects seen by Ide, Ford and the others could not be identified with
either of the two other sets.
Concerning the observations made by Weather Bureau personnel at Tuc-
son Municipal Airport, McDonald made detailed reconstruction of events and
was led to the almost certain conclusion that the first set of objects seen by
Weather Bureau personnel was between 5:45 and 5:50 A.M. Bruce Morrow,
Ivan Robert, and Eileen De Laurentis were the three observers. McDonald in-
terviewed all by phone, and also interviewed De Laurentis in person at the Bu-
reau under conditions where transit checks could be made. Five objects were
seen, four smaller objects in a formation and a larger one which gave De Lau-
rentis the impression that it was two not-quite-resolvable but separate objects.
Persistence of the objects had led the three observers to conclude that they
must be jet contrails seen end-on.
McDonald calculated, however, that if the objects were jets flying in the
contrail zone at the determined distance, their angular size would be just at the
resolution limit of the human eye, and this did not match the much larger size
(10-15 minutes of arc) given by the multiple witnesses on the buses.
But suppose the objects were jets, as the Weather Bureau and military peo-
ple were stating. Where would they have had to be located to be sunlit at 5:45?
The sunrise point lay about 390 miles east of Tucson at that time. Since contrails
could not have been formed at altitudes any higher than about ten miles on that
particular morning, McDonald conservatively estimated the altitudes at which
jets could be sunlit. By a complicated calculation, using the curvature and the ra-
dius of the Earth, he placed the hypothetical jets at 110 miles east of Tucson at
5:45 A.M. and managed to calculate that the objects seen by the Weather Bureau
personnel might possibly have been contrails from jets seen end-on.17
Despite his arduous reasoning, however, he was unable to come to the
conclusion that the Bureau observers saw contrails. "My reasons are photomet-
ric rather than geometric, and they are much more subjective than are the
above, rather convincing geometric arguments," he wrote. He began systemat-
ically looking for contrails a bit after sunset to study the luminosity of contrails
seen at low angles against the twilight sky, and he did watch several jets form-
ing short contrails comparable to those of April 1, westward near sunset. He
found it extremely difficult to discern such contrails even at angular altitudes
of 5°-6°, while the Weather Bureau personnel had viewed their "contrails" at
less than 2.5° elevation. McDonald's calculations left him with strong doubts
that contrails 100-150 miles away could be spotted so plainly.18

17. McDonald's unfinished paper on 1 April 1958 Tucson sighting, p. 26.

QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 33

Likewise, he could not account for some of the other witnesses' observa-
tions. Ide's and Wood's sightings could not be equated to "jets," for they were
seen under conditions where they could not possibly have been sunlit. On the
other hand, whatever Ide and the other witnesses on the buses saw might be
matched crudely with the geometry of the Weather Bureau observations. If
Ide's objects, heading easterly at high speed, had been viewed by the Weather
Bureau personnel toward the end of Ide's sighting, their path might have car-
ried them to such a position that at 5:45 A.M. they would have appeared, to the
Bureau staff, to lie low over the Rincons.
In addition to the confirmed 6:00 A.M. passage of six military jets which
were apparently following the "principal phenomena," there were two other
flights of military jets which overflew Tucson: one comprised of from four
to six jets at about 6:10 A.M. (confirmed by Davis-Monthan AFB) and anoth-
er group of eight jets which overflew between the 6:00 A.M. group and the
6:10 A.M. group! The complexity of the April 1, 1958, sightings was a credit
to McDonald's tenacity.
To summarize this complex case, a group of five or six anomalous objects
were seen flying high over Tucson by ten groups of multiple witnesses each.
McDonald demonstrated, through scientific measurements and mathematical
calculation, that the objects were flying at too high an altitude to be jets or any
type of known aircraft. McDonald could have just as easily accepted the simple
answers officialdom was giving—but he could not accept an answer which did
not fit all the data which reliable, careful witnesses gave him.
He also checked out the possibility that the unexplained sightings were
some type of secret experimental craft being tested at a distant Air Base, but
without success. Learning from these early Tucson sightings, he developed the
habit of checking carefully wherever he could to rule out this possibility on the
UFO sightings he was investigating. His secretary, Margaret Sanderson-Rae,

18. If anyone doubts McDonald's ability as a thorough investigator even when he was being
"subjective," consider the following footnote he wrote in his unfinished paper about his own
experiments in viewing vapor trails low on the horizon after sunset: "It is known that the
threshold brightness-contrast for, say, 50%, probability of detection of objects rises rapidly
with decreasing angular size. For background sky luminance of about 0.1 candle per square
meter (order of horizon sky luminance at this solar depression angle), an object of one
minute angular width must have a brightness roughly one order of magnitude greater than
the sky. If one knew the water content and size of water particles constituting the contrail,
then one might.. .compute the apparent brightness of the contrail and predict the probability
of "seeing" the contrail. I have not attempted to make such a calculation since particle size
information is not at hand, and size effects can greatly influence the scattering pattern in
such cases as these." His entire paper is filled with similar scientific terms, which the author
has attempted to simplify for the sake of readability and general interest.
34
FIRESTORM

often heard him trying earnestly to obtain information from Air Force and oth-
er military sources.
"He always examined every report to be sure that there was nothing going
on at the time," Sanderson-Rae states. "He sent out a lot of correspondence to
the various AF bases. He'd get a UFO report and then he'd want to know what
were you doing, something that would tie into this, that would make this a log-
ical explanation."
In the course of the April 1 investigation, he interviewed a Hughes Air-
craft plant guard, Jack Estes, who also told him of another entirely separate
UFO sighting which had occurred to a friend, Kenneth Harayda. Harayda and
another adult witness had viewed a large, cylindrical object which traveled low
over the ridge of a hill near Nogales, a town adjacent to the Mexican border.
McDonald was intrigued enough to investigate this incident also. The witness-
es described how the object had traveled along the hill, then disappeared over
the crest, travelling south. It was so near that they could see what seemed to be
"windows" in the side of the craft. McDonald was impressed enough by the
case to take Betsy to the site and show her where the incident had occurred.
"Mac took me down to those hills on the way to Nogales, and he walked
on those hills and showed me where a reliable witness saw this cigar-shaped
object that flew over this hill," Betsy McDonald relates. "Low, as I remember,
and it went over on the other side and disappeared. As I recall, it went south,
toward the Mexican border. But what was important, this seemed to be a case
that was very instrumental in Mac's thinking about continuing research on
UFOs, because he felt that this was a case that he could not explain. There were
other cases, too, but this is the one that 1 remember that he used to explain to
me why he thought that he should look into these cases."19
The fact that McDonald left his 38-page paper on the April 1, 1958,
sightings unfinished does not mean that he did not finish his investigation of
the puzzling event. His notes are very complete, including his attempts to
confirm whether or not experimental aircraft were involved. It was one of 70
unfinished papers, on numerous aspects of atmospheric physics, left in his
files. He had worked zealously on the problem for months, could not solve
it, and went on to another. Dr. Kassander, who was then Director of the IAP,
describes McDonald's research method in vivid terms:
"As far as getting into the literature in a tiger fashion and being able to learn
very sophisticated concepts and being able to apply them to things he was con-

19. Interview with Betsy McDonald, 22 December 1994. To date, the investigation of this sem-
inal case has not been located in McDonald's files.
QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 35

cerned with, I' ve never seen his equal.... He was enormously respected for what
he did. He just went out and did his thing and let the chips fall where they may—
which, of course, is what is sometimes loosely called academic freedom."
McDonald became overwhelmed with UFO sighting reports, once it be-
came known in Tucson that a scientist was interested in receiving reports. Most
of the witnesses reporting strange objects in the sky simply wanted to know^ c 1
3
what they had seen. With his broad knowledge and ceaseless inquiry, he solved
about 98%-99.5% of the reports which came to his attention. He was usually
able to demonstrate to the witnesses' satisfaction that they had viewed conven- <y u
tional objects under unusual conditions. These objects included stars, planets,
satellites, balloons, and bright meteors.
At the same time that he was doing internationally recognized work in at- 9
mospheric physics and working on UFO reports in his spare time, he was also -P
«
fighting problems on the campus of the University of Arizona.
"He was one of a group of people who were grating on the nerve ends of
society," states colleague Dean Staley. "Locally, they were trying to get more
faculty involvement in the government of the University.... There are still people
in the Physics Dept. who talk about how some of the faculty of that time had a
lot of guts. The University was evolving rather rapidly in the late '50s and early
'60s, and [University President Dr. Richard] Harvill. I think, was one of the guys
who was really responsible for it becoming more of a research university, but he
was also a bit of an autocrat, and so McDonald was at odds with him."
Except for his good friend Dick Kassander, McDonald did not generally
respect administrators, but he maintained his sense of humor. He enjoyed im-
mensely a quip by Dr. Gerard Kuiper: "An assistant dean is a mouse training
to become a rat," and he included it in his list of favorite sayings.
In order to devote time to his numerous projects—scientific and non-sci-
entific—McDonald had to be what is popularly referred to as a workaholic.
Dean Staley comments how he worked day and night, and through the week-
end. This had been going on since 1954 on atmospheric projects and, if any-
thing, it increased when he developed interest in the UFO question. McDonald
was repeatedly stonewalled by the military at D-M, but always found it hard to
believe that the military would fabricate a story. Yet, what he found was direct-
ly opposite.
As a result of his growing interest, he began reading voraciously in avail-
able UFO literature and slowly made contact with competent lay researchers
who had been working on the problem since the early 1950s [See Chapter
Five]. He put in prodigious time and effort on promising eases but was also
willing to listen to any UFO report as long as it came from a person who spoke
33
FIRESTORM

rationally and clearly. There is a normal human tendency to misidentify con-

ventional objects in the sky. Venus and Jupiter were often reported as UFOs—
as well as other astronomical objects. The following entry in his first journal
illustrates the care with which McDonald investigated every report and how he
was able to solve the majority of them:
Mrs. H.E. Orth, [address deleted]. Friday at 0410 A.M. got up to air
house & saw light north of east (ENE). Like a moon partially hidden
by clouds. Looking thru screen door. Opened it. Saw again and then
was gone. No comments on shape. 1 checked moonrise.
20
Is 0220. She agreed could be a good explanation
In the midst of his early UFO research, McDonald became involved in the
Titan missile controversy between 1961-63. He was not only concerned about
the civilian population which could be wiped out in a nuclear war, but his own
family was in danger. His responsibility as a father, as well as a scientist, drove
him forward. Researching all aspects of the problem, he became an expert on
civil defense in the process.
"Congressmen and Senators—Morris Udall, Hayden, all the big shots at
that time—considered the missile sites so close to Tucson as a big plum," re-
lates Dr. Dean Staley. "But McDonald saw that it was foolish. And he was at
odds with the Arizona Daily Star which at that time was run autocratically by
William R. Hearst wannabe William R. Matthews. People like Matthews and
others would call up Kassander and essentially say, 'Fire the guy!' ...or they'd
want Kassander to give McDonald some message to lay off. And Kassander
would tell them, 'Well, here's his number. You call him.'"
The Titan missile fight gradually resolved itself, not to McDonald's sat-
isfaction, but beyond the point where he was able to do anything more about it
(See Chapter One). He returned to UFO research in his "spare time." Most wit-
nesses who called him were honestly concerned that they had seen something
strange, but McDonald quickly solved most of the reports. Most of the witness-
es accepted his explanations gratefully. Besides the plethora of identifiable
natural objects, however, there were also hoaxes which muddied the investiga-
tive process.
On June 28,1962, McDonald was called at his home by witnesses who were
viewing an orange-yellowish object in the sky maneuvering at a low altitude,
then ascending into the clouds. A number of observations of similar luminous
objects had been reported in the past month, and McDonald wasn't going to let
this chance pass by. With Betsy and three of their children, he trooped to the

20. McDonald's first journal, 1958-62 notes, p. 8.

QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 37

rooftop of the U. A. physics building to observe the object. Armed with binocu-
lars and a small telescope, McDonald and his family watched the object for 15
minutes as it slowly floated downward, eventually disappearing behind other
buildings. His own description, as reported in the June 29,1962, Tucson Star and
Tucson Citizen newspapers, was decisive and crisp:
It was an orange-yellow luminous object.... It appeared below and left
of the Pole star and slowly andfairly steadily rose with a sort of west-
ward trend.... It began to descend all the way down to the horizon until
our vision was obscured by university buildings....
He requested both newspapers to include a notice to the public that he
wished to hear from other observers. Twenty-three persons phoned him, thirteen
of them giving descriptions of the June 28 object, four for the night prior, and one
for two nights earlier! The details fit a pattern, and he solved the mystery within
a few hours. The same day he hand-typed a letter to the Citizen on his own time,
explaining the sighting in detail.
Five university students told McDonald that they had seen "three fellows
lugging a bunch of gear, including inflated plastic bags" across Speedway Blvd.
north of the campus on the night of the sighting and watched them fashion a cu-
rious brand of homemade balloon. The bags were plastic tubing of the sort which
dry cleaners use to cover cleaned clothing, but the "jokers" were using a 30-foot
strip. This was arranged into a donut-shape with a top handle. "At opposite ends
of one diameter were hung lanterns..., with four candles inside each paper-cov-
ered form, thus giving us our 8-candlepower UFO," McDonald wrote in his
buoyant style. "The inflating gas was ominous. Natural gas from some stove line,
nicely inflammable and held in large quantities in these long tubes!"
Solving the puzzle wasn't enough for him this time. He asked the campus
police to be on the lookout for the "balloonists," who apparently had been
launching the contraptions on a nightly basis for over a month. "I've suggested
that...they give these fellows a gentle suggestion that the fire danger involved...is
a bit too great to keep it up. For instance, all Wednesday night reports, plus cor-
responding winds, suggest that it went out of sight to the northeast, i.e., towards
the Catalinas [Mountains], now in state of extreme fire danger."
McDonald did not know it then, but hoax balloons were plaguing the en-
tire nation. In California, this author and other researchers were receiving fre-
quent reports of "candle balloons" made from six-foot plastic bags, supported
upright by balsa wood or soda straw frameworks. Candles placed around the
bottom filled the bags with hot air and enabled them to rise and drift with sur-
face winds for 15-30 minutes. The California balloons were just as dangerous
as the methane-gas balloons of Tucson. The FAA (formerly CAA) finally es-
32
FIRESTORM

tablished a regulation against launching them, citing danger of interference

with low-flying aircraft as well as the fire hazard.
McDonald's humanity was evident in his letter to the Citizen. He men-
tioned the name of only two of the students who had given him information,
but withheld the name of a third who requested that his identity not be revealed.
He'd learned from the students that the hoaxers were very matter-of-fact about
the whole thing. One of the three quoted one of the hoaxers, "Well, that'll be
up there all night, we might as well go home." The launchers then left, leaving
the balloon drifting toward the dry-brush Catalina Mountains!
McDonald kept on the case, and very soon the hoaxers were identified as
three U. of A. engineering students who were working in Tucson for the summer.
They lived just north of the campus, and had been launching variations of the
"balloons" for a year and a half, not only at night but in broad daylight! When
caught, they had a curious attitude.21 "We hope people realize from this that all
of our generation isn't apathetic," one stated. "But when we sent up one of our
balloons the other night, about 15 other students rode by and were totally amazed
that somebody would do something other than just ride around in cars!" They
claimed they launched the balloons with various light-mechanisms to "track
them" and get information about the winds, but also admitted that "there was
some fun involved in riding around town looking at people watching the "UFOs"
in amazement. When McDonald learned the identity of the hoaxers, he wrote one
brief sentence in his journal: "Sat 11:30. Met the three boys at their house." We
have no hint what McDonald said to the three young hoaxers, but of one thing
we can be sure: the candle balloon activity stopped abruptly.
McDonald, who was usually able to make lemonade when handed a lemon,
learned a valuable fact from the candle-balloon spree: The average laymen who
see unusual sights in the skies describe what they see without embellishment. It
was this assessment of the accurate observing ability of non-scientists that con-
vinced McDonald that UFO reports were not hallucinations or flights of imagi-
nation. He concluded that UFO witnesses, for the most part, were honest
individuals attempting to describe as best they could the appearance of unidenti-
fied objects in the skies.
He also realized two other important facts: Out of the hundreds of reports
he investigated and identified between 1958 and 1965, between 0.5% and 2%
were unidentifiable even to expert observers such as pilots, tower control op-
erators and law-enforcement officers. This small fraction defied explanation
even after exhaustive investigation, and generally involved reports of craftlike
machines which performed maneuvers which seemed to violate the known

21. Tucson Citizen, July 2, 1962.

QUERIES, INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS 39

laws of physics. Also, the curious block he'd run into while seeking radar con-
firmation from the Air Force challenged him, for the doors of officialdom had
always been wide open to him before.
None of the cases he encountered during those eight quiet years was of
any real significance in the UFO field, but the small fraction of unsolved cases
intrigued him. He had learned from other researchers that they had also found
that unexplained "two percent." Through correspondence and phone conversa-
tions with NICAP's Director and Assistant Director, Major Donald E. Keyhoe,
(USMC, Ret.) and Richard H. Hall, as well as other NICAP personnel, he con-
cluded that NICAP's staff and its nationwide subcommittees were very com-
petent investigators, even though many of them were non-scientists. They
were, however, professionals in other fields of endeavor.
McDonald's nonstop reading also led him to the international field of
ufology. In journals like the British Flying Saucer Review he discovered that
civilian researchers were doing thorough, objective work, and also were find-
ing an unidentifiable 2%. In the UFO research community worldwide, a few
lone scientists were quietly serving as consultants and researchers, but the sci-
entific establishment was ignoring the problem.
Dr. "Corny" Steelink was one of the friends and colleagues to whom
McDonald confided his concern about the UFO question. Most of his campus
colleagues knew of his interest, but inwardly he was agonizing over whether
he should go public.
"When you go public, you finally stake your scientific reputation," ex-
plains Dr. Steelink. "He knew what he was risking. He kept asking, 'Should I
go public?' He asked me and other people, too. He knew that what he was do-
ing was right, that it was a legitimate investigation. He only agonized about the
type of flak he would get, which might distract people from the real object of
the work and put him in a class of flakes and nuts. He wasn't."
By the spring of 1966, McDonald became convinced that the UFO ques-
tion was being wrongfully ignored by the scientific community, and that this
situation had been brought about by ridicule and lack of real knowledge. No
other scientist with his particular skills and reputation was publicly doing any-
thing about it. He decided it was up to him.
CHAPTER 3

Confronting the Incompetents

Inch by inch, row by row, going to make this garden grow,

All it takes is a rake and a hoe and a piece of fertile ground....
—from "The Garden Song"

He had been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams

out of cucumbers which were to be put in phials hermetically
sealed, and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers.
—Jonathan Swift, Voyage to Laputa

T he eight quiet years drew to a close. No one knows exactly what

"last straw" prompted James McDonald to go public about his in-
terest in UFOs. However, he was greatly irritated by the Air
Force's explanation of a spate of sightings which occurred in 1964-65 and
which became known as "the Michigan sightings." On April 10, 1966, he
wrote his contract monitor, Jim Hughes, at the Office of Naval Research
(Moore, Charles B.ONR) in Washington, D.C. In an informal letter, Mc-
Donald told Hughes that he had decided to try to convince the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to fund a quiet one-man study of the UFO
question. Through the assistance of his good friend. Dr. Thomas Malone,
who had been his professor of physics at MIT, the Committee of the At-
mospheric Sciences had been influential in getting the NAS to say "yes"
to a low-keyed study.
In the meantime, Rep. Gerald Ford, with whom NICAP worked qui-
etly but closely, was asking for a full Congressional hearing on the subject
of UFOs. Many of Ford's Michigan constituents were demanding that
Project Blue Book and the entire UFO question be studied. The Michigan
sighting flap, which started in 1964 (and continued into 1966) was show-
ing no signs of going away. Ford's constituents, many of them NICAP
members, were criticizing the careless way in which local sightings were
being written off, even though many were "close encounters" in which un-
identified aerial craft were seen within 500 feet, these being reported by

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 41

totally reliable observers. The very day McDonald was expecting his NAS
grant to go through, the Air Force decided something must be done to quiet the
public's outcries, effectively killing McDonald's NAS grant.
"Things were shaping up to permit me to do some kind of a low-keyed study
with NAS support when Rep. Ford's Congressional noises led to some changes,"
McDonald wrote Hughes. "The net result has been that DoD [Department of De-
fense] has gone to NAS to get suggested names and universities to participate in
some kind of a UFO study."
"I understand I'm at the head of the list of those who might tilt with the little
green men," wrote McDonald to Hughes lightheartedly. "But to date I've heard
nothing from DoD or USAF.... My own suspicions are that my Titan activities
may make me less than the Air Force's ideal candidate to check up on this prob-
lem. But in any event, something is cooking on this long-standing problem."
Hughes wrote to McDonald, indicating great interest in "remote-sensing"
of the atmosphere, and suggesting that laser observations of anomalous clouds,
as well as underwater sonar anomalies, might possibly eliminate some unidenti-
fied sightings. He asked McDonald if he could spare the time to examine the
Project Blue Book data and give ONR some assessment of the aspects of the
problem (see Appendix Item 3-A, page 529). (v^CwJl GU&ai ^ </*j
"Since you will be doing these things in our behalf, it will be legitimate to
charge your time and travel against our contract," Hughes wrote. McDonald
wrote back to Hughes, outlining preliminary plans for a Blue Book trip. He
planned to meet with Maj. Quintanilla, who was head of Blue Book, plus other
officials at the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) at which Blue Book was
based. For the first time, a top scientist was about to throw all his energy into in-
vestigating the UFO question.
He began a second journal, a collection of 33 handwritten pages, which
he kept between 1966 and 1967. He was apparently not susceptible to the hu-
man foible of slanting his writing upward or downward when writing on un-
lined paper. Handwriting experts state that a definite upward slant to
handwriting denotes a happy or contented mood, while a downward slant indi-
cates despondency or depression. McDonald's handwriting was generally ar-
row-straight, indicating that his mental processes were tightly controlled, and
his emotions subdued.
In this second journal, the writing is smaller than in the first, at times al-
most microscopic. In his published works, his vocabulary was limited only by
what was between the covers of the dictionary, and the grammar, spelling, and
phraseology were all virtually perfect. In his journals, however, he abbreviated
frequently, deleted prepositions and articles, and otherwise made his chroni-
30
FIRESTORM

cles concise. He also used acronyms of governmental and scientific agencies,

organizations, and facilities. The "Glossary of Acronyms" on page 587 is in-
tended to help guide the reader through this alphabet soup.
At the top of the first page he jotted the number "201" giving no hint as
to the location of the previous "200" pages. However, his early UFO investi-
gative notes, which comprise his first journal, add up to about 160 pages. He
may have estimated the number of these pages, written prior to March 1966,
and simply started his second "journal" with "201." These 66 pages (33 pages
back and front) record his activities in the UFO research field from April 5,
1966, through July 12, 1967—day-by-day accounts of conversations, trips,
events and rare personal comments, all UFO related. They also contain de-
tailed accounts of sightings confided to him by scientific colleagues.
There is almost no mention of his usual professional responsibilities or re-
search—these are in his multitude of published papers and notes preserved at
IAP and in the University of Arizona Library at Tucson. The first entry of his
second journal seems almost precognitive, because much of his UFO work re-
volved around radar-visual cases, which seemed to hold out to him hope of ob-
taining physical evidence of UFOs:
4/5/66 Relevant check with Atlas & FAA traffic controller re. kinds of
spurious echoes one can get under given conditions.
He eagerly looked forward to visiting Project Blue Book. Since early 1948
the U.S. government had given the Air Force the responsibility of handling UFO
reports from both military and public. Blue Book was the third project which had
been set up to do that, its predecessors being Project Sign and Project Grudge.
All three projects had come to the conclusion that there was nothing to UFOs—
that they were all the result of misperceptions of conventional aerial and atmo-
spheric phenomena, hallucinations, or hoaxes. At least that's what they told the
American public!
There were two particular cases which intrigued McDonald, and which he
planned to look up at Blue Book. The first was a report by Maj. Rudolph Pesta-
lozzi, a Tucson resident. Pestalozzi had been an air intelligence officer who, from
about 1950 to 1960, was stationed at Davis-Monthan (D-M) AFB, just south of
Tucson. Upon occasion, in the course of his duties, Pestalozzi made "Air Intelli-
gence Information Reports" regarding UFO sightings by military personnel.
He'd talked with McDonald on more than one occasion about a sighting on
which he stated he'd "filed the thickest report he'd ever filed on a UFO." The
main observers were the crew of an airborne B-36 which was passing over
Davis-Monthan AFB at the time of the encounter. Pestalozzi said he also had
seen the objects near the B-36 while he was standing on the steps of the Base
Hospital with another airman. The two ground-based witnesses saw two round,
CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 43

metallic UFOs approach the airborne B-36 and overtake it at 3-4 times its speed.
Reducing speed, they paced the aircraft for approximately 3-5 minutes. One ob-
ject flew behind the port side of the aircraft while the other stationed itself on the
starboard side, fitting rather snugly between the right engine and the leading edge
of the tail.
The 10-man crew, thoroughly shaken up, requested permission to land at
Davis-Montham after the UFO departed, and Pestalozzi personally interrogat-
ed them. All but the pilot had ample time to get to the starboard side of the B-
36 to view the UFO up close. The object was symmetrically convex top and
bottom, about 10-12 feet thick at the middle, quite sharp at the edge and ap-
proximately 20-25 feet in diameter. The crew stated that the object did not in-
terfere with the navigation and radio equipment on their aircraft.
To the best of his recollection, Pestalozzi thought the incident had oc-
curred in June 1953. The B-36 was on route from Carswell AFB in Texas head-
ed to March AFB in California at the time of the sighting. He suggested that
the incident was probably in the files of Project Blue Book under those names.
Another case which was very much on McDonald's mind in June 1966
was the Portage County case. It had occurred in the early morning hours of
April 17, 1966, and involved the sighting of a large, glowing UFO which was
chased by two Sheriff deputies in an official cruiser from Portage County,
Ohio across the state line into Pennsylvania. The two initial witnesses were
Deputies Dale Spaur and "Barney" Neff. Deputy Sheriff Robert D. Wilson was
radio operator on duty at Portage City about 5:00 A.M. when Deputy Spaur
called in to report that he and Neff were chasing a "UFO" southeast on Route
224. It was disc-shaped and about 30-45 feet in diameter, when first seen hov-
ering overhead. It lit up the area all over the car "as bright as high noon." Spaur,
who was driving, began a close pursuit of the object at speeds varying between
80-105 m.p.h.
He traveled along several state highways in his pursuit of the object, and
as he neared thePennsylvania state line the UFO changed speed, direction, al-
titude, and brightness. Its speed was sometimes too great for the pursuing
cruiser; the object stopped at least two times and waited for the officers to catch
up with it! Once across the state line, Spaur, Neff, and two other patrolmen
watched the UFO hover over Conway, Pennsylvania. Greater Pittsburgh Air-
port was called during the chase, and the tower confirmed the object was being
observed on their radar screen. 1

1. Later, however, the Airport denied that they had seen the UFO on radar, angering the police.
29
FIRESTORM

In Salem, Ohio, two officers heard the chase on their station radio. About
6:30 A.M. an unidentified voice broke into their reception. They heard snatches
of a conversation, "I'm going down to look at it...I'm right above it, and it's
about 45 feet across...something trailing behind it, like a ball of fire." The
voice came in louder than regular police traffic, and seemed excited. About ten
minutes later, two Salem, Ohio, police officers returned to the station and re-
ported that they had been watching military jets following a UFO going south-
east, presumably the same one Spaur and Neff were chasing. Was this
unidentified voice the pilot of a military jet which had been seen in the vicinity
of the object?
Spaur and Neff ran low on gas during their long chase, and they were forced
to return to Portage. The glowing object had led them far outside their jurisdic-
tion. At the Sheriffs station, personnel on duty noticed that the two men were
unusually serious. Spaur, who was normally well-poised, stuttered when he
spoke, and his hand trembled as he smoked a cigarette. The next morning, Mon-
day, April 18, 1966, he was interviewed on the phone by Maj. Hector Quintanil-
la, then Head of Project Blue Book. Apparently Spaur did not catch the major's
name, for he described in a written statement to a civilian investigator that he'd
received a phone call from a man "claiming to represent the U.S. Air Force."
"What was this mirage you saw?" Quintanilla queried Spaur at the very start
of the phone call. He suggested outright that Spaur had been viewing a satellite!
This first phone "interview" was about 2-1/2 minutes long. Quintanilla phoned
him again on Thursday, April 21, asking essentially the same questions. This
second call lasted about 1-1/2 minutes.
"Each time, the interviewer [Quintanilla] seemed to want me to say I had
only seen the UFO for a few minutes," stated Spaur. "[When I tried to tell him]
how long I had seen it, he did not ask any further questions about my sighting."
Yet Spaur and Neff had chased the object through several counties! Spaur's
partner, Wilbur L. (Barney) Neff, was not contacted at all by phone. Another
policeman, Officer Frank Panzanella of the Conway, Pennsylvania P. D., who
also viewed the object, was interviewed by a USAF representative one month
after the event. This Air Force investigator was also abrupt and hurried. He
merely asked him for a typed statement and stated he didn't care whether or
not Panzanella signed it or not.
William Weitzel, a fine civilian researcher with NICAP, investigated the
Portage County case thoroughly and sent copies of all documentation on the case
to NICAP headquarters. NICAP had sent copies to McDonald for evaluation.
They included written statements by most of the law enforcement witnesses, a
17-page transcript of a public statement by Maj. Quintanilla, sketches of the ob-
jects by the witnesses, and a statement and sketch of the object by Patrolman
CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 45

Wayne Huston of the East Palestine, Ohio, Police Force, who watched the UFO
over Conway, Pennsylvania. Huston had witnessed it flying overhead while in
radio contact with Spaur and NefF. He had pursued it with the two officers to
Conway. Other sketches and descriptions of the object were given to Weitzel by
police officer Henry Kwiatanowski and other lawmen who had viewed the ob-
ject from widely spaced cities and locations. McDonald's file on the Portage
County case eventually grew to one inch thick.
The Portage County case caught the attention of the nation's media, par-
ticularly the press, probably because of the multiple witnesses of good reputa-
tion in different locations in two states, all law enforcement officers with
excellent observational powers.
Chief Gerald Buchert had submitted to NICAP a photograph of the UFO
he'd taken. Quintanilla dismissed the photograph out of hand, since it didn't
show any features other than a blob of light. He explained to Chief Buchert that
what he had photographed were "atmospheric fluctuations distorting the image
of Venus." On May 10,1966, a hearing was held by Blue Book in the Portage
2

County Court House. The transcript of this hearing exists in McDonald's file
but is marked "not for publication." Among the participants were Maj. Quin-
tanilla, Spaur and Neff, Panzanella, H. Wayne Huston, Weitzel, the Chief of
Police, and Mrs. Gerald Buchert. Later, Quintanilla stated at the hearing that
he "simply collects testimony and never doubts an observer's words," and then
in an interview for the Portage County Record-Courier he stated that an un-
pleasant aspect of his job is telling observers that they didn't see what they
thought they did.
The Portage County and Pestalozzi reports were on McDonald's mind as
he made his plans to visit Project Blue Book. He also intended to ask about oth-
er documented reports which he'd received from NICAP. In early June he trav-
eled to Washington, D.C., to speak with Jim Hughes, his ONR contract
monitor. The funding for McDonald's cloud physics and climate-modification
projects at IAP was partially derived from grants from ONR. Hughes was a
good friend of McDonald's and of others at IAP. They had a smooth working
relationship; McDonald trusted Hughes' judgment not only so far as his fund-
ing was concerned but in other matters as well. He was concerned about "ju-
risdictional questions," such as whether or not he might be interfering, because
of Navy contracts, with the functioning of another military agency. Hughes re-
assured him there was no problem.

2. NICAP's photo analyst also came to the conclusion that Chief Buchert's photos did not cor-
roborate the law enforcement officers' sightings. This was due, however, to the considerable
distance from which the unidentified object was photographed and does not reflect on
Buchert's honesty.
28
FIRESTORM

There was also the problem of funding James McDonald's summer UFO
study. Raising six children on a professor's salary, his finances were limited.
McDonald's main wealth lay in the eminence with which his work was re-
garded in the scientific and academic communities. He broached the idea to
Hughes that his initial Blue Book trip might be charged to his current ONR
funding grant, in addition to the search for data which Hughes had specifi-
cally requested. They came to the conclusion that studying Project Blue
Book reports in general fell under the province of atmospheric physics. He
was given the OK to charge the trip to ONR.
He gave Hughes a run-down on his recent efforts. He asked if there was
any chance (underlining the word "any" in his journal) to tackle UFOs directly
on an ONR grant. Hughes suggested that the subject of "radar angels" might
be regarded as related to UFO research—that is, types of UFO-like blips some-
times reported by radar operators, and McDonald agreed to check. He told
Hughes that he anticipated that he would be spending only the summer on the
UFO question; if he found good evidence that UFOs were a legitimate scien-
tific question, McDonald assumed that scientific interest in the subject would
follow naturally, and that numerous scientists would become publicly involved
with adequate funding from government and other sources.
At lunchtime, McDonald went to the NASA cafeteria and was soon joined
by Dr. Mac C. Adams and other NASA personnel. A discussion on aerody-
namics ensued, and McDonald skillfully led the conversation onto the subject
of UFOs. Dr. Adams listened as he explained his interest, then interrupted to
ask what he thought UFOs were. McDonald replied, "Non-terrestrial.'° He
told Adams that his feeling was that "unidentified flying objects" were
NASA's concern, not the Air Force's. He told them about Rudy Pestalozzi's
case, and both NASA scientists immediately asked if the starboard object had
thrown off the trim of the plane—in other words, had the witnesses detected
any turbulence that would indicate that a large physical object was flying close
to this B-36? This was one question McDonald had not asked Pestalozzi; he
put it on his mental list to check.
Very few people were aware that McDonald had, in February 1966, con-
vinced influential colleagues in the National Academy of Sciences to fund him
in a quiet, one-man study of UFOs, but that the promise of funding had been
retracted when the Air Force officially announced that it had decided to fund a

3.. McDonald, second journal, reverse side p. 8. "The term 'non-terrestrial' as used by
McDonald did not necessarily equate with "extraterrestrial." McDonald was always very
careful in his phrasing. By "non-terrestrial" he meant that the appearance and maneuvers Of
UFOs, as reported by credible observers, did not fit any conventional phenomena known to
exist on Earth.
 -
F^ CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 47

i |
^ - study with government funds. This announcement had apparently taken the
li NAS by surprise, and they had informed McDonald that they could not fund
r " V him in his one-man study, since to do so would be presumptive criticism of the
4 Air Force. The government's announcement, coming suddenly on the heels of
u o ^ McDonald's successful appeal for NAS funding may be construed as coinci-
| C dental (See Chapter 11).
Later that afternoon, McDonald spoke to A1 Eggers in the NASA office;
V - Eggers asked how one could attack the UFO problem scientifically. McDonald
, - told him about areas where repeated sightings were happening. He suggested
- that mobile teams could be rushed, equipped thth spectroscopes, magnetome-
ters, precision cameras, and other monitoring equipment. This seemed to sat-
isfy Eggers.
"NASA can't support a literature search," he informed McDonald, "but it
might be different if action could be taken in terms of direct attack of some
kind on the problem." 4

"The all-important next step is to escalate conviction on the fact of

UFOs," said McDonald.
"I understand that," Eggers replied. "Would you be prepared to come here
to NASA and give a very scientific discussion, aimed at tearing apart existing
explanations in terms of conventional phenomena?"
McDonald accepted. He was eager to tear into current theories that some
scientists were putting forward to explain UFOs. In particular, he felt that the
writings of Dr. Donald Menzel, explaining away all the reports, were illogical
and misleading. He had solid scientific data by which he could rebut Menzel,
and he was eager to begin. Leaving the NASA office, he wasn't too sure that
Eggers thought UFOs were of potential NASA importance.
McDonald broached the UFO subject with other colleagues. On April 28,
1966, he had a visit from Charlie Moore of Socorro, New Mexico, a longtime
friend and confidante and with Martin Uman from Westinghouse. The two sci-
entists had attended a conference of the Institute of Electronic and Electrical En-
gineers (IEEE) and stopped by to visit. Uman had become interested in UFOs
and thought that ball lightning may account for many cases. He had even written
Dr. J. Allen Hynek on it and had sent him a recent paper he'd prepared, but had
received no answer.
Since Hynek was the official scientific consultant on astronomy for
Project Blue Book, Uman thought he was the logical person to whom to send

4. Ibid, p. 9.
27
FIRESTORM

his paper. The main problem with Uman's hypothesis, the three scientists re-
alized, was that reports of ball lightning were, at that period of time, in the
twilight zone and just beginning to be studied by scientists. Many establish-
ment scientists regarded them with the same ridicule and neglect they paid to
UFOs. Uman assured McDonald that he would be interested in participating
if McDonald's plans to investigate UFOs took off.
Moore told McDonald that he had spent three hours with Hynek in Febru-
ary, before the troublesome Michigan "flap" began.5 He related how Hynek had
"let his hair down" expressing distress over the way the Air Force was handling
the UFO problem. He had told Moore that he "kept running into a curtain of se-
crecy, and that they keep pressuring him to go along with their official position."
Blue Book's handling of a September 1965 Exeter, New Hampshire, case was
bothering him particularly.6 McDonald asked Charlie Moore why Hynek didn't
simply ignore the Air Force and make public statements on his dissatisfaction.
Moore speculated that Hynek might be enmeshed in AF politics and might
possibly be dependent on them for support. Hynek had an astronomical facility
near Las Cruces, and that's where Moore and Hynek had met for their recent vis-
it. Moore had known Hynek for 17 years and respected him. He told McDonald
that he felt Hynek did a lot of full investigation on Blue Book cases and was do-
ing a good job. 7 The three men talked all the way through supper and later at a
local bar about UFOs. This was the first of many late-nighters McDonald would
pull, talking far into the night, during the next five years.
In early April, McDonald discussed the UFO question with Drs. Lou Bat-
tan and Ben Herman, both colleagues at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics
(IAP). Both had the highest regard for McDonald. They expressed reservations
regarding his growing interest but nevertheless listened carefully as McDonald
outlined the research he'd done so far and his plan to visit Blue Book. In an
interview for this book, Dr. Ben Herman explains:
Jim never looked to build something where there was nothing. There
were scientists right on campus that ridiculed him, and yet people who
workedfor these scientists were giving him UFO reports. ...[Gerard]
Kuiper, an astronomer... was saying, "How come my people never re-

5. The word "flap", as used in UFOIogy, is defined as a marked increase of UFO reports in a
localized area during a comparatively short period of time. A "mini-flap" can occur within a
few square miles and last a few days to a month, but mostly "flaps" occur within a larger
area and can last from several weeks to over a year.
6. For a full, objective account of this well-documented case, see Incident At Exeter, by John
G. Fuller, New York, A Berkley Medallion Book, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1967.
7. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 2.
CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 49

port them? They've never seen any. " But they had given Mac reports
but they 'd said, "Don 7 use my name!"
Another reason Herman listened so carefully to his mentor and friend who
had guided him through his own doctoral studies was that he knew McDonald
was not saying that UFOs were definitely from outer space, as he was later quot-
ed. Herman knew that McDonald's feeling about UFOs being "non-terrestrial"
boiled down to the most careful of hypotheses.
"His exact words always were, 'the most likely of a whole group of un-
likely explanations is that they are from outer space,'" states Herman. "He nev-
er said he believed that this was the case.... A lot of people were saying,
'They're not from outer space, period....' Mac wouldn't say that, because Mac
was a scientist, and unless you can work something out scientifically...you
can't say definitely yes or no. But [some] scientists, nevertheless, appreciated
and understood what he was doing and did not ridicule. They realized that there
were problems....
"I don't believe these things were from outer space," Herman continues.
"However, I do believe there's a lot of unexplained things that have not yet
been scientifically explained, and I think that's exactly what Mac was doing."
Lou Battan listened carefully, too, as McDonald told him that Charlie
Moore had confided a 1949 sighting to him (see Chapter 6). This impressed
Battan; he was willing to listen and to concede that, if James McDonald saw a
scientific problem in UFOs, there must be something to it. McDonald's journal
entry concerning this April 1966 discussion noted: "Even L[ou] and B[en]
seem to be getting the picture." 8

On Sunday, May 8, 1966, one day after his 46th birthday, James McDonald
called his mentor and friend, Tom Malone, who lived in Connecticut. Malone
had been his major professor at MIT and was now an executive in Traveler's In-
surance. Malone kept up with scientific work, as well, and was active in the
American Meteorological Society (AMS). It is apparent from the frequent con-
versations with Malone which are recorded in McDonald's journal that he de-
pended upon Malone's advice on many subjects, and UFOs were no exception.
He outlined recent developments to Malone and mentioned a new book
he'd just read by Dr. Jacques Vallee, a well-respected scientist who was pub-
licly involved in UFO research in France. Furthermore, he told Malone, he
9

had come across more evidence that the Air Force was doing a "sloppy" job in

8. Ibid., p. 3 .

9. Vallee, Dr. Jacques, Challenge To Science, (Original title Anatomy Of A Phenomenon), New
York, Ace Books, Inc., Henry Regnery Company, 1966.
26
FIRESTORM

f
their UFO investigations, springing perhaps from a lack of real interest in the
reports which kept flooding in to them. #
He told Malone about a recent Congressional hearing at which both J.
Allen Hynek and Hector Quintanilla had testified. The content of the hearing
was in large part restricted, but McDonald had learned, to his astonishment,
that Maj. Hector Quintanilla, Head of Project Blue Book, could not answer
specific questions about the July 1952 Washington National Airport flap! On
several successive nights, UFO activity in the vicinity had alarmed the govern-
ment to the extent that military jets were sent up to try to identify the intruders.
The UFOs had even overflown the White House—air space which is off limits
to all air traffic. The July 1952 sightings had garnered headlines in newspapers
all over the country.
McDonald also asked Malone if he thought he should try to interest the
NAS again, to get the UFO question out of Air Force hands so that the project-
ed government university teams would not have to answer directly to the Air
Force. Malone offered to talk with John Coleman, a high official at NAS.
McDonald confided that he not only wanted to view Blue Book files
personally, but he also wished to get to a good library like the Congressional
or the New York City Public Library to check pre-1940 observations. 10 Early
sightings of UFO-type phenomena intrigued McDonald. He told Malone
about a 1904 observation by the crew of an American ship, the U.S.S. Sup-
ply, and added that many observations were reported in books, newspapers,
and other records back to the 19th century and even earlier. He pointed out
that Dr. Hynek hadn't looked into any early sightings.
In spite of his best efforts, McDonald was not able to influence the NAS
to take the UFO question out of Air Force hands. Tom Malone phoned John
Coleman as he promised, but was given almost no time to fully state his rea-
son for calling. J. R. Sievers, another of McDonald's highly placed contacts,
felt that it would be in order for McDonald to talk personally with Brian
O'Brien, who had chaired an ad hoc committee under the USAF Science Ad-
visory Board (AFSAB) looking into the UFO problem. Coleman concurred
with this. The Air Force had not yet contacted NAS, however. Colonel Stein,
the Assistant Secretary to the AFSAB, who'd been given the job of pursuing
McDonald's suggestions, was out of town. McDonald seemed stymied by
foot-dragging, as far as the Air Force and the NAS was concerned. But he'd
met resistance of all kinds before, and he persisted.

10. McDonald, op. cit., reverse p. 3.

 34
CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS

On May 11th McDonald called Brian O'Brien. The Air Force consultant
told him that he understood the Air Force was going ahead with their plans
to set up university teams and expressed surprise that James McDonald him-
self had not yet been asked to participate. O'Brien said that he felt UFOs
needed better study, but that he was sure that, whatever universities were
granted the projected $500,000 of government money, they would "find
nothing to it." McDonald reminded him that UFOs had been reported for cen-
turies, and were not just a new phenomenon, as most people believed.
O'Brien countered that "it was useless to check old observations. [The] story
grows with the retelling," he said.
McDonald asked O'Brien if he could recommend getting a small panel—
on a summer-study basis—to go over the "old stuff." "A panel reviewing im-
portant past sightings could advise optimal design of new investigations and
would be able to provide stronger motivation for it," argued McDonald.
O'Brien doubted the effectiveness of looking at "old stuff' but agreed to bring
up the idea with the Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB, when he'd be out there
on May 18-19. After their phone call, McDonald sent O'Brien a letter dated 5/
11/1996, outlining his suggestion for a summer-study panel."
In spite of some success, McDonald's concern about the way the UFO
question was being neglected by science and government continued unabated.
On May 10th he viewed an evening television program titled "CBS Presents:
UFO—Friend, Foe or Fantasy," which discussed the recent Dexter/Hillsdale,
Mich., sightings which had caused a hullabaloo in the press and which had got-
ten Hynek in dutch with the public when he suggested publicly that people pos-
sibly were seeing "swamp gas" (See Chapter 4). Walter Cronkite was the
program's master of ceremonies. McDonald got the general impression that
CBS was saying that UFOs were imaginary. His journal describes "CBS Pre-
sents" in his unique abbreviated style:
Had a batch of people on. Frank Mannon, Dexter, Michigan], said
he saw object descending, & as came to tree-top level, blue light went
on. "Came down at a 45° angle.'' Mannon was bitter at public tres-
passing on property. "Wouldn 7 report another UFO if it came down
beside that well. " Visible over 4 hrs.
12

McDonald found that the girls at Hillsdale College were convincing wit-
nesses on the "CBS Presents" program, but he was much less convinced by Dr.
Donald Menzel's attempt to explain UFOs as spots of light induced by atmo-
spheric inversions. McDonald's description of the CBS program continued:

11. Ibid., p. 5.
12. Ibid., p. 4.
24
FIRESTORM

[It. ] Col. [Lawrence] Tacker [former Head of Project Blue Book]

assured USAF hiding nothing. Contactees—Adamski, etc. Giant Rock,
Calif, convention. NORAD. Capt. Gary Reese, USAF satellite radar-
tracks. Space-Tracking Network, Colo. Springs, covers 100,000ft. to
2,000 miles.... Said no UFOs seen.13
The media had spoken. Credible citizens who witnessed UFOs were being
frustrated and ridiculed. "CBS Presents" might possibly have been the spur that
convinced McDonald that someone would have to learn how to use the media to
get objective UFO information out to the viewing public in a capable manner.
In mid-May Tom Malone called him. He said that Brian O'Brien had
talked over McDonald's letter with an Air Force general and then had phoned
Malone, saying he wanted to get going on McDonald's ideas right away. He
still didn't like the "panel" idea but wanted James McDonald to help lay
down some guidelines for the university investigation teams that would be
selected. McDonald concurred that this was at least a way to get started; he
had lots of specific ideas. "However," he told Malone, "the USAF won't be
able to induce competent people to do the investigation work unless the cli-
mate of thinking changes on the UFO problem." Malone felt the same way
but agreed that one had to start wherever one could. 14
On the 27th of May, McDonald's efforts to obtain funding for his sum-
mer of UFO research paid off in a small way when Gerard Kuiper, the
NASA astronomer who headed up the university's Astronomy Department
approved a small NASA grant—$1,300. Kuiper's personal reaction regard-
ing UFOs was still doubtful, but he agreed to have McDonald speak to a
NASA group whom he would call together at the University. He stressed his
own opinion, namely, if McDonald could prove that one observation was
genuinely non-terrestrial, he could be interested in the subject, but hundreds
of bad reports were unimpressive. 15
McDonald re-doubled his efforts. He added the Dexter/Hillsdale sightings
to his list to check out at Blue Book, for witness Mannon's frustration, ex-
pressed before millions of viewers, had touched him. Mannon represented the
public who were being treated unfairly by the Air Force. He phoned Mannon
but he wasn't home. McDonald quotes Mrs. Frank Mannon:
"If it s about 'that object,' he wasn 't talking to anybody about it. You
have to call his lawyer. " I expressed regrets and she opened up a bit

13. Ibid., reverse p. 4

14.Ibid., p. 5.
IS.Ibid., p. 7.
CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 53

about "people tormenting us, "phonedall the time, left beer cans, etc.
I pointed out my interest [was] only scientific but said I understood
and closed call. 16

This short entry tells much about McDonald's interviewing skills. He

listened to witnesses closely, empathized with their difficulties, and was usu-
ally able to gain their trust within minutes. During his extended telephone in-
terviews he was able to perceive quite accurately whether the witness was
intelligent, well educated and trustworthy or, on the other hand, inconsistent,
dishonest or a publicity seeker. It was plain to him that the Mannon family
had suffered an unusual amount of ridicule and harassment, not only by their
fellow townspeople but by Air Force investigators as well. Dr. Hynek's
"swamp gas" explanation had added immeasurably to the ridicule they had
sustained. Mrs. Mannon was adamant, and McDonald hadn't the time to go
through attorneys to get statements from witnesses. Too many other promis-
ing cases begged for attention.
One thing remained—getting permission to visit Project Blue Book. It
would mean gaining entry into Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio, and
plowing through Air Force files, some of which he fully expected would be clas-
sified. McDonald at the time held no security clearance; his research projects at
the Institute and his ONR contracts did not require it. He decided that he would
ask Brian O'Brien to clear the way for him.
The very next day O'Brien called him to say that Blue Book would be glad
to have McDonald come for a visit any time! He suggested that McDonald con-
tact Brig. Gen. Arthur Cruikshank, the Commander of the FTD, based at Wright-
Patterson AFB. Project Blue Book was one of the multiple projects Cruikshank
was in charge of. McDonald quotes O'Brien:
"You should be sure to talk with Dr. Anthony J. Cacioppo, fCaw Chee
Oh' Poh), who 'd been Chief Scientist at FTD for the past year. He's a
mathematician who has become interested in certain areas of psychology.
He was with Goodyear Rubber, but FTD persuaded him to join staff. 7

Never one to ignore a potential contact, McDonald spelled out Cacioppo's

name phonetically in printed caps so that he would be sure to pronounce it cor-
rectly. His skills in the fine points of professional contact were unmatched.
O'Brien warned McDonald that no one he knew in the Air Force seemed
interested in studying old reports. McDonald privately doubted that he'd
pressed the issue with them! However, O'Brien told him he wanted McDonald

16.Ibid., reverse p. 7.
17.Ibid., reverse p. 5.
 , 5 4 ^ FIRESTORM

3 O ^
^ S ^ t o think about how best to set up the research teams and that he, himself,
thought those people should be able to get out into field quickly. He hinted that
^ -f- McDonald, and his University of Arizona colleagues, might share in the gov-
w J ernment contract.18
*

J . McDonald stressed his doubts again that "good people" (meaning objec-
^ . tive scientists) would participate in the university teams program. O'Brien
countered, saying they'd had pretty good luck in the past in persuading com-
petent scientists to help when the Air Force needed it.
"Some of us feel that we should try to help the Air Force when we can,"
L
said O'Brien. Inexplicably, he made no mention of his conversation with Tom
Malone, in which he had told Malone that he wanted to engage McDonald as
< £ a consultant to work up guidelines regarding the university investigative
17
~ teams. He seemed, instead, to be indirectly asking McDonald to give him all
- Ti his ideas voluntarily.
O'Brien also threw in the information that he had been speaking recently
| » < with John Coleman ofNAS. McDonald got an uneasy feeling that perhaps "the
"a i Titan factor" was involved. He'd been on the lookout for signs that he still
^ might be persona non grata with the Air Force. However, Brian O'Brien had
Q j. » opened doors to Blue Book, and McDonald wasted no time phoning Cruiks-
hank. The General courteously invited him for a three-day visit. Cruikshank
ji assured him that all Blue Book files were non-classified, that he could see any-
S — thing in them that he wanted, and that he should be able to talk with both Maj.
| l Quintanilla and Dr. Cacioppo.
McDonald set about planning the trip. He phoned Jim Hughes and asked
if was OK to use ONR funds to include a stop-over at Chicago, to visit J. Allen
Hynek. Hughes okayed this; McDonald's journal specifies:
Send Jim a report. Put title page on it and some kind of cover such as
usually employ. He said only Lathrop and he need know of this. I p.
o.19 may make sense to use ball lightning as focus of attention, but we
really didn 't pursue this point.20
McDonald was left with the feeling that the arrangements for using ONR
funds for his UFO study trip to Dayton were a "bit awkward," but there was
little he could do about it. The next day Dr. Cacioppo's secretary phoned,
asking for McDonald's Social Security number. She said it was for the purpose

18.Ibid., p. 6.
19. "p. o." is McDonald's shorthand for "pointed out."
20. Ibid., reverse p. 6.
21. Ibid., reverse p. 6.
CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 55

of obtaining a "clearance" for McDonald's perusal of Project Blue Book files.

McDonald objected, informing her that Gen. Cruikshank had stressed that all
Blue Book reports were non-classified. The secretary stated she'd been told
that McDonald had asked to see classified files, hence the need for a clearance.
McDonald pressed the issue, and the secretary backed down. "Well," she said,
"I'm not sure just what is involved. It's possible that the clearance is only for
the purpose of getting you on the base."
On June 6th McDonald boarded a Constellation to Dayton. As he sat in
the big triple-tailed jet, he started writing a backlog of notes in his journal, us-
ing telephone jottings and brief notes he'd crammed into his pockets from time
to time. His own outstanding memory filled in the spaces. Working fast but ef-
ficiently, he also read a transcript of NICAP investigator William Weitzel's
taped interview between Maj. Quintanilla and Deputy Dale Spaur regarding
the Portage County sighting. He looked up in his astronomical ephemeris the
rising point of Venus on the evening of that sighting in case Quintanilla should
try to blame that planet for the Portage County cruiser chase. He also con-
firmed that the satellite which was passing overhead during the sighting was
too small and high to be seen visually. He was ready to confront Quintanilla
with cold, hard facts.
When McDonald reached Dayton, he was met by a staff car from FTD, but
his luggage was lost. It was not the last time during the next five years that he
would encounter this particular trouble, but as time went on the losses would be-
come more suspicious in nature. This time the airline found his bag; it had been
re-routed to Columbus, Ohio, and was returned to him late that night.
Up early the next morning, McDonald entered FTD at 8:45 A.M. He re-
ceived his clearance badge and met the Blue Book staff, which was composed
of Maj. Quintanilla, a Sgt. Jones and Mrs. Stanscombe, a civilian secretary.
McDonald, who had just two working days to determine the quality of UFO
investigation by the Air Force over the past 19 years, tore into his task. He
spent the morning interviewing Quintanilla, and, to paraphrase Jacques
Vallee's eloquent assessment, "An entire era came to a crashing end." 22

McDonald listened while Quintanilla talked—at first. The major as-

sured him that he [Quintanilla] was the one in United States Air Force who
now knew more than anyone else about UFOs. He assured McDonald that
Project Blue Book was the only government office that received and worked
on UFO reports. He also showed him the university-teamwork statement
draft. McDonald studied the draft swiftly but thoroughly, noting a disturbing

22. Vallee, Jacques, Forbidden Science: Journals 1957-1969, Berkeley, Calif., North Atlantic
Books, 1992, p. 186.
56 (|)TV*» »v®.-| \u«+ k* »vt kt<* SoWtuW poronoU,U»- SpMTlfc pIRESTORM
ftdvlsory F W l ' OtWft* \i ' S f t P '

phrase that smacked of censorship. He decided to keep this opinion to him-

self, for the time being.
Instead, he expressed interest in the work of the Robertson Panel. He'd
seen the "de-classified" version of the so-called Robertson Report which
NICAP had distributed, but, like all other UFO researchers, he'd been dis-
mayed by the heavy censoring this official UFO document had undergone.
"Robertson Report" was the shortened title used in UFOlogy for the "Report
of Meeting of [three words blacked out] on Unidentified Flying Objects Con-
vened by [five words blackedo«/>January 14-18, 1953." Quintanilla obliging-
ly gave McDonald an uncensored version of the Robertson Report! There was
not one line blacked out. McDonald was inwardly startled but kept a poker-
face. He thanked the secretary and asked for a Xerox copy to take home to Tuc-
son. He was assured that this could be done but that it would take a little time. 23
As McDonald read through the uncensored version, he took complete notes
that would live for posterity, fully aware that he was the first person outside the
military-government complex to see the full and complete text. The full title was
plainly visible: "Report of Meeting $f Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified
Flying Objects Convened By Office of Scientific Intelligence, CIA, January 14-
18, 1953." McDonald had just discovered that the CIA had called this meeting
together, not the Air Force, as the censored version had intimated.24 For the first
time, a U.S. civilian held proof in his hands that the Air Force was not the only
government or military agency actively interested in UFOs!
The Robertson Panel had been long on talent but short on information and
scientific interest. Five eminent scientists had participated; the panel had been
headed by H.P. Robertson, a specialist in mathematical physics at the California
Institute of Technology (Caltechfc The Panel met for four days to "study the UFO
problem." Afterward, they were expected to report adroitly on any implications
UFOs might hold for science as well as potential hazards they might pose to the
U.S. government. They spent the fifth day writing their conclusions. Consult-
ants—but not full participants—to the Panel included then-head of Blue Book,
Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt,25 and astronomer J. Allen Hynek.

23. McDonald, op. tit., reverse p. 10.

24. A full report on the current available version of the Robertson Report was written by the
author (AD) for the Center for UFO Studies in 1975, when the report (probably the version
McDonald was given to read at Blue Book in 1966) was de-classified late in 1974, appar-
ently in response to her FOIA request. However, the full Report is not yet available, espe-
cially some material cited in "Tabs" (Appendices) to the Report. The "Tabs" on the de-
classified version were obviously re-numbered to conceal information the CIA is still not
willing to release.
CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 59

The Robertson Panel concluded that UFOs held no potential scientific

value and did not constitute a threat to the United States. It recommended that
the subject be de-mystified and debunked under an official media program.
The Panel's stated motive for recommending this action was to prevent the ~~
possibility that a potential enemy of the United States might create a false UFO
tlap which could clog the communication channels of the military and the gov-
ernment. If such overloading should occur, the Panel reasoned, a potential en-x ~
emy could derive a distinct advantage if it wished to start a nuclear war. 26

McDonald went to lunch with Quintanilla at the Officer's Club but his
mind didn't stop working. He brought up the Portage County case, and Quin-
tanilla told him that the deputies had viewed a satellite. McDonald countered "
that the deputies had reportedly pursued a large, glowing craft over several x>
counties, crossing the state line from Ohio into Pennsylvania, and that their re- ^
port was backed by multiple witnesses, mainly law enforcement officials,
some of whom had joined the chase. Quintanilla continued to insist that they'd -
viewed a satellite. When McDonald brought up the fact that the satellite that v

had gone over during the time of the sighting was too small to be seen visually,
Quintanilla mentioned that the deputies might have also been viewing the plan- c?
et Venus! McDonald pulled out his astronomical ephemeris from his briefcase ?

and showed Quintanilla that the position of Venus in the morning sky on the cs,
date of the sighting was nowhere near where the deputies had sighted the ob-
ject. The major didn't back down. "Quintanilla's insistence re. satellite incred-
ible," McDonald wrote later in his journal. 27

That afternoon, McDonald read about 80 case reports which had flooded
into Blue Book during the period of the Washington, D. C. National Airport

25. Ruppelt, Edward J, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, Garden City, NY, Double-
day & Company, Inc., 1956, 17 chapters, 243 pp. In this objective, well-written book, Capt.
Ruppelt, former head of Project Blue Book before Tacker and Quintanilla, addressed the
problem of UFOs as a scientific question, earning the respect of objective researchers. How-
ever, the book came out in a "new, enlarged edition" from the same publisher. This edition
also bears the date 1956, but has three additional chapters and 277 pages. The text of the
revised version (p. 243) states, "Four years have passed since the first 17 chapters of this
book were written." The three added chapters completely take away the objective tone of
the first edition. For example, the mysterious "Lubbock Lights" are explained as night-fly-
ing moths! Since it takes an expert in UFO literature to tell these two editions apart, Rup-
pelt's true objectivity and his real contributions to the UFO research field were essentially
masked. It is felt strongly by veterans in the field that Ruppelt was forced to revise his book.
He died in 1960, barely four years after the revised edition appeared.
26. In 1953, it was still possible for an enemy to effectively "block" telephone communication
channels of our defense organizations. Later, technology advancements rendered such com-
munication tie-ups impossible. Reference: Personal letter to author from Dr. Samuel A.
Goudsmit, a member of the Robertson Panel, dated 19 March 1975.
27. McDonald, op. cit., reverse p. 10.
22
FIRESTORM

sightings, July 1952 to June 1953. He was shocked at the low level of research
apparent in these reports. When Blue Book closed for the day, McDonald
wasn't finished with Quintanilla. He requested that the major take him to Dr.
Cacioppo's office, where he spent about 45 minutes, querying the head scien-
tist about other military or government agencies which might be interested in
UFOs. Dr. Cacioppo also assured him that the Air Force Project Blue Book
was the only official office that received and investigated UFO reports. Ca-
cioppo also expressed confidence that Quintanilla was doing a good job as
head of Blue Book. McDonald listened, saying nothing, while Cacioppo stated
that many UFO witnesses had psychological problems, also that there are
many kinds of sensory malfunctions among the populace, and that sensory
deprivation of one kind or another leaves a witness's mind to "fill in the pic-
ture." In other words, in Cacioppo's opinion most UFO reports were mainly
imaginary, even among military pilots.

McDonald, pursuing the issue as tactfully as he could, learned that Ca-

cioppo had only looked at six UFO cases in depth! By "in depth," Cacioppo
meant that he had read those Blue Book files! One was the Portage County
case. McDonald was inwardly disturbed by Cacioppo's lack of knowledge. He
wrote to him a few weeks later in an attempt to educate him, saying, in part:
I 'm enclosing some material bearing on a single UFO incident, the
Portage County, Ohio, case of April 17, 1966.... Maj. Quintanilla
went to Ravenna and interrogated Dale Spaur and other members of
the Portage County Sheriffs office.... I believe you should read this
enclosed 17-page transcript....
Mr. [William] Weitzel, a member of the Pittsburgh NICAP affiliate,
has just sent me a 128-page final report on the Portage County case.
It is very detailed, very comprehensive. I understand that a copy has
also been submitted by him to the Project Blue Book office, so you may
wish to glance at the full report.28
While at Blue Book, McDonald also looked for the Hopkinsville, Ky.,
sighting which had been investigated by Isabel Davis, a New York member of
NICAP. The case was a strange one, dealing with the experiences of a family
who'd reportedly been besieged for hours by strange beings, after a large UFO
landed in a gully nearby. The mountain men shot at the creatures repeatedly from
the shelter of their cabin, but bullets apparently had little effect on them; upon
being struck by gunfire, the creatures would fall backward, recover, and charge
the cabin again! McDonald ordinarily did not discuss UFO "occupant" cases
' l -f^k "Wit dront h^peH«sj3 Stxi»o«ty rOloo+ic/n«>n-kowlaw in |iwV««-e

28. Letter in McDonald's files, under "Cacioppo, Dr. Anthony J", University of Arizona
Library Personal Collections.
CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 59

publicly; such incidents were often replete with psychological implications

which McDonald felt did not fall into his area of expertise. He had high regard
for Isabel Davis's research ability, however, and considered her report an objec-
tive, thoroughly documented account. However, the Blue Book staff apparently
couldn't locate the case!
Cacioppo was vague on the details of both Portage County and Hopkins-
ville, whereas McDonald was familiar with every detail of both cases. He told
Cacioppo that he thought Blue Book's "explanation" of the Portage County
case—i.e., a satellite—was absurd. Cacioppo then proposed that the deputies
might have been chasing the moon, mistaking it for a UFO! McDonald pointed
out the absurdities of this explanation and then opened up a discussion of Maj.
Quintanilla's shortcomings, as well as those of the major's predecessor at Blue
Book, Lt. Col. Lawrence Tacker, USAF. 29

He also pointed out that a cover-up vs. foul-up debate was raging in the
UFO field and detailed NICAP's growing evidence that the government was de-
liberately concealing information on extremely interesting UFO reports, includ-
ing UFO photos. He added that he himself did not think the USAF was
deliberately covering up significant information, but that he was finding over-
whelming evidence that the Air Force was badly neglecting the situation. He told
Cacioppo that UFO reports from credible observers should be studied objective-
ly and openly in scientific circles.
Cacioppo agreed that what was needed was the university-team approach
and that full access to Blue Book files would be offered to any such group,
once the universities had been selected. McDonald brought up the censorship
implication which he had noted in the preliminary draft of the work statement.
"That's only to avoid conflicting PR releases," assured Cacioppo.
In response to this assurance, McDonald later wrote rather sardonically in
his journal, "Yeah!" 30

From his motel that evening, McDonald called Isabel Davis about recent
cases on which she had worked. He wanted to be positive of his facts, if he
should find these cases in Blue Book files the next day. It was then close to
10:00 P.M., but the inexhaustible McDonald called Jim Hughes and spent 47
minutes reviewing the day's happenings. He carefully noted that the call to
Hughes cost $12.00. Hughes tried to act as a brake for McDonald's irritation
at Project Blue Book personnel, pointing out that the USAF at least deserved

29. Tacker, Lt. Col. Lawrence J., Flying Saucers and the U.S. Air Force, Princeton, NJ, D. Van
Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960.
27. McDonald, op. cit.,rev rsep. 11.
 21
FIRESTORM

^ credit for maintaining UFO files. He pointed out that the basic problem was:

McDonald agreed.
The probability that McDonald would be offered a consulting arrange-
ment with the Air Force was discussed, and Hughes advised his friend to be
sure of getting a "board of review" clause in the agreement to avoid any cen-
sorship in any work he would do for the military. At 11:30 that night, after fur-
ther mulling over the problems he had encountered that day at Blue Book,
McDonald, instead of sleeping, read the two items that Maj. Quintanilla had
permitted him to take to the motel.
The first was an official Air Force document titled Project Blue Book:
Special Report 14, 5 May 1953. McDonald noted in his journal that the doc-
ument was about one inch thick and was "Copy No. 55." He read the entire
document handily. He found it and the other document, Project Grudge—I
August 1952, both fascinating and described them as follows:
(1.) [Report No. 14] Full of statistical tables in misevaluated obser-
vations. Last sentence of Summary. "It is emphasized that there has
been a complete lack of any solid evidence & physical matter, in any
case, of a reported unidentified flying object. " Is last copy of Report
14 that Q's office has!! Yet loaned.
(2.) Project Grudge—dated 1 Aug 52. Signed by Ed Ruppelt. Is c. 2-2
1/2" thick. Bound with a shoelace. Dog-eared. Largest section is
Hynek's. Admits many are not astronomical in nature & repeatedly in-
dicates warrant more attention. So big can't abstract here, but clearly
reveals that already by 1949-50, USAF had in-hand reports docu-
menting non-conventional nature of objects*1
The next day, June 7th, McDonald arrived early at Blue Book. Sgt. Jones
and Mrs. Stanscombe were there, but the major had not yet come in. McDonald
attacked the files again, but Isabel Davis's account of the Hopkinsville occupant
case couldn't be located. He did find the August 13, 1960, Red Bluff, Calif., re-
port, however. This intriguing case had been reported by law enforcement offic-
ers, and had been carefully investigated and documented by a NICAP

31. Special Report 14 Quintanilla had loaned McDonald was later de-classified and made avail-
able to civilian researchers, as was Project Grudge. A full text of Report 14, together with
some of the important tables and figures, appeared in a soft cover book, Flying Saucers: An
Analysis of the Air Force Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 Including the C.I. A. and
the Saucers, by Leon Davidson, White Plains, NY, 1976. However, McDonald had taken
many notes on the version he had been loaned, and later demonstrated that Davidson's de-
classified copy differed in certain respects from the classified copy he had seen.
CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 61

Subcommittee in Northern California headed by Paul Cerny. Yet Blue Book car-
ried the case as a refraction of some astronomical object. McDonald disagreed:
Clearly wrong. Officers first thought it was an airliner about to crash.
Illustrates [Isabel] Davis's important point that in contrast to theory
that observers are prone to unconventional interpretations, they al-
most always first put some very conventional interpretation. Hynek's
phrase, "escalation of hypotheses " is good. 32

While McDonald was looking through the Red Bluff file, Sergeant Jones
pointed out that Dr. Hynek had not yet studied the reports in that particular file,
so they were not yet fully evaluated. McDonald learned from Jones that, each
month, Hynek came down for a day. If he disagreed with Quintanilla's expla-
nation of a certain sighting report, he would make a pencilled annotation sug-
gesting what he considered a better explanation. He had begun doing this in
January 1966. The preceding year, Hynek had only spot-checked each month's
batch. McDonald went through a "Hynek-checked month." On one report the
astronomer had penciled "insufficient data" in place of Quintanilla's unreason-
able explanation of "aircraft," which was some improvement, McDonald wry-
ly noted in his journal. In another report, Hynek had pencilled "Capella" in
place of "Jupiter," neither of which seemed reasonable to McDonald. Aside
from these notations, Hynek seemed to have let many absurd explanations pass
without comment. McDonald wondered just how many such absurdities
Hynek was filtering out. 33
( ^
While this was going on, Maj. Quintanilla arrived with First Lt. Bill Marley
in tow. McDonald was introduced to Marley, but Quintanilla cut any conversa-
tion short. It was apparent Marley was there to listen only. In fact, a letter written
on August 2,1967, by Brig. Gen. William C. Garland, USAF to the Commander
of the FTD, speaks of "Marley's briefing" (see Appendix Item 3-B, page 530).
Marley sat in a chair in a corner the entire afternoon and watched McDonald. As
McDonald went through Hynek-checked case after Hynek-checked case, his ir-
ritation grew. Project Blue Book files were much worse than he had expected.
The morning's work included a 20-minute discussion with Quintanilla and
Sgt. Jones, who had been at Blue Book for three years and thought highly of Sgt.
Moody, Miose place he'd taken. "Moody's a 'good man'!" he told McDonald.
McDonald disagreed, pointing out absurd explanations he'd found in cases pro-
vided by Moody. He bluntly told them that the observations in Blue Book files
and the whole picture of UFO activity strongly indicated a non-terrestrial origin.
"You've been involved in a foul-up," he informed them.

32. McDonald, op cit., p. 12.

33. McDonald, op cit., reverse p. 12.
20 FIRESTORM

H
While Lt. Marley watched from his corner, McDonald decided to try to

a
track down Rudy Pestalozzi's report, in which he had become vitally interested
and had even discussed with NASA personnel. Working from Rudy's estimated
date of June 1953, Quintanilla, Jones and McDonald searched through all the
1953 cases arranged chronologically, and in another cross-file which McDonald
guessed was geographical. They failed to find the B-36 case about which Pesta-
o lozzi had told him. McDonald did come across another B-36 case which had also
been reported by Pestalozzi, involving a May 1, 1952, observation by a master
<; , sergeant of two UFOs pacing a B-36 as it passed over Davis-Monthan AFB. He
asked for a Xerox, which was given him.
He asked Quintanilla to take him to General Cruikshank again and spent
50 minutes with the General. He did not waste any time.
£
^ "The Air Force is in a bad spot," he warned the General. "You're going
Jo have a lot of difficulty getting out of it!"
—
He told Cruikshank about the cover-up vs. foul-up controversy, and indi-
| coated that the absurd explanations that had been given to stunning observations
c
- by thoroughly credible observers tended to feed the cover-up hypothesis.
J? i J Cruikshank replied, quite convincingly, that there was no cover-up in FTD,
and again assured him that there was no other UFO program in the U. S. Air
Force. McDonald responded that he was pleased to hear the General's assur-
ances, but that he reserved "1% probability that someone else was interested."
He told Cruikshank that he was willing to help FTD with its UFO inves-
tigative problem and to brief the Air Force ad hoc panel, which was still meet-
ing under Dr. O'Brien. However, McDonald stressed, UFOs seemed to be an
international problem, and he feared a security bottle-up. At this point the con-
versation got around to the Cold War and the defensive missile buildup in the
country. Cruikshank stated that he had been involved in siting missiles in Kan-
sas; it became clear to McDonald that the General was not aware of his Titan
j. A
— f i g h t in Tucson. Cruikshank then stated that he felt the best place in govern-
^v ^ ment to study UFO reports was "right here in FTD" because the Air Force had
» detection capabilities not available to others.
^ "That may be true in the short run, but not in the long," responded James
McDonald. "Any radars you have, NASA can get. Other military services
might be interested in UFOs besides the Air Force. I'm right now pursuing
ONR channels."34
McDonald continued pointing out more reasons why UFO research
should not be strictly limited to Air Force control. It had become apparent to

34. Ibid., reverse side p. 12.

CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 63

him, as it had to other researchers, that the UFO problem was worldwide and
he knew that U Thant, then Secretary General of the United Nations, was ac-
tively interested in the question. McDonald also mentioned a colleague who
had told him that the chief Russian scientist in UNESCO was actively studying
Russian reports.
He also told Cacioppo that Rep. Edward Hutchinson of Michigan had spon-
sored a resolution in the House of Representatives. Many of Hutchinson's con-
stituents were distressed over Hynek's "swamp gas" blunder and the
mishandling of other recent Michigan sightings. McDonald confided that he
could not understand Hynek's handling of this and other matters, but that he'd
be seeing him the next day at Northwestern University and would find out. Then,
the conversation grew even more blunt.
"Maj. Quintanilla is not competent," McDonald told Cruikshank. "How-
ever, he shouldn't be held accountable for it. Someone in the Air Force chose
him for the job and that superior made the mistake."
"Blue Book is a very low-priority project," Cruikshank responded. "There
are 200 projects going on in FTD, and Project Blue Book is only one of them.
Frankly, Dr. McDonald, I've never heard of any scientist who held the view
you do." 35

Ignoring the General's attitude, McDonald asked him another question.

"There are pre-1947 reports, did you know that? This is not a new phenomenon."
As with Brian O'Brien, the question didn't lead anywhere.
About 11:00 A.M. McDonald returned to the Blue Book office, accompa-
nied by Quintanilla, who'd been left cooling his heels and shut out of his own
regular 30-minute session. He was surprised that Cruikshank had talked with
the visiting scientist so long. "The General never lets anyone stay over 30 min-
utes," he told McDonald.
Immediately upon his return from Cruikshank's' office, McDonald
phoned Rudy Pestalozzi. Since he was having trouble locating Pestalozzi's re-
port, he feared the story had been garbled. When he got him on the phone, there
was a very poor connection, but McDonald persisted, explaining what was
happening. Pestalozzi informed him that the May 1952 B-36 case they'd found
in the files was a different one from the sighting he'd previously described.
"Great!" thought McDonald. 36

35. Ibid., p. 12.

36. Ibid.
19
FIRESTORM

He asked Pestalozzi whether the other case date, May 1, 1952, gave him
any clues. Pestalozzi decided that the case he was referring to perhaps was not
June 1953 but June 1952. McDonald then asked him regarding aerodynamic
disturbances, pointing out that NASA people whom he had told about the
sighting had brought up that question. Had the close proximity to the object
thrown off the "trim" of the plane? No, Pestalozzi replied, and that had puzzled
the crew, because the presence of a large airborne object so close to the B-36
should have caused at least some turbulence.
At McDonald's insistence, Quintanilla and Sgt. Jones continued to
search for Pestalozzi's B-36 case. To McDonald's amazement, there were
nine files-full of July 1952 sightings and four or five files-full for August
1952, all over the U.S! In spite of their best efforts, however, they could not
find Pestalozzi's sighting. McDonald asked them to keep a sharp lookout for
it and, a few days later, wrote Quintanilla a three-page letter reminding him.
He later received from Pestalozzi, in July, a written report of the incident, in-
cluding sketches of the B-36, the two UFOs, and their trajectory around the
aircraft (see Appendix Item 3-C, page 531).
He looked again for the Hopkinsville file, which General Cruikshank had
mentioned reading. Quintanilla searched, too, but was apparently unsuccess-
ful. At 11:45 the major said he wasn't going to lunch, and Sergeant Jones ac-
companied McDonald down to the Officers Club. When they returned, the
480-page Hopkinsville file was on Quintanilla's desk. McDonald had the dis-
tinct impression that the major had been studying it while he and Jones were
gone. Part of the pages seemed to have been removed. McDonald noted that
Lt. Marley was still sitting in the corner.
McDonald asked for and received four "ball lightning" files. "Wow," he re-
marked later in his journal.37 This reaction was due to the fact that the Blue Book
staff were apparently "identifying" some UFO reports as ball lightning, even
though the phenomenon was not yet accepted by mainstream science! He con-
fronted Quintanilla with a couple of other cases to which the major had assigned
exceptionally absurd explanations and commented later on the major's response:
He's impossible. He assured me that inversions can make star images
go up and down & into clouds & dart off horizontally! I p. o. one la-
beled "aircraft" where "bright light came down at slope, then stopped
and went back up same glide path. " He argued, etc. I got more blunt
and later really bored in 'til he said, "Well, Dr., I guess I'm just in-
7 0
competent.

37. Ibid., reverse p. 12.

38 .Ibid.
 CONFRONTING THE INCOMPETENTS 65

McDonald didn't answer when Quintanilla stated this. Sgt. Jones

banged away at his typewriter, distressed for his boss. Mrs. Stanscombe be-
came upset and left the room. Lt. Marley listened quietly in his corner. 39

At about 2:30 McDonald saw Dr. Cacioppo again and was offered three
arrangements: 1. Consultant to FTD; 2. Summer employment; 3. A contract in
the Fall. McDonald pointed out his apprehension concerning a security bottle-
up and added that he'd require a "board of review" clause in any contract he
might sign, to insure that he would be free to use information he might discover
for his own purposes. He again emphasized the incredible foul-up in the Blue
yjjt*-' Book operation. Cacioppo told him that he had decided to bring in three more
people for an FTD review of Blue Book—an electrical engineer, a meteorolo-
LJ" ^ , gist, and a physicist.
4
— — McDonald concurred that this was an excellent idea. 40

His visit at Blue Book completed, McDonald left about 4:15 P.M. and
caught an Air Force bus to the Dayton airport terminal. He was remembering that
J ' in NICAP's publication, The UFO Evidence, there were two whole pages of
^ v,/ public denial by the AF that Blue Book ever covered up anything! In particular,
a July 19, 1952, denial rang in his head: "There is no truth to allegations that the
Air Force withholds or otherwise censors information vital to public understand-
ing or evaluation of the nature of unidentified flying objects (UFO).
OA JJtfH**-
- T h i n k i n g back how he had taken the word of his senior colleagues long
ago, when he'd been at the Italian conference and had been reassured that the
ivUo't "Air Force was investigating UFO reports and had the situation well in
l6»t i Uf hand," McDonald felt renewed shock at the incompetence he had just seen
k : with his own eyes. Flying to O'Hare Airport in Chicago on his way to North-
western University, McDonald spent the time making notes on his two days
° v at Project Blue Book, arming himself with data. He had confronted Quinta-
fV\0D»Jl nilla; he was now preparing for his first encounter with Blue Book's consult-
c

ant, J. Allen Hynek.

39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid., p. 13.
CHAPTER 4

McDonald Enters the Ring

The rollin' of the sea, it's beckonin' to me,

Singin' "Come my son, I'll show you things you've never seen before.
I'll set your spiritfreeon the winds ofhistory,
So hoist your sails and chart your course and go out and explore...
—from "The Rollin' of the Sea"

Problems cannot be solved until they have been discovered.

—Edwin G. Boring,
Life Book on Eye and Vision

Donald had never met J. Allen Hynek personally. He

had called the well-known astronomer some days be-
fore, however, and set up an appointment to discuss
UFOs in general. Now his reasons for visiting were more urgent. From
the evidence he'd uncovered at Blue Book the day before, he was now
convinced that Hynek was at least partially responsible for the incred-
ible lack of attention that science was giving the UFO question.
Before his first visit to Blue Book, McDonald had discussed the role
Hynek was playing in UFO research with NICAP's Dick Hall. Hall was
well impressed with Hynek's aide, Bill Powers, who was also an astrono-
mer; he'd seen him at work investigating recent Ohio sightings. Hall felt
that Hynek did much of his own investigations via teletype and telephone.
He only occasionally got out in the field, and for the most part depended
on Powers and other reliable sources. On a more positive note, Hall in-
formed McDonald that Hynek had given a talk a day or two before in
Houston, stressing some twenty cases reported by astronomers that de-
manded attention.
Hynek apparently was more than a bit embarrassed about the media
uproar his "swamp gas" explanation had caused. NICAP had obtained de-
tailed reports from Michigan police officers who had viewed disc-shaped,

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

ML DONALD ENTERS THE RING 67

solid objects—certainly not marsh gas! Hall himself had queried Hynek on the
prominent astronomer's wire-story quote that maybe "the observers should be
investigated." Hynek had explained to Hall that the press had misquoted him. 1

When McDonald had called Hynek before going to Blue Book, the astron-
omer was congenial. He asked McDonald if he knew Coral and Jim Lorenzen,
who were the directors of the Tucson-based UFO research organization,
APRO. Hynek felt the Lorenzens "were the most scientific of any 'club mem-
bers' he'd ever met." McDonald also had met with the Lorenzens and was im-
pressed by certain aspects of their research. He told Hynek that he felt
NICAP's overall approach was better than A P R O V ^ (VVO^aI^
Hynek had never visited NICAP Headquarters, had never met Major
Keyhoe, and preferred to avoid him because he felt Keyhoe was "a bit ex-
treme." McDonald countered by saying that he admired Keyhoe's and Dick
Hall's approach to the problem. Trying for common ground, McDonald
brought up the Air Force's plans for a $500,000 "university team" study.
Hynek said he didn't know anything specific about it, stating that, in spite of
being official Air Force consultant on UFOs for the past 18 years, he was not
privy to their plans. 3

We can assume that McDonald, during this preliminary phone conversation,

was willing to believe that Hynek was simply a man caught in a difficult posi-
tion—until he saw at Blue Book all the good UFO cases that Hynek had dis-
missed with absurd explanations. As a consequence, when McDonald arrived at
Northwestern University's Dearborn Observatory, he was determined to come to
an understanding. Hynek, however, kept him waiting. His secretary explained
that he was busy making up grade lists for his Astronomy A-20 class.
"I bowed out to give him 20 minutes and waited on a breezy drive north
of the Observatory," McDonald wrote in his journal. After Hynek finally
joined him, the two scientists walked to the new lake-edge Lindenheimer Ob-
servatory of which Hynek was Director, and which housed two large tele-
scopes for student use. 4

Hynek undoubtedly hoped that the visit would be pleasant, but McDonald
had no such idea. He pressed Hynek almost immediately for answers to various
public remarks Hynek had made about UFOs and to which McDonald object-
ed. Hynek held off answering. A few minutes later, Bill Powers and Jacques

1. McDonald, James E., third journal, p. 2.

2. Ibid., reverse p. 8.
3. Ibid., p. 8.
4. Ibid., p. 13.
17
FIRESTORM

Vallee drove up in Jacques's car and all four returned to Hynek's office. Only
cryptic notes appear in McDonald's journal up to this point, but it is only log-
ical to wonder whether Hynek was waiting for "backup" before attempting to
deal with this persistent, questioning bundle of energy.5
What transpired afterward was not cryptic. He described his visit to Blue
Book and immediately questioned Hynek about the current Blue Book report
evaluations. Why had Hynek let Quintanilla's absurd "explanations" stand with-
out correcting them? And why had he failed to alert the scientific community
about what was going on during the past 18 years?
Hynek's answers didn't satisfy him, so McDonald pursued the issues. He
pointed out specific "explanations" Hynek had overlooked, such as the August
13, 1960, Red Bluff, Calif., case, which Blue Book carried as a refraction of
some astronomical object. "This was clearly wrong," McDonald stated. Police
officers had been witnesses to the event, and they had at first thought the fiery
object was an airliner about to crash. He reminded him of another case, where
Hynek had penciled-in "Capella," (a bright star) in place of Quintanilla's "Ju-
piter" explanation, but neither was reasonable. He accused Hynek of by-pass-
ing many other explanations, which were just as "patently absurd."6
In his 1992 book Forbidden Science: Journals 1957-1969, Jacques Vallee,
an eye witness to this historic meeting, writes that McDonald "verbally attacked"
Hynek, demanding to know how the astronomer could have remained silent so
long.7 McDonald's accusation that Hynek had failed, not only in his responsibil-
ity to the Air Force but also in his responsibility to science, might rightfully be
viewed as an "attack." However, from McDonald's point-of-view, his questions
stemmed from logical apprehension about Hynek's silence on the valuable data
in Blue Book files, and his failure to alert his scientific colleagues about it. This
inaction, said McDonald, had allowed the public, as well as scientists, to think
that the UFO problem was being competently handled.
McDonald told Hynek that scientists had been led to believe that the Air
Force had the best of scientific advice on each case report received and that ad-
equate scientific study had been brought to the problem. Bill Powers entered
the discussion at this point and asked McDonald why he hadn't spoken out un-
til now. McDonald replied that although he'd interviewed many witnesses, un-
til a month previous he'd not studied the problem intensively and, above all,
had no idea of the volume or the quality of Blue Book data which he had al-

5. Ibid., reverse p. 13.

6. Ibid., reverse p. 11.
7. Vallee, Jacques, Forbidden Science: Journals 1957-1969, Berkeley, CA, North Atlantic
Books, 1992, p. 186.
ML DONALD ENTERS THE RING 69

ways assumed Hynek was examining. He cited an article in a 1953 issue of

8

The Journal of the Optical Society of America in which Hynek had referred to
a number of cases which were easily explained by conventional causes, but had
written nothing about the hundreds of unexplained cases at Blue Book. Hynek
at this point became slightly defensive, stating that Quintanilla had always
overruled him, whenever Hynek ruled more scientific studies.
"Then why didn't you take the problem to General Cacioppo, the chief sci-
entist at FTD, where Blue Book offices are housed?" asked McDonald. To his
astonishment, Hynek replied that he never went to Cacioppo. 9

Jacques Vallee attempted to intervene, arguing that Hynek would have been
dropped as Air Force consultant if he'd spoken up. McDonald bluntly indicated
"So what!" or words to that effect. Powers attempted to explain that Hynek's na-
ture was different, that he was not "brash" like McDonald. McDonald replied he
was merely reacting to his two days at Blue Book where he'd gotten a good look
at the mine of information Hynek had been in touch with all these years. Hynek $ ^
10

then admitted that he was probably a cautious and somewhat timid person, but
that his colleagues in astronomy were almost unanimously scornful of UFOs.
"Maybe physicists are d i f f e r e n c e suggested. "You are the first s c i e n - ^ i
tist with a 'union card' who'd ever said there might be anything to it." James
McDonald agreed, but said that none of his colleagues had ever seen the Blue^* 3 3
Book data, either.
Hynek pointed out that, during the 1953 Robertson Committee study, a half- ^
dozen eminent scientists had studied the UFO problem for four days. McDonald
replied that the panel had looked at only 20 cases, while Blue Book had 10,000. o
Even in 1953 evidence for the reality of UFOs was already very impressive, he V*
continued, and since Hynek had already been Air Force consultant for five years
in 1953, he should have pushed for adequate scientific study at that time. Hynek
replied, "I was very small potatoes then." ' He admitted feeling "overawed" by
1

the eminent scientists who comprised the Robertson Panel. Attempting concili-
ation, he showed McDonald a May 24, 1966, letter which he'd written to Air
Force Secretary Harold Brown, as evidence of his present concern and efforts. 12

8. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 13.

9. Ibid.
10. Appendix Item 4-A, see page 532.
11. McDonald, op. cit., reverse p. 13.
12. On June 18, 1966 Gordon MacDonald, McDonald's colleague at the NAS, informed him
that Hynek's letter had stirred no action at Secretary Brown's office.
16
FIRESTORM

The heated discussion toned down a bit while the four men took an extended
lunch. McDonald outlined his plans to bring scientific, military, and government
attention to the UFO problem. He urged Hynek, Powers and Vallee to do all they
could to push on all fronts. Vallee said he had a friend in France close to de
Gaulle and thought he might bring this up when he went to France in the summer.
McDonald strongly concurred.
The conversation turned to another touchy subject—UFO occupant cases.
All four scientists realized that rational and stable witnesses were reporting
these, as well as the more "acceptable" craftlike devices seen at a distance.
Vallee pointed out that the September 1954 "UFO wave" in France had
brought 200 occupant sightings to the attention of French mathematician Aime
Michel, but that Michel had hesitated to put these all in his book, Flying Sau-
cers and the Straight Line Mystery lest the sheer number dampen scientific in-
terest.13 Vallee said that, in his considered opinion, there were now about
1,000 occupant cases in the literature. None of the four scientists rejected these
reports out of hand. 14 It was McDonald's contention, however, often expressed
in later public talks and scientific papers, that such cases contained psycholog-
ical implications which he himself was not professionally trained to handle.
McDonald also confronted Hynek with the "swamp gas" explanation that
had been widely touted by the media. In the case of the Hillsdale College re-
ports, the site over which the strange, glowing machine had hovered for four
hours was a well-manicured lawn where receptions were held! Michigan con-
stituents of Rep. Edward Hutchinson had besieged him in such numbers that
he had called for a Congressional inquiry into the manner highly publicized
sightings had been handled in Hillsdale, Michigan, a town in Rep. Hutchin-
son's Congressional district.
At the urging of NICAP, McDonald had gone to see Hutchinson personally,
a few days prior to his Blue Book visit. He first talked to some of his Congres-
sional contacts about Hutchinson's interest. They felt that Hutchinson, who was
a Republican in a Democratic-majority House, had only a small chance of get-
ting his resolution accepted. McDonald had then gone to Rep. Morris Udall's of-
fice, whom he knew personally as a fellow Arizonan. Udall, who barely knew
Hutchinson, nevertheless phoned Hutchinson's office to introduce McDonald
and to explain his interest in Hutchinson's resolution.

13. Michel, Aime, Flying Saucers and the Straight-line Mystery, New York, Criterion Books,
1958. Translated from the French and edited by the Research Division of Civilian Saucer
Intelligence (CSI) of New York.
14. McDonald, op. cit., p. 14.
ML DONALD ENTERS THE RING 71

Hutchinson had told McDonald that he had introduced the resolution be-
cause constituents in his 4th District were annoyed about Hynek's "swamp
gas" explanation because no swamp existed at the Hillsdale sighting location.
He had a 24-page report from a competent source who had investigated the sit-
uation. Hutchinson admitted, however, that he didn't personally "believe in
UFOs" and was "really amused to find a scientist who did." Not taking offense,
McDonald assured Hutchinson that he approved of his resolution. He obtained
copies of it, mentioned NICAP's work, and offered any further help that he
could possibly give the Congressman. 15

All this was in the background, when McDonald confronted Allen Hynek
about his "swamp gas" explanation at their June 8th meeting. Hynek told him
he'd gotten the swamp gas idea from University of Michigan scientists and
merely suggested it to the media, where it was immediately embraced as the
true cause of the sightings by skeptics and debunkers. (It also went down in
UFO history as a major blooper.)
McDonald, Hynek, Vallee and Powers talked until well into the afternoon.
McDonald hoped he had accomplished his mission of convincing Hynek to put
his reputation and experience behind a common effort. On the way to the air-
port he stopped at a campus co-op and purchased a Northwestern University
sweat shirt for his daughter, Gail. While waiting at O'Hare for his plane, he
phoned Tom Malone and filled him in on his visits to Blue Book and Hynek.
to
Regarding this initial contact between Hynek and McDonald, Vallee
wrote in his 1992 book, Forbidden Science: "A major event has happened....
We have just had lunch with McDonald today, and it is clear that an entire era
has come to a crashing end. This man has many contacts, many ideas, and he
is afraid of nothing." 16

In subsequent references in Forbidden Science, however, Vallee referred

to McDonald's "vitriolic attacks" on Hynek, and likened him to "a bull in a chi-
na shop." In sharp contrast, McDonald's frequent journal notes about Hynek
reveal that he simply thought that Hynek should have been much more forceful
and influential in the UFO field before 1966 and later. 17

The unfavorable descriptions which Jacques Vallee later wrote in his jour-
nals probably stemmed from Valine's own loyalty to his mentor, J. Allen
Hynek, an acceptance of Hynek's gentler personality, and an understanding of
"the politics of science." On the other hand, McDonald either had no tolerance

15. Ibid., reverse p. 8.

16. Vallee, op. cit., p. 186.
17. Letter from McDonald to Hynek, July 1970, Appendix Item 4-A, see page 532.
72 FIRESTORM

for politics of science or simply worked around it. Consequently, he turned his
indomitable energy and talents everywhere he could, trying to pry loose scien-
tific interest and funding toward the UFO question, efforts which Vallee inter-
preted as "a bull in a china shop." Vallee from the beginning had relentlessly
pursued the truth of UFOs himself, and did not fully appreciate McDonald's
intense nature.
The initial meeting with Hynek only strengthened McDonald's resolve to
spend part of his summer vacation checking pre-1940 observations, for Hynek
showed little interest in these. There was not only a stunning 1904 sighting in-
volving a U.S. military ship, the U.S.S. Supply, but many other early reports,
resembling "UFOs," which had occurred back in the 1800s and even earlier.
Several days after his meeting with Hynek, McDonald called his colleague,
Charlie Moore, regarding some balloon-flight data. McDonald hoped that the
data might clarify Blue Book's evaluation of the classic Mantell case, in which
a National Guard aviator had crashed to his death while attempting to chase a
huge, luminous UFO which had hovered high over Godman Field, Ky. Hynek
had okayed an explanation of "Venus" for the UFO, but Moore was almost cer-
tain that Mantell had been directed by the Godman Field personnel on the ground
toward a high-altitude Skyhook balloon, at the time a Navy classified research
project. Moore told McDonald that the Skyhook incident had been hushed up be-
cause they "didn't want it out that the Navy had killed a man." 18
McDonald was satisfied that Moore's balloon-flight data explained the
Mantell incident, and he did not investigate it further. 19 He then took the op-
portunity to tell Moore about his visit with Hynek. Charlie Moore admitted
that he had not told McDonald everything he knew about Hynek's reasons
for not speaking out more publicly. Hynek had told him that, with two
youngsters in college, he needed the consulting money the Air Force paid
him. Moore doubted that what he referred to as McDonald's "jolt" would )
keep Hynek permanently off the fence." 20 Hynek, in his own way, was pr<^
tecting his family by hanging fast to his career. "TVi» ^ rti^res
Fe*.*** +» ov ICfcyt^Oi
rew ljwH- be n ^ aMhd''
Ljherr. dipe-vLi 'r\ roe,
18. McDonald, op. cit., p. 17 .. . . , . . „ , „ IfeUf.
19. In a phone interview with Professor Charles B. Moore on 27 September 1994, and in later cor-
respondence, Moore told the author that he thought Mantell had probably been killed trying to
chase a Skyhook balloon. Moore stated that a Skyhook launched from central Minnesota on 6
January 1948 went toward the south and, based on trajectories of subsequent flights and
reports from observers in Tennessee and Kentucky, he believes this balloon probably passed
over Kentucky during the next day. Observers' reports from Kentucky suggest that the balloon
probably passed 30 miles or so southwest of Godman Field, Kentucky, the military base which
was vectoring Mantell in toward the huge, unidentified "UFO." The Skyhook flights had a
naval classification of confidential at the time of Mantell's tragic death.
20. McDonald, op. cit., p. 17.
M C D O N A L D FCNTLRS THE RLNTI 73

The irony of this was that, at the time, McDonald himself had three young-
sters at the university and three more coming up in high school. He could
scarccly he blamed for not accepting Hynek's excuse as an acceptable reason
for inaction. He was slowly forming an opinion that he would hold to the end , ,< ^ s

of his life, in spite of repeated efforts to work it through. That opinion was that • rJ>.
J. Allen Hynek was part of the UFO problem, not part of its solution.-fo /^"W.
get
^-So
A few days later, Hynek and John G. Fuller—a well-known journalistg""-"'
who'd just written a book about the well-documented Exeter, N.H., sight- ^'
ings —attended a meeting of the American Optical Society at the Stamford • -
21

Nature Center in Connecticut; the meeting was "staged" to promote Fuller's ^

new book. Normally, about 50 persons attended such meetings but this day 150
showed up. Hynek had given a talk and had recommended: CT X* ^
disk*—*)- l-K. ^JfCA, J
• immediate study, in depth, of the whole UFO problem /u Cufcs^
• search for patterns, using data-analysis techniques via computers
• establishment of a UFO Center at a major university.
During his talk, Hynek stated that a "leading scientist" had recently
come to his office and "berated him" for not previously announcing the con-
clusion that these objects were extraterrestrial. There followed an ambiguous
sentence about "the scientist withholding judgment until he examined all the
facts," but the source did not make clear whether this sentence applied to
Hynek or McDonald. 22

Hynek's main conclusion was that the UFO problem needed serious atten-
tion, but that it had taken until now for scientists to begin studying the problem
adequately. He also told the Stamford audience that "at a recent meeting be-
tween a scientist, a statesman, and one of the most influential statesmen in the
world, ideas were generated that may lead to some important developments be-
fore the year is out." McDonald realized that the "most influential statesman"
was probably U Thant, who at that time was Secretary General of the United
Nations. He was fully aware of U Thant's deep interest in the UFO question
23

and, apparently, so was Hynek, even though U Thant's interest was not public-
ly known at the time. 24

21. Fuller, John, Incident at Exeter, NY, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1966.

22. We do not know if the source quoted Hynek correctly. McDonald never publicly made con-
clusive statements that the UFO phenomenon was extraterrestrial. In his writings, he
referred to the ET hypothesis as "the least unsatisfactory hypothesis," "the least unlikely
hypothesis at present," and similar qualifying phrases. In private, however, McDonald felt
that the objects were possibly ET, and his overwhelming need to solve the question sprang
partially from his concern about this.
23. McDonald, op. cit., p. 19.
 14
FIRESTORM

The information about Hynek's Stamford talk was given to McDonald by

a source who shall remain nameless.25 This source, who was the publisher of
an influential magazine, hotly differed with McDonald, concerning UFOs.
"He asked how I could listen to those guys at NICAP. I said I'd spent a num-
ber of days at NICAP and I had respect for them," McDonald wrote in his
journal. "I said I'd have a copy of The UFO Evidence mailed to him direct-
ly." 26 McDonald thought highly of this NICAP publication, regarding it as
the most objective, fact-filled book concerning UFOs that had been pub-
lished up to that time. He both recommended it to, and had copies sent to,
scientists, military personnel and government officials.
Regardless of his disagreements with Dr. Hynek, McDonald felt that
Hynek's protege, Jacques Vallee, was contributing much to the objective study
•jifv of UFOs. He called Vallee toward the end of June to ask about UFO cases in
t ^ V * Europe which might show an association between power outages and UFOs,
-K- for McDonald had deep interest in NICAP's discovery that sightings of round,
glowing UFOs had been seen near the power lines associated with the great
Northeastern blackout of 1965. Vallee told him that there was only one known
c^WtA European case of this sort, a 1961 sighting that had occurred in Yugoslavia. A
p i 1 y radio station's transmissions were blotted out by a strong, unknown radio fre-
\ quency at the same time as a dark gray cloud passed over the town.27 Lights
also flickered and went out at the transmitter station and, even more oddly, so-
dium-vapor lamps sitting on a shelf began to glow with no electrical connec-
tion at all!28
Vallee also told McDonald that he was going to France to meet with a
• ° v small group of scientists who were quietly studying UFOs. Vallee commented,
^• ' "They would lose their jobs if they said anything publicly about it." The group
included some well-known French scientists—atomic energy people and one
V ^ of General de Gaulle's top scientific advisers. Vallee felt that the USAF's^o-

M &

. The source will not be named here. McDonald basically distrusted him and especially
v
'V resented the source's low opinion of author John G. Fuller, whom McDonald and NICAP
vt
> considered most competent and reliable.
26. The UFO Evidence, Edited by Richard Hall, Washington, D.C., and published by National
Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP).
27. "Clouds" associated with UFO reports are common, especially in France, due to the work
of French researcher Aime Michel, who wrote about "cloud cigars," his name for cloud-
shrouded aggregations of UFOs. Also see "Santa Catalina 'Cloud Cigars'," a paper pre-
sented by this author, Ann Druffel, at the 1976 Conference of the Center for UFO Studies,
Lincolnwood, 111., and printed in that conference's Proceedings, which presents evidence
that recurrent "cloud cigars" are witnessed off the Southern California coast.
28. McDonald, op. cit., p. 22.
M C D O N A L D ENTERS THE RING 75

McDonald and Vallee also discussed "ringlike" UFOs, like those associ-
ated with the Heflin and Ft. Belvoir photo cases (See Chapter 12). McDonald
was impressed with Vallee's knowledge and learned with interest that his
French book about UFOs, Insolites, was coming out in an English translation.
Hynek was planning to write the Foreword. Hynek, at the time of this call,
29

was planning to go to Canada for his annual month's vacation. The idea of "an
annual month's vacation" was foreign to the indefatigable McDonald!
Regarding this June 1966 phone conversation, Vallee writes in Forbidden
Science, "Jim tried to recruit me for his camp. 'If it wasn't for your influence,
and all the research you brought over from France, Hynek would still be argu-
ing that 99% of those reports are due to Venus or to marsh gas! It's time for
you to move on.'" From McDonald's viewpoint, however, he was not trying to
divide the scientific community into camps but, rather, trying every way he
could to encourage clear-thinking scientists to push jointly toward a solution
of the UFO question. On this occasion, they also spent 30 minutes hashing over
Hynek's past record. 30

When Vallee's book, re-named Challenge to Science, was published in the

U.S. McDonald read the foreword with special interest. In it, Hynek stated,
"Unfortunately, as the authors point out, scientists, 'draped with dignity,' have
often refused to study [UFO] reports. The fact of the matter is that many of my
colleagues who have undraped their dignity long enough to take a hard look at
the reports have joined the growing ranks of the puzzled scientists; they pri-
vately indicate serious interest in the phenomenon but publicly they choose,
like the subject itself, to remain unidentified." He also denied in the Fore-
31

word that he had ever "debunked" UFO reports, terming it "a most unwarrant-
ed charge" that he had ever "deliberately adopted a Procrustean approach,
cutting down or stretching out evidence to make a forced fit, deliberately to
'explain away' UFO reports at all costs...." 32

On June 30, 1966, McDonald made a second trip to Project Blue Book (see
Chapter 7 for details) and spent the day digging into files of current cases and
other sightings in which he had special interest. In discussions with Maj. Quin-

29. This English edition appeared under the title, Challenge to Science: The UFO Enigma, New
York, NY, Ace Books, Inc., 1966. It was co-authored by Jacques Vallee and Janine Vallee
with a foreword by Hynek.
30. McDonald, op. cit., reverse p. 22
31. Vallee, op. cit., "Foreword" by J. Allen Hynek.
32. Ibid.
 13
FIRESTORM

tanilla, Dr. Cacioppo, Gen. Cruikshank, and Col. DeGoes, one of the new con-
sultants whom Cruikshank had added to the staff, McDonald kept any
lingering doubts about Hynek to himself. He said only that he felt Hynek
seemed truly "off the fence," pointing out his talk at Stamford and his comment
about U Thant's interest.33
He urged them to invite Jacques Vallee down to Blue Book before he left for
France, pointing out Vallee's wide knowledge, his valuable scientific contacts in
France, and his acceptance of the UFO question as a valid scientific problem.34
They expressed interest. McDonald informed Vallee of this, and Vallee was in-
terested. However, Blue Book officials never contacted Vallee. McDonald typi-
cally tried to introduce other scientists to the contacts he'd made.
Toward the end of August McDonald received a phone call from Lee
Katchen of the NASA Goddard Space Center, who privately investigated
UFOs. Katchen had had two phone calls from Hynek in recent days. "He
seemed pretty excited, and ready to blow the lid off," he told McDonald.35 Ac-
cording to Katchen, Hynek was forming his own scientific committee here and
abroad to study the UFO problem, hoped to speak to U Thant personally about
it, had an article about UFOs accepted by Discovery, and another article by the
New Yorker. He'd even succeeded in getting a "Letter to the Editor" accepted
by the prestigious refereed journal, Science.
Hynek had also told Katchen that he'd needed the consulting money, men-
tioning the "two kids in college." He was afraid he'd be fired, and that was the
reason he had not spoken out in the past, although his failure to do so had been
weighing on his mind. Katchen also told McDonald that Hynek was now com-
paring himself to Martin Luther "posting his 99 theses on the church door!"36
Toward the end of September, McDonald phoned Hynek again. His two
main purposes: to ask if Hynek had known all along of the content of the infa-
mous Robertson Panel Report and to clarify the "kids in college" aspect. "¥he '
Robertson Panel was very much on McDonald's mind, for one of the panel's
recommendations was that the government deliberately debunk all UFO re-
ports, in order to minimize public interest in the subject.37
W no**' f^'flW CO^'K-l'' or i« v^wdb lyft,
f W ' ' ^ ' " • • r t b> (Jtfcwi-
33. McDonald, op. cit., reverse p. 24.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., p. 31.
36. Ibid.
37. Report of Meetings of Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects Convened
by Office ofScientific Intelligence. CIA, January 14-18, 1953. A copy of this now-declassi-
fied report, with an Addendum by author Druffel, was published by The Center for UFO
Studies in Chicago, 111.
M L DONALD ENTERS THE RING 77

Hynek was very vague as to just how much he d seen [of the classified
Robertson Report], He thought he'd seen all of it. Someone showed
him the final report, he thought. When I tried to pin him down on the
debunking aspect he couldn 7 recall such terms, he thought.... He said
he never thought that [debunking] had much effect, andfelt that public
ridicule wasn 't the real factor in deterring pilot reports.
38

McDonald pointed out to Hynek that there had been a dramatic drop in
U S A F reports after 1953, the year that the Robertson Panel had officially rec- i
ommended "debunking." In that year, also, an official Air Force Regulation,
#200-2, had been put into effect, which prohibited all military personnel from
publicly talking about a UFO sighting, under penalty of 10 years in prison and
a $10,000 fine. McDonald bluntly told Hynek that it was a bit naive to think
that such a regulation had no effect on flow of information from U S A F pilots
and radar personnel. He also cited specific instances like the Tinker-Carswell
1965 case, where radar information leaked out and then was quickly retracted
after someone remembered AFR 200-2.
McDonald was not satisfied with the answers he was getting from Hynek.
"[It] sounded to me like he's looking for alternative explanations of what hap-
pened...seeking excuses," he wrote in his journal. He confronted Hynek with
Charlie Moore's quote on the "two-kids-in-college" aspect. Hynek protested
that he wasn't on the witness stand, that McDonald wasn't a lawyer, and what
did he want out of him, anyway? He first denied making the "two kids in col-
lege" remark to Moore, then later said if he'd said it he'd meant it as a joke.
"You know Charlie Moore," countered McDonald. "Do you think he
would pass on a jocular remark and portray it instead as a serious admission in
a candid discussion? I don't think so, and I know Charlie pretty well." He also
told Hynek that he'd heard the story independently from another person—not
naming Lee Katchen. 39

The two men also differed on the percentage of true "unidentifieds" in

Blue Book files. Hynek insisted it was 1 in 25. McDonald countered that it was
an order of magnitude higher. Hynek disagreed strongly, and they broke off the
debate, since it was evident that without specific case reports to refer to, this
was futile discussion. 40

Hynek told McDonald that it was only in the past few years that he'd taken
the UFO question seriously. "I was always waiting for a good photo or some ac-

38. McDonald, op. cit., p. 32.

39. Ibid.
40. Ibid., reverse p. 32.
 12
FIRESTORM

tual hardware or a landing on the White House lawn," he said.41 He related that
when he went up to investigate the Michigan sightings he honestly hoped the
Dexter sighting would turn out to be a crucial case, but he was not impressed
with the intellectual level of some of the witnesses. McDonald brought up the
swamp gas controversy again, and Hynek finally agreed that he was "probably
wrong" on that one.
James McDonald asked him if he'd ever familiarized himself with radar
propagation theory, since this impacted directly on radar-visual UFO sightings,
most particularly the classic 1952 Washington, D. C., sightings in which, on suc-
cessive nights, numerous UFOs roamed freely in the prohibited air space over
the White House. Hynek said he'd never done this. "I chided him on that," wrote
•ji ;T, McDonald later in his journal, "since a week's study could have done it." Hynek
asked how could he have stood up to Air Force experts in radar? McDonald re-

£uT i
peated that Hynek had been seriously remiss, never to have learned anything
about radar in his 18 years' Blue Book duty.42
r
,}cWki Hynek also got in a few swipes. He told McDonald that, during the summer,
^ ^ I-*. he'd gone to Blue Book and that they regarded McDonald as "off his rocker." He
. vd«jo also told him that he'd asked Fred Whipple [an eminent astronomer who was
sometimes consulted on UFO cases] if he knew Jim McDonald. "Yes, he's a
competent physicist," Whipple had answered. "Well, he's seriously interested in
UFOs," Hynek told Whipple. "Oh, I thought he was a competent physicist,"
P'^jft Whipple had replied.43
1
In spite of such maddening discussions, McDonald remained positive, hop-
ing that Hynek would eventually come around and admit his part in the "govern-
ment UFO foul-up," as McDonald termed it. He continued to give Hynek the
^ c benefit of the doubt. In June 1968, when asked by prominent Congressmen in the
House of Representatives to name potential panelists for a public hearing on
' UFOs, his preliminary list had Hynek first. Although the McDonald's list went
v „ t h r o u g h several revisions, Hynek's name was always first. Eventually the two
^tj men, together with four other prominent scientists, gave testimony on the reality
>o cVc^ of the UFO problem at the first and only completely public Congressional hear-
Vv>\$*iAg on the subject to be held within the boundaries of the United States (see
Chapter 10).
yv* ^ This Congressional UFO hearing, held on July 29th, 1968, went well, and
^ ' the participants met that evening for cocktails and celebration in the Du Pont
Plaza, joined by some NICAP staff. Later that evening, Hynek privately con-

41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
ML DONALD ENTERS THE RING 79

ceded to McDonald that he had, indeed, seen the mysterious 1947 "Estimate of
the Situation," a top secret Air Force document, the existence of which UFOl-
ogists had tried to prove since 1953. Donald E. Keyhoe and NICAP had tried
for many years to procure a copy of it, for its existence had been confirmed to
Keyhoe by Major Dewey Fournet, a NICAP Board member, and it was de-
scribed in The UFO Evidence.
The document was first described in an early UFO book written by Major
Edward J. Ruppelt, a competent and objective man who had been head of Project
Blue Book between 1953 and 1955, and its importance lay in the fact that it pur-
portedly contained statements that the Air Force had come to a firm conclusion
that the UFO phenomena were real and possibly extraterrestrial. However, 44

when the document was handed up the line and landed on Gen. Vandenberg's
desk, the general reportedly considered it so sensitive in nature that he ordered it
destroyed. Attempts by several researchers in recent years to pry loose a copy of
the document (allegedly there was only one copy) by invoking the Freedom of
Information Act since the mid-1970s have proved unsuccessful.
Intrigued by the fact that Hynek had actually seen this elusive document,
McDonald asked why he'd never come out publicly and admitted that the "Es-
timate of the Situation" actually existed? Hynek squirmed, speculating that the
USAF never made the document official after it found its way up the ladder to
General Vandenberg. Therefore, it never existed as an accepted Air Force re-
port. "However," repeated Hynek, "I've seen it somewhere along the line."
"How could you have kept quiet all these years!" challenged McDonald.
Hynek confided that he felt no one in the USAF ever looked at the whole
picture and, instead, had only looked at one case at a time. "I tried to get the
Air Force to change its policies," Hynek told McDonald, "but I felt awfully
alone about it." 45

Over the next two years, Hynek and McDonald shared a few other close
moments. When the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) decided to hold a symposium on UFOs for its December 1968 ses-
sion, ajew scientists rose up in arms, protesting the idea. However,' Dr. Thorn-
ton Page, who had been one of the scientists on the Robertson Panel, insisted,
aiong~with Hynek, McDonald and others, that the session be held. Although

44. Ruppelt, Edward J., The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, Garden City, NY, Double-
day & Company, Inc., 1956. The first edition of the book was objective, but a later "New,
Enlarged Edition" edition, also dated 1956 added a strangely negative chapter at the end of
the book. It is widely believed by UFO researchers that Ruppelt was forced by the Air Force
(or some official source) to "revise" his book. He died about 1960.
45. McDonald, James E., fourth journal, p. 20.
 11
FIRESTORM

another full year went by before the event actually occurred in 1969, Hynek
and McDonald shared the podium, giving the impression of colleagues work-
ing for the same cause.
In mid-September 1968, on a pleasant flight from Denver to Ft. Ord,
James McDonald and J. Allen Hynek discussed with great interest a May 1967
case concerning witness Stephen Michalak, a Winnipeg, Canada, man who has
reportedly been burned during an encounter with a landed UFO. Michalak had
sustained burns on his upper body in a gridlike pattern, and for many months
traveled sporadically to the Mayo Clinic, at his own expense, for treatment of
rashes on his chest in the same area as the burns. Hynek confided to McDonald
that he was actively investigating the Michalak report and felt that it might, in-
deed, be a real case.
-Qjithat same flight, the two discussed the controversial "cover-up" hy-
pothesisT^McDonald was continuing to think that government inaction on
UFOs was the result of a "grand foul-up" rather than a true cover-up and so ex-
pressed this to Hynek. He found that the astronomer shared his opinion.46 In
^ a l l of his writings, including his journals, McDonald never seemed to seriously
^ think that there was any government "silence group" deliberately covering up
information about UFOs, although he conceded that there seemed to be local-
(^.v ized cover-ups on specific cases,47 He debated the cover-up idea frequently
with NICAP personnel and other researchers. Most were of the opinion that
Blue Book, rather than being the only repository for government UFO reports,
as the Air Force publicly proclaimed, was mainly a public relations scheme,
/ anc* ' t s m a ' n function was to explain away all reports. Some researchers
' / like Dick Hall felt that Blue Book, while under Ed Ruppelt's command, had
qv^ -ff^ried to be a serious study, but that this did not hold true for other Air Force
w officers who had headed the Project.
UFOlogists who favored the cover-up hypothesis suspected that the best
UFO data, the best UFO pictures, and the best physical evidence of UFOs
were locked away at a level inaccessible to anyone without "need to know."
McDonald, so far as is known, for his part never firmly believed that a con-
spiratorial cover-up existed. 48 After his death, however, documents concern-
ing formerly classified UFO material—which were never in Blue Book

46. There is some evidence to think that McDonald, shortly before his death, was beginning to
find evidence of an official cover-up. See, for example, Fowler, Raymond E., Casebook of a
UFO Investigator, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1981, hardcover, pp. 50-51. (Also
see Chapters 17 and 18.)
47. McDonald, op. tit, p. 24.
48. McDonald, "Cover-up vs. Grand Foul-up" file, in McDonald Personal Collection, archived
at University of Arizona Library.
ML DONALD ENTERS THE RING 81

files—began to be pried loose from the CIA, the FBI, and many other intel-
ligence and military branches of the government through the Freedom of In-
formation Act (FOIA). This information, beginning in the seventies and
continuing even today, settled the cover-up controversy once and for all. We
now know that all branches of the U.S. military, all of its intelligence arms,
the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the NSA intensely conducted
classified investigations of UFO reports both nationally and internationally.
The "cover-up vs. foul-up" controversy which McDonald debated so vig-
orously might have been clarified by simple definition of terms. If by the term
"cover-up" is meant that the U. S. government has adequate evidence that un-
identified aeroforms are invading Earth's atmosphere and even, at times, leav-
ing landing traces on Earth terrain, there is no doubt that a "cover-up" existed
(and still exists). This does not necessarily mean, however, that government of-
ficials, at top level, know exactly the nature of these unidentified objects or any
specifics as to their purpose and motives.
On the September 1968 flight from Denver to Ft. Ord, after McDonald and
Hynek discussed the cover-up vs. foul-up question, Hynek confided that he was
having problems with Col. Raymond Sleeper, who at the time was Hynek's su-
perior in the FTD. He'd had several stormy sessions with Sleeper, who was de-
manding that he present his views on Blue Book methodology. McDonald
recommended that Hynek should put all his criticisms of Blue Book on record,
"in case Sleeper is planning to try to dump him." It seemed a strange twist, with
49

McDonald advising Hynek how to keep his consulting job, but McDonald's
main purpose was to urge Hynek to emphasize that the Air Force was not utiliz-
ing its own in-house scientific competence.
Arriving at Ft. Ord, the two men continued talking at TWA's Ambassa-
dor's Club. "He seemed glad for a chance to talk and was clearly helpful re-
garding our past differences," wrote McDonald. "I pointed out I felt he should
have become better informed re. meteorological optics, radar, etc. and he
agreed that he probably hadn't taken the whole thing that seriously
Hynek also was convinced that had he "pounded on the table" back in the
early years of his Air Force consultancy, "they'd have gotten rid of him imme-
diately." He felt that he'd "gathered the data" which he couldn't have done oth-
erwise. Hynek meant that he had accumulated his own personal stockpile of
UFO reports from Blue Book files, and regarded these as an important re-
source. McDonald, kindly perhaps, did not bring up the obvious point that such
a stockpile was hardly significant if not openly shared with other scientists. 51

49. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 24 and p. 31.

50. Ibid.
10
FIRESTORM

The growing cordiality between the two was short-lived, however. By

April 1969, the long-awaited "Condon Report" came out in a paperback edi-
tion, and the entire UFO research field was abuzz with its implications (see
Chapter 11). McDonald, along with other objective researchers and investiga-
tors, was incensed by the hatchet job which Dr. Edward Condon had done on
UFOs. Condon had stated in his "Conclusions" that UFOs were not deserving
of further scientific study, that it was unethical for teachers to bring such
"fringe subjects" to the attention of young students, and that the American pub-
lic could safely forget the whole question.52 These conclusions were drawn by
Condon after spending $580,000 of taxpayers' money in a three-year study of
UFO reports at the University of Colorado (See Chapter 11).
Hynek reviewed the Condon Report in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. A
colleague called it to McDonald's attention, stating that it was a bad review be-
cause it was not unfavorable enough. McDonald concurred. He'd thought that
Hynek's view was truly changing, yet his review of the Condon Report more or
less whitewashed Condon's actions. Also, by this time McDonald had tracked
down and interviewed numerous witnesses of the Hillsdale-Dexter, Michigan,
sightings. After hearing their stories, and comparing them with Hynek's "swamp
gas" write-off, he was dismayed anew. "JAH will be in Boulder the end of the
week at a science project and I will see him then," wrote McDonald in his jour-
nal. "I plan to tell him, after interviewing] 16-17 Swamp Gas witnesses I'm un-
happyer [sic] than ever."53
At a scientific UFO Symposium on UFOs in August 1969, Hynek and
McDonald were slated to be two of the primary speakers and were being in-
terviewed at a press conference. In full hearing of the media, Hynek com-
mented that he was "glad to see James McDonald is finally coming around
to recognize some of the points I've been making, because scientists in gen-
eral aren't paying attention to the UFO problem." McDonald was irritated by
the remark. Afterwards he wrote tersely in his journal:
8/22/69 UFO Symposium "Science & UFO's" NAA Denver.
See file (Ken Steinmetz), 6 speakers.
Had good go around with Hynek at PM press conf when he volun-
teered, "Glad to see you 're finally coming around to my view. "

51. Ibid.
52. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, Dr. Edward U. Condon, Scientific Director,
Daniel S. Gillmor, Editor, with an introduction by Walter Sullivan, New York, Bantam
Books 1968.
53. McDonald, op. cit., p. 38.
M C D O N A L D FCNTERS I HT RLNU 83

Re my prior comment that the scientific community is basically re-

sponsible [for neglect of the UFO question.] I opened up on him, cited
my swamp gas review. Got a fair amount out. Probably good I did. " 54

For more than three years McDonald had been publicly speaking out about
UFOs, urging his scientific colleagues, his contacts in the military and in gov-
ernment to pay attention to the UFO question. He'd put his reputation, his ca-
reer and his personal life on the line. Yet here was Hynek stating that
McDonald was coming around to his point of view! McDonald's desire for sci-
entific honesty was deeply offended.
It was incidents like this, plus McDonald's encyclopedic memory and pen-
chant for keeping detailed notes of conversations and events, that finally led
him in July 1970 to write a lengthy letter to Hynek. On the pages of the third
typed draft, he made many handwritten additions—so many that, if the letter
had been sent, it would have constituted about 60 pages! He apparently never
polished it enough to actually mail it, but the entire text of the last draft, re-
typed for better legibility, is included as Appendix Item 4-A (see page 532).
In the letter, McDonald cited the encounters and differences he'd had with
Hynek and recounted the numerous conversations in which he had tried to
come to an understanding with him. His main concern at this point was that
Hynek was not being honest with himself, or with other scientists, or with the
public. Instead, McDonald charged, Hynek was trying to convince all who
heard him that he had somehow kept the UFO question alive until scientists
were ready to take an honest look at it. Hynek would never admit to McDonald
that his 20-years' AF consultancy—in which he'd participated fully in explain-
ing away excellent cases—contributed to the Air Force UFO "foul-up" and to
the scientific establishment's neglect of the UFO question.
McDonald himself made mistakes, but he generally apologized on those
rare occasions when he felt he'd been wrong. He simply couldn't understand
why Hynek would not admit his participation in the government's neglect, es-
pecially since the question of UFOs was by this time, in McDonald's mind,
"the greatest scientific problem of our time." In the July 1970 letter, he referred
to Hynek's "strange misperceptions about the history of this whole problem....
I wished we could sit down and really thrash this whole thing out. We never
have, and this letter is a poor attempt to do a bit of that." 55

What irritated McDonald even more than Hynek's refusal to admit that he had
been part of the UFO problem was his deep concern that Hynek was planning to

54. Ibid., reverse side p. 44.

55. McDonald's letter to Hynek, July 1970, p. 23 (see Appendix Item 4-A, page 532).
9
FIRESTORM

"re-write history." In a 1970 issue of Flying Saucer Review (FSR), a respected

UFO journal published in England, Hynek wrote, "Now that Blue Book has been
terminated, I will be free to discuss some of their 'scientific' methods, and indeed
a part of the book I am now writing will be devoted to that."56
This passage increased McDonald's concern. "Do I understand that you
really are going to try to write a book that makes out Quintanilla, his predeces-
sors, and the 'establishment' as the malefactors in this drama?" McDonald
asked Hynek in the July 1970 letter. "You can make a greater scientific contri-
bution by...opening your own eyes [to] what you've done to the UFO problem,
rather than trying to come out with a book that rewrites history...where you
come out looking like some sort of a martyr to a great scientific cause.... [A]
candid admission of the fact...might wake up some of the scientists who are
still on the fence, might make them take that new and earnest look at the UFO
problem that would help get it out in the open where some really capable sci-
entists can begin to hammer away at it." 57
The next mention of Allen Hynek appears in McDonald's journal in August
1970. He had learned from NICAP's Dick Hall that the astronomer had been in
Boston and was in close touch with UFO researcher Raymond Fowler.58 "JAH
is using some of [Fowler's] cases in a book due out this fall [and] is considering
coming out with ETH [the extraterrestrial hypothesis],"59 McDonald wrote. He
was keeping track of Hynek's moves, while saying little.
On February 3, 1971, McDonald met Hynek at the Spanish Trail Motel in
Tucson. By that time, McDonald had gone to Maxwell Air Force Base in Ala-
bama where the Blue Book files had been archived, had spent two weeks
studying them, and discovered (and copied) 100 radar-visual (R-V) files which
no civilian researcher had ever seen before 6 0 He always regarded radar-visual
cases, where the objects were tracked on radar at the same time they were being
viewed by reliable, official eyewitnesses, as possibly the closest thing to
"physical evidence" that could be obtained. Consequently, he was even more
enraged that Hynek had not alerted the scientific community to these cases.

56. Hynek, J. Allen, "Commentary on the AAAS Symposium," FSR, FSR Publications Ltd.,
P.O. Box 162, High Wycombe, Bucks. HP13 5DZ, England, March/April 1970 issue. FSR
may be contacted at http://www.fsreview.net and fsreview@hotmail.com.
57. Appendix Item 4-A, see page 532.
58. Fowler, Raymond, Casebook of a UFO Investigator. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1981. Fowler, a well-known NICAP investigator, was a friend and colleague of
McDonald's.
59. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 49.
60. These 100 cases are archived in McDonald's "Personal Collection" at the Library of the
University of Arizona at Tucson.
ML DONALD ENTERS THE RING 85

McDonald tore into Hynek, berating him for what he had learned from the
radar-visual files and the sorry way in which Hynek had passed off even these
astounding data with absurd "explanations." He then accused him of starting
"the Menzelian pattern." 61

"Menzelian" referred to the eminent astrophysicist, Dr. Donald Menzel of

Harvard University, who was famous for his debunking and ridicule of the
UFO subject. He had written widely on the subject, trying to convince scien-
tists (and the public) that UFOs were nothing more than common misinterpre-
tations of astronomical objects and atmospheric effects. McDonald engaged in ^ j j "
public debate with Menzel repeatedly; at scientific conferences and symposia -h>
they continued the controversy face-to-face. Just as frequent were the written s e e

exchanges between them.

After McDonald accused Hynek of starting the Menzelian pattern, the two
men talked for two hours more. "He ended up hostile," wrote McDonald suc-
cinctly in his journal Then, reverting instantly to a cooler manner, the jour-
6 2

nal continues, "Hynek's book is half done. He is having trouble with Crowell
Publishers. They want him to make it sensational." 63

In spite of repeated attempts, McDonald was never able to come to an un-

derstanding with Hynek. Yet his journals are filled with instances where he
urged numerous colleagues in science, military, government and UFOlogy to
contact Hynek, in the hope of bringing influential sources together in a com-
mon goal. It also documents the many conversations, debates and arguments
he had with the well-known astronomer. In July 1970, feeling that all his ef-
forts to come to an understanding had failed, his frustration culminated in the
July 1970 multi-page letter.
In February 1971, when he accused Hynek of "starting the Menzelian pat-
tern," McDonald might have made a serious mistake. He had no way of knowing
that Dr. Donald Menzel might have been much more involved in the govern-
ment's "foul-up" than anyone suspected (see Chapter 14). Instead of starting the
"Menzelian pattern" Hynek might have been a victim of it, as McDonald himself
would soon become.

61. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 49.

62. Ibid.
63. Hynek, J. Allen, The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry, Chicago, Henry Regnery Com-
pany, 1972. Published by Regnery, it was not "sensational," as Crowell Publishers had
requested but some UFO researchers feel, as did McDonald, that the book does tend to "re-
write history."
CHAPTER 5

Common Sense vs. Academic

Pussyfooters
"Tell me, who is the giant with the gold curly hair.
He who rides at the head of your band?
Seven feet is his height, with some inches to spare.
And he looks like a king in command— "
—from "The Boy from Killan"

"Common sense is a docile thing. It sooner or later

learns the ways of science. "
—Henry Margenau

Donald's two eye-opening trips to Blue Book had answered

one question. He was now convinced that the UFO problem
was being shockingly neglected by that part of the govern-
ment that had been given the responsibility of investigating unidentified
flying objects—the United States Air Force. He was also convinced that
the public had a right to the truth, and that the full impact of science must
be brought to the problem.
During the eight years from 1958 into early 1966, McDonald had net-
worked quietly with lay researchers, particularly those connected with the
National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), head-
quartered in Washington, D.C. His first contacts were with NICAP's Di-
rector, Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe, (USMC, Ret.), who was about 25 years
older than McDonald. The communication between them was friendly and
fruitful. Keyhoe was delighted to know that a prominent atmospheric
physicist was interested in scrutinizing the UFO phenomenon, and he gave
him all the help and encouragement possible.
As early as 1949, after months of intense investigation, Don Keyhoe
had written a major article which appeared in True magazine, in which he
put forth his hypothesis that "flying saucers," as they were popularly called

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

COMMON SENSE VS. ACADEMIC PUSSYFOOTERS 87

at that time, were interplanetary machines. By 1950, he had written a seminal |.h« V^JJ
1
S
book, The Flying Saucers Are Real, which still stands as the first objective book
on the subject. A small paperback, it sold widely and became a rallying point fWft
2 ......,,
for numerous persons who were seriously interested in the subject. pi^T
Keyhoe was a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and of the y '
Marine Corps Training Station. He'd served his country as a Marine pilot and
had been an aide to Charles Lindbergh during that pioneer's worldwide pub-
licity tour after his solo Atlantic crossing. Keyhoe's reputation was impecca-
ble. He was an excellent writer whose easy style was logical and accurate.
Before developing an interest in UFOs, he wrote books and articles on avia-
tion, which were widely published. He had many contacts in the military, in-
cluding the Air Force, and sources of information which no one else had.
In 1953, Keyhoe wrote a second book, Flying Saucers From Outer
Space, which contained official information on many classic sightings that
3

had been cleared for Keyhoe by the Air Force. His third book, The Flying Sau-
cer Conspiracy, followed in 1955. In this book, he calmly tallied many objec-
4

tive reasons why he was convinced that the USAF had clamped a lid of secrecy
over the UFO subject.
Keyhoe was a wiry, energetic man whose wife, Helen, and their twin daugh-
ters, Cathleen and Caroline, were the delights of his life. Helen was his romantic
passion; UFOs became his scientific ardor. Because of Keyhoe's faultless repu-
tation as a thorough researcher, he was asked by the Board of the newly formed
civilian research organization, NICAP, to take on the job of Director in January
1957. NICAP had been founded in 1956 but did not become viable until Keyhoe
lent it his reputation and his knack for drawing around himself objective people.
NICAP published The UFO Investigator, a newsletter which was a source of un-
biased UFO information. NICAP's Board of Directors were all influential men
who added greatly to the research organizations's prestige and influence.

1. Up to about 1953, the term "flying saucers" was widely used by both objective researchers
and contactees alike, the expression having been coined by the media after the June 24,
1947, sighting of Kenneth Arnold in Washington State—the first widely publicized report in
our modern era. The current term, widely used in the United States—i. e., UFO, standing for
"unidentified flying object"—came into wide use about 1954, following the publication of
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, by Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, who was an early,
and open-minded. Head of Project Blue Book.
2. Keyhoe, Donald, (USMC, Ret.) The Flying Saucers Are Real, NY, Fawcett Publications,
Inc., 1950.
3. Keyhoe, Donald, Flying Saucers From Outer Space, NY, Henry Holt and Company, Inc.,
1953.
4. Keyhoe, Donald E., The Flying Saucer Conspiracy, NY, Henry Holt and Company, 1955.
 88 FIRESTORM

McDonald had read Keyhoe's three books and decided he would like to
meet him personally. He wondered about the cases which Keyhoe had de-
scribed. Were they true? Were they well-investigated? Were they reported ac-
curately? Jim Hughes, McDonald's contract monitor at the ONR, tells of
McDonald's early interest in UFOs, even before he started investigating them.
"His interest in UFOs goes back farther than I realized, because I remem-
^ ber, we were passing each other in an airport, and he was in the lounge waiting
o, for a plane. I noticed that he was reading a little book. I asked him what he was
' reading; he said he was reading about UFOs, and we got on to other topics.
Nothing came of it at that time, but I vividly recall that was early on."
James McDonald's first personal contact with NICAP came about acciden-
tally, as a result of a 1958 letter which Dick Hall, then NICAP's Assistant Direc-
tor, had written to Weatherwise, a publication of the AMS. Hall's letter
commented on "ice falls," a meteorological phenomenon which had also caught
^McDonald's ubiquitous attention. McDonald had written a short article in
i<p> Weatherwise about "the ice-fall problem," calling attention to an unexplained
^ fall of a large chunk of ice, which had tumbled out of a clear, cloudless sky in the
^vv Midwest when no planes were reported in the vicinity.5 The most plausible ex-
^ planation, of course, was that the areas's airplane reports were incomplete or
o"'" faulty. Some of his colleagues at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP),
considered McDonald's little article about ice-falls as inventing a problem where
no one else could see a problem. However, Hall's letter commented on the fact
that large chunks of ice had been reported falling from unclouded skies for over
a hundred years, long before airliners dropped large clumps of ice from ice-laden
wings or airborne toilets! These had been reported in the popular press and also
in scientific journals of the time. Intrigued by Hall's reply, McDonald wrote to
him, eager to know more about ice falls and Hall's reference sources, and a mu-
tually beneficial association began.6
McDonald gradually confided to Hall that he was becoming interested in
UFOs, was investigating local cases around Tucson, and was finding a small
fraction of reports that were truly puzzling, for which no amount of research
could provide answers. He kept in touch with NICAP through letters and
phone calls for the next eight years, especially about meteorological phenom-
ena which could explain some of the puzzling cases which NICAP was receiv-
ing, and also communicated directly with Keyhoe.

5. McDonald, James E., "The Ice-Fall Problem", Weatherwise, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 1960, pp.
110-14, 132.
6. For examples of unexplained "ice-falls," see Fort, Charles, The Books Of Charles Fort: The
Book Of The Damned, NY, Henry Holt and Company, Sixth Printing 1957, pp. 183, 285,
301, 760.
COMMON SENSE VS. ACADEMIC PUSSYFOOTERS 89

From the beginning, Don Keyhoe and NICAP had worked for open Con-
gressional hearings which would bring the question of UFOs before the public.
NICAP members flooded their Congressmen and Senators with letters, asking
them to take this action. By early 1962 Keyhoe seemed on the verge of persuad-
ing Congress to hold open hearings. Even though much of NICAP's evidence
was based on confidential informers who perhaps would not be able, or willing,
to testify, Keyhoe was counting on Vice-Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter's
willingness to speak out openly against the Air Force's policy of secrecy. 7

Hillenkoetter was an extremely influential member of NICAP's Board of

Directors. He had been the first head of the CIA from 1947 to 1950, but after
his retirement had given a bold statement to the press stressing the necessity of
treating the UFO question openly and seriously. From the beginning, he al-
lowed Keyhoe to use the following quote in NICAP correspondence: "The Air
Force has constantly misled the American public about UFOs. I urge Congres-
sional action to reduce the danger from secrecy." This statement lent much cre-
dence to NICAP. In 1962, however, as Congress was on the verge of open UFO
hearings, Hillenkoetter abruptly resigned from the Board and publicly stated
that the Air Force UFO investigation should not be criticized anymore; the pro-
posed 1962 hearings came to a crashing halt. —
Hillenkoetter's unexplained action set back open Congressional hearings
several years, and Keyhoe suspected that the Admiral was being pressured by
the Air Force or perhaps even the CIA "to drop out of the picture and stop mak-
ing troublesome statements." It was many years before clues surfaced which
8

possibly explain Hillenkoetter's puzzling performance.

In 1964, an intense flow of public UFO reports commenced in the United
States and continued unabated through 1966.,This "flap" spurred interest in
9

NICAP and UFOs in general and revived Keyhoe's hopes for open Congres-
sional hearings. McDonald's interest had also intensified and his files of clip-
pings, case reports and correspondence grew. McDonald, Keyhoe and Hall
communicated more frequently, exchanging ideas and information on key
UFO cases.

7. Just Cause, January 1979, Vol. 1, No. 7, published by Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
(CAUS), p. 7.
8. Ibid., p. 7.
9. The word "flap" is used in UFOlogy to indicate a sudden upsurge of reports from a local-
ized area. A "mini-flap" can occur within a few square miles and last a few days to a month,
but mostly "flaps" occur within a larger area and can last from several weeks to over a year.
The term "wave" indicates a continued, widespread flap, sometimes encompassing an entire
large country or several smaller countries. The 1964-66 "flap" is actually better defined, in
hindsight, as a UFO wave.
90 FIRESTORM

McDonald by now was convinced that NICAP was a thoroughly trustwor-

thy and effective research organization. He wondered about Hillenkoetter's 1962
resignation and inquired about it, but no one on NICAP's staff could explain it.
The Board of Directors had replaced Hillenkoetter, and it was still composed of
prominent individuals. Some were scientists who dared to come forth publicly,
which added to NICAP's prestige. The well-known biophysicist, Dr. Leslie K.
Kaeburn, was one who spoke out boldly in the press. He headed the Los Angeles
NICAP Subcommittee, to which this author belonged. He had taught at the Uni-
versity of Southern California (USC) School of Medicine for many years. After
attaining the title of Professor Emeritus, he established a private consultancy and
was well known in the U.S. and parts of Europe.
As Professor Emeritus, Kaeburn felt free to engage openly in UFO re-
search without fear of recrimination. He was frequently interviewed about the
subject on radio, TV and in the press. He was always very objective and did
not favor any particular hypothesis. He, like James McDonald, felt that UFOs
were a scientific problem that needed to be studied. Also like McDonald, he
disliked the contactees intensely. Contactees were persons who claimed en-
counters with benevolent "aliens," and they abounded in the Los Angeles area
(See Chapter 6). "I completely disbelieve such claims...," Kaeburn bluntly
stated in a Los Angeles newspaper interview.10 "Many of these claims are
made for money, and to soak the public." A statement like this in the public
press, expressed boldly by a prominent biophysicist who had pioneered the im-
planting into animals of EEG apparatus for space research, must have glad-
dened McDonald's heart!
NICAP's membership also included scientists, engineers and other technical
persons working in various fields; some held high positions in aerospace. Other
NICAP researchers were non-scientists but were working in various professions,
such as law enforcement, social case work, and other technical and clinical
fields. Most were skilled in interviewing witnesses by reason of their academic
training and work experience. Their general level of investigative competence
impressed McDonald.
He became interested in re-investigating some NICAP cases himself, even
though they were in widely separated areas of the United States. Most of these
investigations were conducted by telephone, since he could not take time from
his academic responsibilities to travel to many of the sighting locations. He
found, through his own research, that the investigations done by NICAP people

10. "Did Spacemen See 'Saucers'?," Valley Times, (Los Angeles) May 15, 1962.
11. "USC Scientists Hook Up Radio to Dog's Heart", Los Angeles Examiner, November 17,
1959.
COMMON SENSE VS. ACADEMIC PUSSYFOOTERS 91

were objective and accurate. Keyhoe confided to a few NICAP members that a
"top scientist" was working with them, but at McDonald's request kept his iden-
tity confidential until May of 1966, when McDonald came out publicly with his
UFO interest.
In 1964, NICAP produced what was perhaps the most important work in the
UFO field to that date, The UFO Evidence. This soft cover book included over
600 UFO cases which had been reported by expert observers, as well as a thor-
ough rundown on the USAF's lack of interest and apparent cover-up on the sub-
ject. Edited by Richard H. Hall, its 184 pages contained 14 fact-filled sections,
12

objectively written and thoroughly researched. The sections included: "Air

Force Observations," i.e., sightings by Air Force pilots, navigators and other per-
sonnel; "Pilot & Aviation Experts," observations by airline, military and private
pilots; "Scientists & Engineers," sightings by expert observers such as astrono-
mers and aeronautical engineers; "Special Evidence," reports where electromag-
netic (EM) effects had occurred in close proximity to UFOs. It also described
physical and physiological effects on witnesses and reported damage to vegeta-
tion and/or terrain, radar-visual (R-V) cases, and UFO photo cases.
McDonald was impressed with The UFO Evidence, and began distributing
the book to some of his colleagues who displayed interest. There was, however,
one area in which he disagreed with his NICAP colleagues. Keyhoe, and most
NICAP members, were convinced by weight of evidence that at least one faction
in the Air Force was engaged in an information "cover-up." NICAP knew that
the vast majority of sightings could be easily explained by the fact that the wit-
nesses had mistaken conventional phenomena for "UFOs," a conclusion that
McDonald and other objective researchers had arrived at also. However, begin-
ning in the early fifties, Keyhoe gradually came to the conclusion that some in-
explicable UFO sightings, particularly close encounters experienced by military
personnel, had been more thoroughly investigated than the Air Force admitted,
and that the best evidence of the physical reality of UFOs was being officially
covered-up.
Keyhoe's "cover-up" theory did not hypothesize a widespread "conspir-
acy," neither did it postulate that the U.S. government en toto was covering
up UFO data. Keyhoe used the term "silence group," by which he meant that
one faction within the Air Force was suppressing the free flow of information
to the public. Keyhoe's cover-up theory in the sixties was much different
from the way the same term is being used today; it was limited almost solely
to the Air Force. Later, in the mid-1970s, the Freedom of Information Act

12. The UFO Evidence, Edited by Richard H. Hall, Washington, D.C., published by National
Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), May 1964.
92 FIRESTORM

provided researchers with documented proof that all of the military services
and the various intelligence agencies were covertly studying the UFO prob-
lem and covering up the results.
Donald Keyhoe had some personal knowledge of Project Blue Book oper-
ations through contacts he had with the military. He was the first civilian re-
searcher to have this privilege. There was no doubt in his mind that a faction
in the Air Force was withholding vital information about UFO phenomena
from the public. McDonald, on the other hand, argued that the "cover-up the-
ory" was unproven and that the Air Force had "fouled-up" its UFO investiga-
tions instead.
In spite of his refusal to accept the cover-up hypothesis, McDonald was re-
ceived with open arms when he publicly joined the UFO field in the spring of
1966. His cordiality, his natural ability to make friends, his genius for cutting
through to the heart of matters, his never-ending willingness to listen, his intense
interest in all aspects of the subject, and his tireless energy impressed everyone.
Dick Hall and Jim McDonald met personally for the first time in Washing-
ton, D.C., in late May 1966. It was Memorial Day weekend and he planned to
spend most of the week in D.C., attending to professional responsibilities. He
also intended, in his spare time, to do an in-depth study of NICAP's files. He
and Hall met on three successive days; it was the first of many extended meet-
ings they were to have. There was a great deal to discuss—the research field
was wide and convoluted. Hall had devoted eight years as Assistant Director
at NICAP, working extremely long hours for modest pay. McDonald's inten-
tion was to spend the summer only, investigating UFOs with NICAP's help.
He could not know that he would spend a great part of the next five years
studying the topic, would travel hallway around the world, and become em-
broiled in a bitter controversy that would help end his life.
Hall and McDonald discussed puzzling cases such as the 1964 Socorro,
N.M., case, where a law enforcement officer of impeccable reputation had re-
ported the landing of a white, rounded UFO in a deserted gully. McDonald was
equally interested in close-encounter cases where witnesses sustained physio-
logical harm, such as the "burn" case reported by Stephen Michalak in Canada.
He was also deeply interested in cases where electromagnetic (EM) effects had
been reported on vehicles and instruments, such as had occurred during the nu-
merous Levelland sightings in Texas (See Chapters 2 and 6).
Another aspect which intrigued him was what he termed the "amazing fre-
quency" of humanoid sightings in France, as reported in the British UFO jour-
nal, Flying Saucer Review13 and other European publications. Of particular
interest had been a spate of "occupant sightings" described by a French engi-
neer and mathematician, Aime Michel, in a book which had been published in
COMMON SENSE VS. ACADEMIC PUSSYFOOTERS 93

a English edition. McDonald preferred, like Don Keyhoe, to sidestep the

14

"occupant" issue, at least in public discussions. Privately he was interested, but

felt that they contained psychological aspects which he had not the expertise to
judge. McDonald asked Hall's opinion about the French reports, and Hall said
they were reliable as far as press reports went, but he felt not much investiga-
tion had been done on them.
Hall surprised McDonald by telling him that NICAP also had a collection of
similar reports from the United States. NICAP hadn't concentrated on these,
however, and some members of certain NICAP investigative subcommittees
suspected that their reports which included UFO "occupants" were deposited in
the "round file." They were not, of course. The truth was that Keyhoe felt that
15

concentrating on humanoid reports would tend to lessen NICAP's credibility

with scientists and Congressmen. Primarily, they were working for open Con-
gressional hearings, where the best of scientific evidence concerning the reality
of UFOs—as unidentified, physical aeroforms traversing Earth's atmosphere—
could be presented. In the light of Keyhoe's priority, UFO occupant-sighting re-
ports were low on the list but this position was, in Dick Hall's words, primarily
tactical rather than doctrinaire. McDonald concurred.
They also discussed an occupant sighting which researcher Isabel Davis
had investigated in Hopkinsville, Ky. Davis was a member of a small research
group based in New York City, the Civilian Saucer Intelligence (CSI), which
had been active since the early fifties. It was headed by a dynamic trio: Davis,
an editor-writer, Ted Bloecher, a Broadway actor and singer, and Lex Mebane,
an organic chemist. Together they had, for many years, produced the well-writ-
ten CSI Newsletter, of which McDonald eventually obtained a set of back cop-
ies. Even before meeting Isabel Davis, McDonald admired her work on the
UFO subject so much that he included a statement she'd written in an essay on
UFOs in his list of favorite quotes (see Appendix Item 5-A, page 534). Davis's
quote read in part:
Already they have created a climate of opinion in which anyone can
publicly attack the extraterrestrial theory in perfect safety—regard-
less of what gross ignorance or bias he displays in the process—but he

13. For information about the research journal, Flying Saucer Review (FSR), still in publica-
tion, write to Mr. Gordon Creighton, Editor, FSR Publications Ltd. P. O. Box 162, High
Wycombe, Bucks. HP 13 5DZ, England.
14. Michel, Aime, Flying Saucers and the Straight-Line Mystery, NY, Criterion Books (English
translation edition), 1958. Isabel Davis, Ted Bloecher, and Alexander Mebane of Civilian
Saucer Intelligence (CSI) edited and checked the data for the American edition.
15. This popular term for a "wastebasket" is also referred to as "File 13" by people in aviation
and other technical professions.
94 FIRESTORM

cannot defend it without risking his business, his reputation, or his

professional career.'—Isabel Davis C.R.I.F.O. 3/56.
Dick Hall told McDonald about a 480-page manuscript which Davis had
written about the Hopkinsville sighting. Several members of the large Sutton
family, who were considered reliable citizens by local law enforcement officials,
reportedly had warded off, with rifle fire, several strange creatures who had ap-
parently emerged from a "silvery object... with an exhaust all the colors of the
rainbow."16 Hall told McDonald that he personally felt that, because of Davis's
superior research skills and certain corroborating documentation she'd gathered,
one had to give the report a lot of credence (See Chapter 3). McDonald decided
to go to New York and meet with Isabel Davis personally.
McDonald also asked about George Earley of Bloomfield, Conn.,, who
headed one of the four NICAP affiliates around the country. The affiliates, as
opposed to the subcommittees, which were responsible for investigative work,
were larger public information organizations. Their main purpose was to dis-
seminate NICAP data, provide knowledgeable speakers, and generally keep
the public informed on the subject. Hall assured McDonald that Earley was a
fine researcher and that the statewide Connecticut affiliate, NICAP*CONN,
was a "good batch of engineers and scientists because of Earley's leader-
ship."17 McDonald also met with Dr. Eugene Epstein, a radio astronomer with
the Aerospace Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., who happened to be in
D.C. that week. Dr. Epstein was vitally interested in the UFO question, and the
two scientists exchanged views on many aspects of the problem.
McDonald also talked at length with Gordon Lore, a talented researcher
and writer who had joined the NICAP staff the previous October. Lore was
working on a book about pre-1947 sightings. The first two chapters dealt with
the "airship" sightings of 1896-97, which were curious reports of dirigible-
shaped "unidentified flying objects" which were widely reported at the time all
over the U.S. The "airship mystery" had been given extensive media coverage
in newspapers and magazines at the end of the nineteenth century.
Early UFO reports were of special interest to McDonald. It was almost im-
possible, of course, to investigate most of these "on site" since most of the wit-
nesses were deceased and those still living had been small children at the time.
Taken together with other early reports of "UFOs" in the books of Charles Fort
and other sources, however, McDonald had begun to suspect that the UFOs were
not simply a recent problem, but one which had sporadically surfaced during hu-

16. Davis, Isabel & Bloecher, Ted, Close Encounters at Kelly and Others of1955, Chicago, IL,
Center for UFO Studies, March 1978, p. 23.
17. McDonald's second journal, p. 17.
COMMON SENSE VS. ACADEMIC PUSSYFOOTERS 95

man history. In this, he was not alone. NICAP, too, was interested in early anom-
alous observations, but this matter had not been fully addressed in The UFO
Evidence Gordon Lore finished Mysteries of the Skies: UFOs in Perspective in
1966, with McDonald contributing the scientific critique for the book. Prentice-
Hall published it in 1968. 18

On June 1 st McDonald was still in Washington, becoming acquainted with

other NICAP members who either lived nearby or who had made the trip to
D.C. to meet him. Most of the members he met on that trip were in their thir-
ties, but what they lacked in age they made up with research skills. McDonald
took advantage of every hour, first attending to his professional business, then
spending the rest of his time inquiring about every aspect of promising UFO
cases NICAP people were investigating in other states.
Paul Cerny from San Francisco was in D.C. that week. Cerny was an en-
gineer employed at Western Microwave in Santa Clara, Calif., and head of
SFO-NICAP, an investigative group. He had contributed prolifically to the
field. Cerny had brought in a taped interview with the primary witness in the
Cisco Grove case, a UFO incident which had involved a group of hunters in
Northern California. One of the young hunters had become separated from his
friends and was alone in the woods when he reportedly saw a lighted craft de-
scend from the sky and land nearby. Afterwards, a group of strange creatures
came toward him.
Frightened, he climbed into a tall tree and for the rest of the night the crea-
tures grouped around the base of the tree. One was a robotic type, which period
ically opened its mouth and sent clouds of noxious fumes upward toward the
witness. Whenever the fumes reached him, he lost consciousness for a while, but
he'd had presence of mind enough to use his belt to fasten himself to the tree
trunk and the large limb on which he was sitting. This went on repeatedly
throughout the night. Finally at sunrise he awoke to find the creatures gone. He
weakly made his way down the tree and found his friends, who had been search-
ing for him. They had viewed the airborne craftfroma distance and were puzzled
by the sighting. 19

18. Lore, Gordon & Deneault, Harold H., Mysteries of the Skies: UFOs in Perspective, esp.
Chps. 1 & 2, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1968. Lore afterward pursued the
"airship question" with the intent of demonstrating whether or not they might have been
early man-made dirigibles, viewed by the public while in experimental flights.
19. Classic cases from the archives of the Center for UFO Studies in Chicago, IL, have recently
begun to be published in full. See "The Cisco Grove Bow and Arrow Case of 1964," by Ted
Bloecher and Paul Cerny, International UFO Reporter, Vol. 20, No. 5, Winter 1995, pub-
lished by J. Allen Hynek, CUFOS, 2457 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659.
96 FIRESTORM

In spite of the high strangeness of the report, Cerny was impressed by the
apparent honesty of this witness and the corroborating testimony of his fellow
hunters. McDonald listened carefully to the taped interview. He was non-com-
mittal; although intrigued by the implications of the case, he preferred not to
become too involved. He realized that if he were to succeed in influencing the
scientific establishment, the data he would use must apply strictly to UFO re-
ports which described unidentified machine-like craft seen close to the wit-
ness, and these reports should be backed up by multiple witnesses, radar
tracings, good photos and the like.
The NICAP personnel left late that first evening, but McDonald was not yet
ready to sleep. He walked around Washington until 2:00 A.M. He needed the ex-
ercise, but his primary reason was that he wanted to stay awake until he could
phone his eldest son, Kirk, back in Tucson. Kirk had just arrived home from a
celebration, having graduated from the University of Arizona with a B.S. in
Physics. McDonald congratulated his son on his accomplishment and learned
that Kirk had graduated with the fourth highest GPA in his graduating class.20
The next day, at 8:30 A.M., McDonald kept an appointment at the Environ-
mental Space Science Administration (ESSA) in the Gramax Building in Silver
Spring, Md., regarding a weather modification panel on which he'd been asked
to serve. Jim Hughes picked him up at his hotel, and they looped back to get
Cemy's Cisco Grove witness tape from Dick Hall so McDonald could take it to
Isabel Davis in New York. During supper, McDonald discussed with Hughes his
growing conviction that the UFO question was the "No. 1 scientific problem"
facing the country.22 They talked until midnight, discussing various possibilities
of attacking the problem and bringing it to the attention of scientists, including
NASA. Hughes agreed that Gerard Kuiper of the University of Arizona's Lunar
and Planetary Lab could make a big difference, if he were so inclined.
During that week in D.C., McDonald also met Lee Katchen, another NICAP
member, who worked at Goddard Space Flight Center. After a lively dinner with
Katchen and several other NICAP members, hosted by Dick Hall, McDonald sat
up late again, reading galleys of a book by John F. Fuller, a prominent author
who had also entered the UFO controversy. Fuller's book, Incident at Exeter,
was a full account of startling close encounters at Exeter, N.H.23 While reading
the book galleys, he phoned Dick Hall to see if he'd set up an appointment for
McDonald to meet Isabel Davis in New York City. Hall had.24

20. McDonald, James E., second journal, p. 8.

21 .Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Fuller, John G., Incident at Exeter, NY, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1966.
COMMON SENSE VS. ACADEMIC PUSSYFOOTERS 97

Satisfied that the plans to meet Isabel Davis, Ted Bloecher and Lex Mebane
were set up, McDonald finished reading Fuller's galleys and then slept for a few
hours. Up early the next morning, after taking care of more professional respon-
sibilities with ESSA, he managed a one-hour phone interview with Chief Rich-
ard D. Irwin of the Exeter Police Department in New Hampshire. The Chief
confirmed that the Exeter police officers who reported an encounter with an im-
mense, maneuvering UFO "definitely did see a flying object that hovered." 25

The sighting was being passed off by officialdom as an advertising plane, and
McDonald wanted to re-check that part of Fuller's book. Chief Irwin assured
McDonald that the Exeter UFO definitely was not a conventional object.
"Do you think the officers' story about that UFO is credible?" McDonald
asked.
"I believe them," Chief Irwin replied 2 6

McDonald next went to the ONR, and gave Jim Hughes some material
about governmental regulations concerning disclosure of UFO information.
Besides AFR 200-2, pertaining to Air Force personnel, JANAP-146 was a
Joint Army/Navy/Air Force publication which applied to military personnel
and airline pilots. Hughes had expressed interest early when McDonald had
mentioned these. Copies of both regulations had been obtained by NICAP and
distributed widely in the UFO community. Both specified heavy fines and/or
long prison sentences for individuals who revealed details on any unexplained
UFO sighting in which they had been involved in the course of their employ-
ment. McDonald's journal gives no clue to Hughes's specific reaction to these
regulations when McDonald handed him copies, but Hughes himself was not
convinced that UFOs were a serious scientific problem.
"My position was that if we knew more about the atmospheric physics of
the sightings that they could probably be explained in terms of the atmospheric
physics," states Jim Hughes in an interview for this book. "Even so, I recog-
nized that there would still be a residue of unexplained cases. I know Mac was
not entirely pleased with my attitude." 27

Nevertheless, Jim Hughes was always willing to listen to McDonald's

investigations, and gave input or advice when he requested it. He noted the
care McDonald used in his UFO research. But Hughes worried about his
friend at times.

24. McDonald, op. cit., reverse side p. 7.

25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Letter from J. Hughes to author, 14 March 1995.
98 FIRESTORM

"Somebody got him to comment on extraterrestrial life," relates Hughes.

"I advised him not to make any concessions one way or the other.... I said,
'Stick strictly to the physical phenomena. If you make any concessions on that,
you'll be damned if you do and you'll be damned if you don't, once you start
speculating on life on other planets and that sort of other thing.' And I said,
'Don't let them trap you into speculating on it. Just say you don't know....
Stick to the existence or non-existence of UFOs and forget about the life that
goes with it.'" 28
It was very good advice, which McDonald took to heart. In his frequent
talks on the UFO subject, he continually emphasized the physical phenomenon
of unidentified metallic aeroforms that were traversing Earth's atmosphere, as
described by reliable, professional observers.
When he arrived at NICAP for his first opportunity to go through the files,
he was met by Marty Triche, a dedicated employee who'd been with the organi-
zation since the autumn of 1965. Dick Hall was still not in, having stayed up very
late to watch the Gemini launch in the early hours of that morning. McDonald
introduced himself and spent some time chatting amicably with Triche, then
delved into the files "like a tiger," to use Dr. Kassander's descriptive phrase. He
sat down at a table and read sighting cases which she brought to him, including
a new photo case which had just come in the morning's mail.
"He'd just sit there and read the reports," Marty recalls. "I liked him an
awful lot. He was one of the most open-minded people I ever met. He didn't
'believe' in [UFOs] at all, but he was curious and open-minded." She remem-
bers the intensity with which McDonald studied the NICAP files during that
first summer of 1966.
"We had a black cat, Midnight," she relates. "Jim supposedly hated cats,
so Midnight decided that his was the best lap to lie on.... And Jim was always
wanting to be around people, talk to people, get their views and ideas. He was
very friendly, and he did have unbounded energy, that's for sure."29
NICAP was growing fast, having benefited from the intense public interest
which had arisen as the result of the 1964-66 UFO flap, particularly the Mich-
igan "swamp gas" fiasco. The organization had received 2,000 new member-
ships since January 1966 and the total membership was now about 10,000.
This was an astounding accomplishment in the UFO field; the office was
swamped with correspondence.

28. Interview with J. Hughes, 21 December 1994.

29. Author's interview with Marty Lore, 11 September 1993.
COMMON SENSE vs. ACADEMIC PUSSYFOOTERS 99

McDonald read through reports which had been sent to NICAP headquarters
from subcommittees all over the country. The subcommittees were NICAP's in-
vestigative arms; the idea had been a brainchild of Dick Hall's. Each was headed
by a person well qualified in the scientific or engineering fields or by some other
professional person with superior research abilities. LANS, the Los Angeles
NICAP Subcommittee, for example, had funneled reports of Southern California
UFO sightings to headquarters since 1958. All of NICAP's subcommittees
around the country were monitored closely, and Donald Keyhoe was never re-
luctant to rescind anyone's membership who was not displaying proper objectiv-
ity or who was causing harm to NICAP's reputation.
McDonald was particularly interested in the Dexter/Hillsdale, Michigan,
files. J. Allen Hynek's "swamp gas" explanation had irritated McDonald, and
not only on a scientific basis. In a restricted Congressional hearing on April 5,
1966, a partial transcript to which McDonald had access, Hynek contended
that the swamp-gas hypothesis was a "logical explanation." To the Congres-
30

sional investigators, Hynek gave not the slightest hint that he thought it unsat-
isfactory. In the privacy of that restricted Congressional hearing, he described
the swamp-gas exegesis as a good illustration of the method the Air Force had
used with "great success in finding logical explanations for the great majority
of the reports." McDonald found Hynek's statements both untenable and sci-
31

entifically shocking.
At NICAP, McDonald made a remarkable impression upon all who met
him. When asked what impressed him the most about McDonald, Dick Hall
says, "He was so very friendly and cordial to everyone. He was always on an
even keel—never got mad." 32

What Hall describes is the trait which all of McDonald's UFO colleagues
appreciated. He treated everybody alike—scientist and non-scientist. He was
always interested in listening to any rational views being expressed about
UFOs. Although he thrived on congenial companionship and free exchange of
information, he generally did not respond in a way which led to deep friend-
ship. Some researchers noticed this lack of emotional response and put it down
to his intense scientific attitude, his busy schedule, and lack of time. His unique
sense of humor and cordiality made up for it. Of all the NICAP members and

30. Transcript, restricted Congressional Hearing, Rivers Committee, April 5-7, 1966, p. 6071.
The page number has been questioned by an esteemed colleague of the author's, but the
same page number was cited twice in McDonald's July 1970 letter to Hynek, and therefore
seems to be correct. The restricted Rivers Hearing transcript was never made available gen-
erally to the UFO research field.
31 .Ibid.
32. Author's interview with Dick Hall, 7 May 1994.
100 FIRESTORM

other researchers with whom McDonald interacted, Betsy McDonald states

that Dick Hall was his closest friend.
"We had a lot in common," relates Dick Hall. "The UFOs were a deep, se-
rious question to him, and we talked constantly about that. I had an objective
attitude toward them, and I guess that kind of matched his own attitude. We
spent a lot of time together, working on UFO cases and other things."
Gordon Lore also liked McDonald instantly from the moment he met him.
He was impressed by his friendliness, enthusiasm and professionalism.
"I think he was paramount in the scientific arena. I don't think anybody
else came close," says Lore. "I think Jim was the shining star of the scientific
firmament as far as UFOs were concerned."33
Lore also noticed something else about McDonald, he had an oversized
shirt pocket. "He'd have maybe twelve pens lined up in it," Lore describes.
"And sometimes in his coat, or in his shirt pocket, he'd have all kinds of
little papers just jammed in there, and he'd take out something and write on
it." Lore chuckles softly as he recalls McDonald's note-taking habits.
Most scientists, engineers, writers, and others engaged in occupations where
accurate data is important, scribble notes frequently. Lore's observational abili-
ty, however, was to prove very useful in seeking a solution to a major mystery
concerning McDonald's UFO research which surfaced during the writing of this
book. He apparently had several, disparate methods of taking notes.
Dick Hall, too, noticed that McDonald was always taking notes. "I
watched him many times whip out a pen and do some calculations or make
notes," he recalls. "He was a big note taker."
His note-taking habits became clear when, in 1992, Betsy McDonald
found two of his journals tucked away in his files, and two others were dis-
covered later by the author while archiving McDonald's UFO files.34 Un-
known to anyone, he had written hundreds of pages of precise descriptions
of conversations with scientists, military personnel, government officials, ci-
vilian sighting witnesses, telephone calls and meetings with NICAP staff and
investigators. There were details of cases confided to him by military pilots
and others, as well as some private musings on the UFO question. Before

33. Author's interview with Gordon Lore, 13 September 1993.

34. Druffel, Ann, "James E. McDonald's UFO Files," MUFON UFO Journal, January 1997,
No. 345, pp. 3-9. McDonald's UFo files were archived by this author with the help of a
grant from the Fund for UFO research and are in the Private Collections section of the U. of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
CUM MUM SENSE v s . ACADEMIC PUSSYI-OOTERS 101

1992, no one knew of the existence of M c D o n a l d ' s journals. N o one remem-

bers ever seeing him write in any of them.
McDonald's "second" journal, a collection of 33 pages of 8.5" x 11" inch
binder paper filled back and front with his small handwriting, begins on April
5th. 1966. and ends on July 12th. 1967. It was found tucked between the pages
of his fourth journal, which was written in an ordinary 8.5" x 11" spiral notebook;
it begins on April 28, 1968, and ends on March 17th, 1971—St. Patrick's Day.
(The first pages of each of these journals are included as Appendix Items 5-B,
page 535 and 5-C, page 536.)

McDonald compiled his journals from the multiple notes he took during
conversations and on-site investigations—notes which McDonald, as Gordon
Lore describes, "jammed into his pocket." He did not write in his journals day-
to-day but would wait until he had a rare period of free time, such as waiting in
an airport or during a flight. He would then refer to the notes which he had col-
lected in his pockets, aided by his remarkable memory. We know this from the
first sentence in his fourth journal: "Notes from 4/28 to 6/28 made post hoc, in
D.C. A[irport], on 6/19/68." (See Appendix Item 5-B, page 535)."
During the months of transcription of McDonald's journals for this book,
a curious fact emerged. Quite frequently and unexpectedly, between sentences,
McDonald jotted the transient phrase, "See small notebook," enclosed in pa-
rentheses. The phrase stimulates curiosity, for the "small notebook(s)" are not
in his UFO files. The first time the phrase occurs is in McDonald's notes of
June 4th, 1966, during the week in Washington described above. Jim Hughes
from ONR had taken him home for dinner, where they discussed NASA's re-
action to McDonald's proposal that NASA should be responsible for a scien-
tific UFO study program. The enigmatic entry, which can be seen in Appendix
Item 5-D, page 537, reads:
Discussed how to word next year's ONR contract to cover ball light-
ning, etc. (See small notebook for more). Jim will check re Op Ncrv 94
—Merint item.
Probably, by the end of this first week, McDonald already realized that one
summer devoted to UFO study wasn't going to do the job, and that it was im-
perative to determine the best way to present the UFO question to the scientific
community as a legitimate subject for research. McDonald more than once
broached the idea that Jim Hughes ask the ONR to provide him with funds for
further UFO study, through a new contract. McDonald had, with Hughes's
knowledge, been able to accomplish his initial week's research by working in
his spare time, on the side, after performing all his professional atmospheric
physics work which had brought him to Washington.
102 FIRESTORM

Jim Hughes had agreed that the intense research McDonald had done in
NICAP files, and his meetings with NICAP staff during that same week, were
linked with unidentified atmospheric phenomena, and he had no objection to
McDonald's researching this in his spare time. The same applied as McDonald
continued his UFO research into 1967—he was free to investigate UFOs on the
side, wherever his ONR work took him into other states and cities. The notes
McDonald wrote describing the June 4th meeting with Hughes are in his jour-
nal, but where is the "small notebook" in which he indicated more information
exists, concerning a proposed ONR contract on "ball lightning"?
The phrase "See small notebook" occurs frequently in McDonald's last
three journals, which he methodically kept between April 1966 and March
1971. Sometimes he used the alternate phrases, "See smaller notebook" and
"See pocket notebook." Gordon Lore gives us a possible clue as to what these
small notebooks looked like.
"Every once in a while he'd take out a little notebook and write something
in it," relates Lore. "He seemed to take them out only at points where he really
wanted to stress something he thought was ultra-important. He'd put notes de-
scribing a normal sighting—or something else—on a regular piece of paper."
It is clear that both the separate note papers and the "small notebooks" were
entirely different from the journals found and transcribed by this author. But
the "small notebooks" have not yet been found despite an intense search during
the writing of this book.
"A lot of the notebooks or pads were black," relates Lore. "He had black,
pocket-sized leather covers over his little books, which you could fold and
open."
During the ongoing search for the missing notebooks, Gordon Lore was
interviewed specifically on this point. "I've seen him sit down in the course of
an evening and go through three of those things [pads which fit in the little
notebook]. He'd stick them in his pocket, pull out another. If he did that in the
course of one evening, I mean, how many evenings were there?"
Lore further described the small pad holders. "They had metal binders.
These little metal binder notebooks had pages that were lined. He'd sit there
and take copious notes. Or, perhaps, he'd not take notes at all. Then, when
he went up to his room, he'd write for hours. The next day, he might say he'd
written notes until two o'clock in the morning," Lore states.
The notes that many UFO colleagues saw McDonald make on various piec-
es of paper were probably transferred to his journals and then discarded. The
transfer of information was always done privately, however. No one—not Betsy,
his colleagues, or anyone in the UFO community—ever saw him write in his
CUM MUM SENSE VS. ACADEMIC PUSSYI-OOTERS 103

8.5" x 11" journals. That he reserved specific data for the "smaller notebooks" is
certain. Betsy McDonald and the author have searched the Tucson home, among
McDonald's files, storage and other belongings, but the small notebooks which
undoubtedly contain fascinating, and possibly sensitive, material gleaned during
McDonald's five years of UFO research have yet to be found.
At the end of his week's stay in June 1966, Jim Hughes drove him to the
airport for his flight to New York. He arrived at Isabel Davis's New York
apartment early in the evening. Isabel had to work overtime, but Ted Bloecher
was there to meet him. Lex Mebane, because of illness, was not able to be
present. McDonald immediately began going through the files of CSI, the in-
vestigative group which Davis, Bloecher and Mebane had directed since the
early 1950s.
McDonald was impressed by the CSI files. They were in black loose-leaf
notebooks about 2.5" thick, each containing fifty plastic slips filled on both
sides. In all, there were about 25 notebooks, lined up neatly on shelves. Even-
tually, Isabel Davis arrived home. She worked for the American Council for
Emigres in the Professions, and they'd had a graduation party for a half dozen
trainees. Davis and McDonald found they had much in common; she had the
same empathy for human beings that McDonald and Betsy shared.
Friendship developed quickly between Davis, Bloecher and McDonald.
It was to be the first of many meetings they would have with him. They lis-
tened to the Cisco Grove tape recording and discussed several cases on which
NICAP was currently working. McDonald shared news he'd gotten from
Hall, Keyhoe, Berliner, Triche, and others he'd met during the week. Bloech-
er, when interviewed for this book, showed the regard he and Davis held for
McDonald. "We were really excited about the fact that he seemed so dedi-
cated to establishing a few facts about the subject," he relates. "There were
few, if any, people with a scientific background like Jim's who were that
dedicated to looking for the truth."
That evening, Bloecher stayed until midnight, and left Isabel and McDonald
talking on into the night. Then she retired, leaving McDonald in her spare room;
he was eager to read her 480-page Hopkinsville "occupant" case. He was im-
pressed by the thorough investigation she'd done and was equally impressed by
her precise writing style. His journal mentions that he read until 4:00 A.M., "cat-
napping on and off."
McDonald was up at 9:30 A.M. and continued talking UFOs with Davis.
They discussed the proclamation the Air Force had made on the April 7 after

35. McDonald, op. cit., p. 10.

104 FIRESTORM

the restricted Congressional hearing on UFOs. The Air Force had announced
that a more thorough look would be given to the UFO problem through a "uni-
versity team" approach. This was the very announcement that had squashed
McDonald's hopes for NAS funding for a quiet one-man UFO study—the
NAS had explained to him that it could not be involved in supporting any in-
dividual study when such a high-level decision to instigate new investigations
had just been released (See Chapter 3). Though the proposed new Air Force
study carried along with it a funding package of half a million dollars, and sev-
eral universities had already been approached, all had rejected it, for academia
in general was reluctant to touch what was considered by most scientists a
"fringe subject." (The University of Arizona had not been approached.)
McDonald and Davis discussed how the university team approach would
be implemented. Isabel felt that the investigative teams must promptly and
courteously respond to UFO reports from the public, and that it was vital that
UFO observers be protected from unwanted publicity. McDonald had already
come to the conclusion that the University of Arizona would not be invited to
participate. He also suspected, from remarks he had picked up here and there,
that any scientists the government would invite would be ones who were "neu-
tral" on the subject, and that neither he nor J. Allen Hynek would fit that defi-
nition! In other words, the government did not want the UFO subject to be
studied by people who knew anything about it. McDonald accepted the illogic
with his usual good humor.
The fact that astronomers as a group were supposedly negative about UFOs
was also discussed, and Davis pointed out that the way astronomers search the
skies for novae (exploding stars) was comparable to watching for UFOs, in that
they never knew when or where the event would occur. McDonald inteijected
that the same problem applied also to tornadoes, ball lightning, meteorites, and
volcanic eruptions.
Isabel advised McDonald that she sometimes felt that UFO phenomena
represent almost "desperate" efforts to make themselves known to human be-
ings. They had briefly discussed this in connection with the Cisco Grove case.
McDonald was noncommittal. He was in the process of forming hypotheses
which could be logically put forward, but being a physicist, he preferred to
concentrate on the physical nature of UFOs. He felt that the sightings to be fo-
cused on first should be those which involved craftlike machines that had been
detected by radar, or had left physical traces on earth terrain, or on the bodies
of witnesses close to the site. After adequate proof was obtained, and the full
attention of well-funded, independent scientists was brought to the subject, the
peripheral aspects, such as the nature of the objects, or possible motives of oc-
cupants could then logically be studied.
CUM MUM SENSE v s . ACADEMIC PUSSYI-OOTERS 105

Davis emphasized that there was physical evidence, such as UFO "landing
sites" where vegetation and soil were burned. This had happened at Socorro,
N.M., in 1965. Police Officer Lonnie Zamora had promptly radioed for assis-
tance after he witnessed an unusual white craft taking off from an isolated gully,
emitting flames from its underside. Another Socorro policeman had arrived in
time to see burning brush, charred rocks and soil, and the deep imprints made by
apparent "landing gear." Davis pointed out that the site should have been cor-
doned off and preserved for physical scientists to study at will. Instead, investi-
gators from the Air Force Project Blue Book had taken over the site, gleaned
every piece of burned brush and rocks and, reportedly, fused sand. They had
cleaned out the gully, taking the physical evidence away to sites unknown. No
independent scientists or researchers had been able to learn the results of any
analyses the Air Force might have done. !
LL ** ***** ^ M f r ?
The 1964-66 UFO wave was still going on. New cases were flooding into b®®
NICAP, APRO and other research groups. To Isabel Davis's mind, the activity
was unprecedented, except possibly for the 1952 "flap" when UFOs had over-
flown the air space above the nation's capitol several nights in a row.
After leaving Davis, McDonald met with Thomas Malone, his friend,
mentor, and former Professor at MIT. The subject again was the multiple as-
pects of UFOs. Malone listened patiently to McDonald; he seemed interested
up to a point but not to the degree that Jim Hughes showed. McDonald dis-
cussed the problems of "occupant cases," including the Hopkinsville inci-
dent. He sketched the appearance of the humanoids in Isabel Davis's report
and told Malone about other occupant reports, which McDonald whimsically
termed "LMs"—meaning "little men."
He also discussed oceanic entry and emergence cases—a sub-grouping of
UFO reports which were sometimes referred to as USOs (unidentified subma-
rine objects.) McDonald had come across many of these and had a special in-
terest in them, possibly because of his Navy background. He told Malone that
U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations, was being approached by a
UFO researcher named Gordon Evans. McDonald felt this was a good move;
perhaps the United Nations would be the logical organization to launch a
worldwide study of UFOs.
Tom Malone warned his younger friend to be careful with his bold new in-
terest, pointing out that he must not lose credibility in the scientific community.
Nothing in McDonald's journal indicates how he reacted to this warning. He was
too independent a thinker and too confident of his professional reputation to let
Malone's warning bother him.
Thus ended McDonald's first week as a public figure in the UFO research
field. He was aware that NICAP had drawn the interest of scientists, engineers,
106 FIRESTORM

and other professional persons, but had, no doubt, also attracted the attention
of the CIA. Through its 1953 sponsorship of the Robertson Panel, the CIA had
been instrumental in slamming down a lid of ridicule and debunking over the
entire subject in 1953. Another of the Panel's recommendations had been that
UFO organizations be watched lest they engage in "subversive" activities (See
Chapter 3). This did not particularly bother the NICAP staff, which conducted
its entire operation in an open manner. It did not bother McDonald either.
"We had nothing to hide," relates Richard Hall. "We wanted people in
the government to pay attention, to take it seriously. We were always very
straightforward about that kind of thing. [Once] this CIA guy came to the of-
fice," relates Hall. "He made an appointment! He called up and said he'd like
to come to the office to interview me. So I said, 'Sure, come in.'"
The NICAP staff also had rather good evidence that someone, possibly a
government agency such as the CIA, was tapping the NICAP phones. There is
now little doubt that they were being tapped; but just who was "listening" has not
yet been discovered (see Chapter 17). Dick Hall, who was Assistant Director
from 1958 to 1967, relates with a little laugh. "We always suspected that sort of
thing was going on. We had anticipated that likelihood. We were tapped, yes, in
fact, I'm sure my home phone was. There were some funny things that went on
there. I didn't ever get paranoid about it. I just assumed that.. .we were known to
be an important source of information on the subject, and somebody was keeping
tabs on us. We used to make jokes, asides, on the lines. We'd be talking about
something and we'd say, 'In case you guys are listening—."'
The phone taps were more a source of amusement than of concern. In order
to get some kind of evidence as to whether or not the NICAP phones were really
being tapped, author Frank Edwards, who was a friend of almost everybody in
the UFO field and an avid researcher, got together with Don Keyhoe and laid a
trap. They made up a UFO case, which included occupants, electromagnetic ef-
fects and other astounding details, and they talked about it on the phone.
"They just made it up," relates Dick Hall, "and it came back by way of
feedback from somebody, so they obviously were being tapped at that time. I
do remember one incident of talking on the phone when a voice in the back-
ground said something like, 'This is Air Force—' and they reeled off some
number. It was some sort of Air Force operation, suddenly, on our phone. I ex-
perienced that one personally."
It was into NICAP's open operation that McDonald strode, full of energy,
in the spring of 1966. He showed no concern to anyone in the UFO community
that his unprecedented actions might impact negatively on his reputation. Yet
he had privately agonized over the decision to go public, a fact which seems to
contradict his confident public persona. Early in 1966, McDonald had ap-
C O M M O N S E N S E VS. A C A D E M I C PUSSYI-OOTERS 107

proachcd his friend and colleague, Dr. Cornelius "Corny" Steelink at the Uni-
versity of Arizona and asked him what he thought about going public.
"He asked me, and other people, too," states Steelink. "I'm sure he knew
that what he was doing was right—that it was a legitimate investigation. He
only agonized about the type of flak he would get, which might distract people
from the real object of the work and put him in a class of flakes and nuts. I don't
remember giving him absolute advice. I said, 'Whatever you do, I will back
you up.' But his colleagues could never be as enthusiastic about that project as
he was.
"He was very conscious of the fact that he might immediately be la-
beled...," continues Steelink. "When he decided to go ahead and give the first
seminar on UFOs here at the University the room was packed. I was there. You
could feel the tension. It was an act of courage, much more than going picket-
ing for civil rights or something, because that was OK. That wasn't scientific,
so you were allowed to do that. But as a scientist, the peer pressure was some-
thing he had to contend with."
Dr. Paul Martin also describes how McDonald's decision to study UFOs
publicly held hazards.
"Jim was never conventional," Martin says. "He was always capable of
going beyond the safe and secure paths that most of us prefer most of the time.
But he was taking a risk going into the UFO field of paranormal science.... To
see him take an objective stance with regard to reports of a phenomenon that
flaunted conventional physics—that's a far-out position to get into."
With his new friends and colleagues in the UFO research field, however,
McDonald never showed any concern about exploring what conventional sci-
entists considered a "fringe area." He hid his feelings well. He did not share
any anxiety about how openly studying UFOs might affect his reputation. "Just
speaking for myself," says Gordon Lore, "I had more concern over his reputa-
tion than he seemed to have. Jim could be a bit naive at times in feeling that
any reasonably intelligent person was bound to be swayed by the body of UFO
evidence that existed. But even then, we had been in the business long enough
to know that wasn't the case. Others were more concerned over his reputation
that he was. This was certainly true of us."
As McDonald traveled around, in the course of his atmospheric physics
work, he met more and more NICAP people. His cordiality and intelligence
impressed new-found colleagues wherever he went. His respect for scientifi-
cally oriented research was universal—he looked for objective research,
whether done by a physical scientist, an aerospace engineer, a Broadway actor,
a social caseworker, or a homemaker with a talent for public relations. This one
108 FIRESTORM

quality made him admired and respected by researchers throughout the United
States and in other foreign lands. These new colleagues found him congenial,
humorous and fond of prolonged discussions on many topics.
Although McDonald's wife and his university colleagues called him
"Mac," the UFO community called him "Jim." He had the appearance of an or-
dinary Celt, but everyone in the UFO field who worked closely with him knew
he was "at the head of the band." They took him into their hearts, such as they
had never done anyone else before. He united them and encouraged them.
Without any formal announcement, they considered him their leader.
The reasons were twofold: McDonald was rightfully confident of his place
in the scientific community, and he was positive that, if a scientist of his stand-
ing came out publicly with convincing evidence of UFO reality, other scien-
tists would listen and follow. He had many well-placed contacts in government
and the military, especially the Navy, and he fully expected that these contacts
would ask higher-ups to listen. To McDonald, the procedure was comparative-
ly simple. It could be accomplished if he put all of his energy into it, just as
other scientific problems he'd tackled had bent to his will.
CHAPTER ft

Mazes and Monstrosities

We knew the woods and the resting places,

And the small birds sang when winter days were over....
Then I've laughed and sung through the whole night long,
Seen the summer sunrise in the morning.
— from "Freeborn Man"

Anyone who looks for a source ofpower in the transformation

of atoms is talking moonshine.
—Lord Rutherford, 1933

O
nce McDonald took on the UFO question, his life became even
more rushed. The complexities of his life snowballed as time went
on. What were perhaps the happiest days of McDonald's life—the
time when he was snapped unawares in a rare moment of ease by a clever
photographer in his rooftop office of the Institute—were on the verge of
disappearing forever (see Figure 4).
He had been received warmly by most researchers in the UFO field,
and during the next five years, by numerous others. He carefully judged
the qualifications of each, and, once he satisfied himself that they were
methodical and objective, he worked earnestly with them. His generosity
in sharing information and in giving recognition to capable research per-
formed by non-scientists made him unique. The UFO field had never met
anyone like him before, and a grand new era began. Yet it is difficult to
delineate the many facets of belief and disbelief which McDonald met in
his home town.
He was more available now than ever, publicly, to receive local UFO
reports, which resulted in a phenomenon he had not counted on. In Tuc-
son, a plethora of strange people swirled around him. They irritated him,
as they had frustrated lay researchers in other states for many years.
These were known as "contactees," and they had been the bane of UFO

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

 110 FIRESTORM

researchers since the late forties. Recognizing McDonald as a new "spokes-

man," the contactees were eager to share their "experiences" with him.

F I G U R E 4. Dr. James E. McDonald in his rooftop office at the Institute.

The contactees had done great harm to the UFO field, for they were not in-
terested in whatever scientific knowledge could be derived from the data. Not
that much science could be derived, for the closest things to physical evidence
that even the best cases offered were possibly authentic UFO photos, verified ra-
dar-visual sightings, and "landing traces." All of these three aspects were eagerly
sought after, but real evidence was elusive. No one sought them more eagerly
than McDonald.
The "contactees," on the other hand, told bizarre stories, which they pre-
sented as fact but with absolutely no verification. There were so many contact-
ees, each telling a different tale; no one definition can encompass them all.
However, a general definition can be offered: Contactees claimed that they had
taken rides in "flying saucers" and had interacted with benevolent occupants.
The "occupants" were almost invariably described as tall, beautiful or hand-
some humanoids who engaged their human guests in prolonged philosophical,
"scientific" and/or socioeconomic discussions. The usual motive given for
/UFO visitations, according to the contactees, was that they were "Space Broth-
ers," here to save the human race from nuclear destruction or other catastro-
U^/Tv* new i W c liW 4vs bJir U^l \aA p k U ^ , ^ ) d-ek/*<?
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 111

phes. in some cases, the contactees received their other-worldly

"communications" by telepathic "channeling."1
The contactees in major U.S. cities held annual conferences. Among the at-
tendees were people who wore silver suits and antennae, with confident assur-
ance that other attendees would consider them authentic space travelers. These
types were a source of amusement for NICAP members, who occasionally at-
tended these so-called "space conferences" in order to keep tabs on what this
strange breed was doing.
Most people in the general public merely laughed at the contactees' stories
and privately thought, "Yeah!" As unbelievable as the stories were, however,
the media gave them good press, and bountiful exposure on TV and radio.
"Space travel" stories were far more sensational—and more fun to write
about—than the complex issues involved in scientifically oriented UFO re-
search. As a result, contactees became, in the public's mind, an integral parcel
of the "UFO question," an unwanted parcel, clinging to the UFO topic as mis-
tletoe clings to an oak.
The media considered contactee stories good topics to print on slow news
days. Consequently, the public was pounded by descriptions of "space flights"
and "extraterrestrial visits" by contactees such as Daniel Fry, George Van Tas-
sel, Gabriel Green,2 George Adamski,3 Truman Bethurum,4 Frank Stranges-*-
an almost endless list. The publicity given them was not limited to tabloids;
even conservative newspapers printed tongue-in-cheek articles about them.
Meanwhile, competent UFO investigators had to work hard for the rare inter-
views they were granted and were thoroughly frustrated, until McDonald ar-
rived on the scene.
McDonald had met contactee types before 1966 in and around Tucson. A
particularly vivid example was connected with unexplained "ring-clouds" which
appeared occasionally over Arizona, and which McDonald investigated assidu-
ously. On the 28th of February, 1963, for example, an unusual ring-shaped cloud
appeared high in the sky and was seen over most of the state. It remained illumi-
nated well after sunset, showing green, blue and pinkish coloration. Its tremen-

1. For instance, "The Dick Miller Story," by Mark Smith, Thy Kingdom Come, (later changed
to AFSCA World Report) Editor, Gabriel Green, Los Angeles, published by Amalgamated
Flying Saucer Clubs of America, Inc., May-June 1959, Issue No. 9.
2. Editorial by Gabriel Green, Flying Saucers International, Los Angeles, Issue No. 24, July
1966. Also Green, Gabriel with Smith, Warren, Let's Face the Facts About Flying Saucers,
New York, Popular Library, 1967. See esp. last chapter pp. 122-127.
3. Adamski, George, Inside the Flying Saucers, New York, Paperback Library, Inc., 1967
(Copyright 1955).
4. Bethurum, Truman, Aboard a Flying Saucer, Los Angeles, DeVorss & Co., Publishers 1954.
112 FIRESTORM

dous height and size, and its peculiar grainy structure puzzled him to the extent
that he appealed to press and radio for confirmatory reports.

FIGURE s. A 60-km long Arizona ring cloud.

He received approximately 150 reports and about a dozen photographs

from widely spaced cities and towns in Arizona (see Figure 5) and was able to
compute an approximate height of 35 kilometers and a length of 60 kilometers
for this extraordinary and beautiful ring cloud. He questioned scientific and
military facilities far and wide, seeking an answer to the unprecedented phe-
nomenon. He ruled out every possible conventional explanation and eventual-
ly hypothesized that it was very possibly caused by a rocket-firing at
Vandenberg AFB in California, some hours before the cloud was seen over Ar-
izona. The Air Force would neither deny or confirm that their missile firing
caused the ring cloud, and kept their records of the firing classified. McDonald
eventually published an article about the cloud in the prestigious journal Sci-
ence (see Appendix Item 6-A, page 538). His investigation of the ring cloud
was supported by the Office of Naval Research.5
In the midst of this investigation, McDonald heard about a local minister,
who was insisting that he had seen seven angels rise from the Earth and fly up
to the ring cloud, where the "Lord God" was sitting on a throne. The minister,
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 113

whose fervor and lack of documentation matched the contactees, was con-
vinced that the ring cloud was a sign of the "coming of the End."
"It had nothing to do with UFOs. It was just a cloud," relates Betsy
McDonald, describing these events. "But people were making a cult out
of it."
We do not know when McDonald personally encountered his first "contact-
ee," but in his files are copies of his "Letters to the Editor" of Tucson papers re-
butting the minister's claim about the 1963 ring cloud. Also there is a Los
Angeles Times news clipping dated August 10,1960, which describes how Gab-
riel Green, a 35-year-old from Whittier, California, had thrown his hat in the
ring, running for President on "the flying saucer ticket." At a press conference,
Green stated that his "advisers" were from the Alpha Centuri system and that
they "looked like people."
"The space people want to teach us peace and economic security under uni-
versal law," Green had contended. Answering a question from one of the report-
ers, he commented that the women in space were beautiful. "One of my friends
made a contact with one of them not long ago," Green stated. "He said she was
really out of this world." (See Appendix Item 6-B, page 539).
James McDonald was dismayed over the contactee aspect of the UFO
question, just as all objective researchers were. He realized that most wit-
nesses described their UFO sightings honestly and undramatically. Even
when they had mistaken conventional objects for UFOs, their reports incor-
porated the actual aspects of the event, and they accepted McDonald's expla-
nations with good humor. The contactees were another matter—they sought
publicity and financial profit. During McDonald's years of UFO research, a
virtual parade of contactees attempted to "instruct" this prominent scientist
exactly what UFOs were and why they were here! They found McDonald an
impatient listener, for he quickly learned that trying to document contactee
stories was nearly impossible and a waste of time. It was the same conclusion
his new UFO colleagues had come to years before.
At the same time, a few experienced, objective UFO researchers felt that
perhaps one or two contactee stories might contain grains of truth. Paul Duich,

5. Eventually, McDonald learned that the cloud was the result of a secret, experimental missile
firing from Pt. Mugu, Vandenberg AFB. He had contacted the AF in the midst of his investi-
gation and had been told that under no circumstances was the AF responsible for the cloud.
This was not the first or last time that the AF would give McDonald wrong information. The
government propensity for "secretiveness" in this case demonstrates strongly how much
easier it would be if there were honest exchange of information between government agen-
cies and researchers! Now, of course, missile firings from Point Mugu are common knowl-
edge and have been for many years.
114 FIRESTORM

an engineer employed by a Southern California aerospace firm, who was a

valuable and respected member of the Los Angeles NICAP Subcommittee,
wondered privately if perhaps the initial phases of Daniel Fry's account might
be true.6 Daniel Fry was a contactee who allegedly came across a landed UFO
in the California desert. He reached out to touch the craft and was informed by
a "voice," presumably emanating from within the ship, "Don't touch the hull,
pal. It's hot!" Fry's accounts of later "space rides" followed his original ac-
count. Duich did not accept Fry's account of the hot hull or the subsequent
"space rides," but he wondered if perhaps Fry did see a landed saucer and had
just embellished the event.
Another of McDonald's scientific colleagues, a prominent physicist with
another Southern California aerospace firm,7 privately expressed his opinion
that some of George Adamski's photos of "mother ships" and "scout craft"
might be genuine. This scientist thought some of Adamski's pictures were being
overlooked because Adamski was also insisting that he had encountered "Space
Brothers" in the desert and had been on rides to the Moon and other planets.8
Some of these researchers confided these thoughts privately to McDonald, but
he could not understand how objective researchers could accept any portion of
such wild tales. To McDonald's mind, and to the minds of a majority of objective
researchers, if one part of a report fell apart, it damaged the entire case, making
it useless to any valid scientific study. Tk* >s -tv*
Mo^ SCiC^ft-
Other correspondents wrote long letters to him on the same subject, in
which the writers expressed their general feelings about the physicality of
UFOs, their dissatisfaction with government neglect, and the possibility that
contactees' stories like Adamski's and Fry's might have some truth to them.
McDonald stopped answering these letters. There was simply not time in his
complex life to investigate cases where portions of the stories had been proven
fraudulent. Too many other cases which held out the hope of establishing
UFOs as a legitimate subject for scientific study were calling out for attention.
McDonald did occasionally confront prominent contactees in "Letters to
the Editor" and media interviews on his own home grounds, like the time Frank
Stranges visited Tucson. In a well-attended public talk, Stranges claimed that
he had met an alien from another planet in Washington, D.C. Stranges was sell-
ing a book about his "experience" titled Stranger at the Pentagon. He was also
selling a dubious mechanical device which he claimed would bring health and
vibrant energy to all who bought and used it. In a local "Letter to the Editor,"

6. Personal communication, Duich to author.

7. Personal communication to author.
8. Adamski, op. cit.
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 115

McDonald informed Tucson citizens that Stranges was not to be taken serious-
ly and gave multiple reasons gleaned from his deep knowledge of the UFO
mystery. He advised his fellow Tucsonans that, if they were experiencing
health problems, that they should go to their family physician instead of using
Stranges' contraption!
Besides the profiteering "contactees," there were other people in the UFO
field whom objective researchers colloquially referred to as "kooks" or "crack-
pots." They were different from the average contactees, for they appeared
mentally disturbed, whereas most "contactees" acted rationally.
McDonald ran into his full share of these disturbed individuals. His
"Kooks" file is as thick as any other researcher's. He may have been a bit more
irritable with them than other researchers, most of whom had a little more time
and were used to telling unwelcome callers, "We cannot help you."
A letter McDonald wrote to Dick Hall around this time demonstrates the
frustration he felt with these kinds of interruptions:
Dick: Today 1 encountered a new Grand Cover-up Hypothesis.... I
came back from a campus errand to find a woman waiting at my
door.... After a half hour of "background, " which proved quite irrel-
evant, she came to what seemed to be her main point. She feels some
"group " has cooked up the entire UFO business to prepare the world
for the next big step in history, world government. They're creating an
"external enemy" out of whole cloth to bring us all together....
I blew up and told her what I thought of the half hour prelude that
wasted precious time.... After she retreated out the door, I learned she
had the further gall to go next door and start talking to Dr. [Raymond
M.] Turner about what an "irrational man " I was.... After about ten
minutes he gave up and gave her the door, too. That's two near-nuts
in a week. Another one bent my telephone ear for 30 minutes last Sun-
day.... I pretty much blew up at her too.... She kept admonishing me
that if one only looks up he may miss diamonds at his feet.9
McDonald quickly realized that scientific investigation of UFOs was not
going to be as easy as he'd first thought. His reputation and ability to speak un-

9. These troubled people still abound in the UFO research field. They are demonstrably psy-
chotic or near-psychotic, unlike some rational, productive and obviously honest individuals
who claim "abduction" by so-called "alien beings." The latter comprise a separate group,
which is presently reaching the attention of clinicians and other researchers with back-
grounds in psychology and other behavioral sciences. The "experiences" of these so-called
"abductees" appear to occur in altered states; researchers to date have been unable to
present scientific documentation that they are physical events.
116 FIRESTORM

derstandably on the subject, however, began to bear fruit. Gradually, he began

influencing other scientists to lose their fears and publicly express an interest
in the UFO question. He spent a good part of his time—aside from his usual
professional and academic responsibilities—speaking before governmental,
military, and scientific groups, and he began making a difference.
The media stopped paying so much attention to the Tucson contactees and
began to listen to him instead.
He methodically searched all hypotheses he could think of that could pos-
sibly explain UFOs. He would discuss seven scientifically logical hypotheses
in his public talks, and then he would point out Hypothesis #8, which he had
gleaned from contactee writings, namely: "Spaceships bringing messengers of
terrestrial salvation and occult truth." Then he would tell the audience about
the extensive contactee writings, which he termed, "A bizarre literature of
pseudo-scientific discussion of communication between benign extraterrestri-
als bent on saving the better elements of humanity from some dire fate implicit
in nuclear-weapons testing or other forms of environmental contamination.
That 'literature' has been one of the prime factors in discouraging serious sci-
entists from looking into the UFO matter."10
Lj>w t^oUA UicA<s?
At the same time that he was influencing his contacts in government and sci-
ence, interviewing UFO witnesses on promising cases, being interviewed him-
self by the media and trying to keep kooks and contactees away from his door,
he was continuing his IAP cloud-physics projects, working on the U.S. Navy's
and NAS climate modification panels, teaching at the university three days a
week, and guiding post-graduate students through their masters' and doctoral
studies. He and his wife Betsy were also seriously interested in civil rights, the
Vietnam War, and various other causes concerned with peace and freedom for
all members of the human race. He was also intrigued by the growing problems
of atmospheric pollution and was one of the first outspoken environmentalists.
McDonald used humor to help maintain his equilibrium. Although he never
talked about his Irish heritage and, unlike most Irish-Americans, expressed no
love for Ireland, his sense of fun was, in many ways, typically Irish. It was a sly,
impish type of humor, subtly skipping in and out at unexpected times. Besides
his many other talents, he drew cartoons, and one of his favorite subjects for mer-
riment was the way "Bets" prepared meals for their large family. Betsy, with her
scientific knowledge of food chemistry and dietetics, regularly cooked balanced
meals and allotted each family member one portion of all the foods she prepared.

10. Hearings Before the Committee on Science and Astronautics: U.S. House of Representa-
tives, 90th Congress, Second Session July 29,1968, Washington, D.C., U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1968, p. 35.
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 117

This method permitted the whole family to stay slim and healthy. When guests
came over for dinner, McDonald often teased Betsy's "one person, one portion"
policy. He drew and tacked up cartoons in prominent places which pointed the
way to a nearby cafe, in case the guests needed "seconds."
Humor aside, James McDonald often expressed his deep distress about so-
cial conditions to close colleagues. His good friend, Richard Kassander, relates:
He often spoke about...the whole social condition in the country, the
fact that our treatment of the blacks wasn 't what it ought to be. And
most of us would argue, " Well, of course it isn't, but we 're trying very
hard, and look at this and this and this progress. " He was never satis-
fied with that at all.... "Relatives " were not important. It was "the ab-
solutes " that were.
We had a couple of pretty good arguments, and so what? That's one
ofthe nice things about a democracy. We can say what we feel like and
then go out to lunch together. We had the little Mexican cafeteria in
the Student Union Annex, which is about as good a Mexican restau-
rant as there was in town. And we 'd go there about every day for
lunch.... Frequently the discussions would go down that [political]
vein. Frequently, it would be just as much football.11
As the years went by, and the six McDonald children grew into young men
and women, Betsy was freed somewhat from incessant household tasks. Her
concern for human beings matched McDonald's, but unlike her husband, who
could not take the time to express his concern to the fullest extent, Betsy be-
came actively involved in many social causes. At McDonald's urging, she en-
tered the graduate program in the university's Philosophy Department,
eventually completing all academic credits required for a doctorate. As a stu-
dent, she could legally plan and participate in activist movements on the U. of
A. campus. Soon she was picketing on campus for civil rights, integrated hous-
ing, and against the draft and the Vietnam War. McDonald did not often take
active roles in these activities, but he was always supportive of her. When
Betsy and other Tucson activists established a print shop and book store for the
Peace and Freedom Party on the edge of university property, he took time to
build shelves for the books. Among his many talents, he was also a skillful
woodworker.
These were the days of the "hippie" movement, and one of their sons,
while attending the university, wore long hair and a beard, and some of their
daughters wore "flower children" clothing. Of these tumultuous times, his

11. Author's interview with Dr. Richard Kassander, Nov. 1-2, 1993.
118 FIRESTORM

friend Dr. Bill Sellers laughs gently as he recalls McDonald's short haircut and
neat appearance, compared with the long-haired activists.
"There were a few times when he seemed to be a little bit embarrassed by
it all, but he didn't say anything. He just sort of kept in the background. There
was one case where [activists] were trying to get the president of the university
to resign, and Mac sort of kept to the background on that one. Although he was
obviously part of them, he didn't really say anything."
On other occasions, McDonald took a more active role. On occasion, he
voiced his opinions publicly at "speak-outs" against the Vietnam War. He ab-
horred the use of napalm and other types of chemical warfare and researched
these subjects thoroughly. Although his writings on these are not among the at-
mospheric projects reverently displayed in IAP's memorial room, they are pre-
served in the Institute's library and in the Library of the University of Arizona
with many of his other projects.
Dr. Dick Kassander related the following about McDonald's confronta-
tions with the president of the university, Dr. Richard Harvill:
Mac was not kind to Dr. Harvill on several occasions, including in the
Faculty Senate. I was surprised, because certainly in "the smoke-filled
rooms " Harvill had to be the best friend he had. And I don't know if
Mac ever appreciated that.... There were people higher in the state
who were after Mac's headfor things that were being broadcast inter-
nationally that they thought reflected poorly on Tucson, both as a good
place to locate a new large business and as a place to emigrate to in
one's retirement, thereby bringing more value to the state. The Board
of Regents worried...about the Titan missiles because all the realtors
in town were upset, the business men were upset. "All of those con-
struction jobs, " and "thousands of people are coming here, " and all
of that.... I caught a bit of heat about that.12
Dr. Harvill called Kassander into his office one day and said to him, "I'm
going to ask you this question just once, and you can answer it as candidly as you
want. We'll never discuss it again. Do you believe that what Dr. McDonald is
doing is good science?'"
"I have absolutely no question about it," replied Kassander. "The man just
isn't capable of doing bad science or twisting it or anything else. He believes
in what he's doing and it is good science."
"OK," Harvill replied, "I'll never ask you again."

12. Ibid.
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 119

"And he never did," says Kassander. "The question had to do with the
Titan missiles, not UFOs. UFOs? Well, most people simply refused to take
that seriously."
McDonald went ahead and did what he thought was right in everything—
whether in science, in private political thinking, and in other situations. He was
a man Of high principles, who didn't care whether or not anyone else—including
his best friends—shared those principles with him. Some of his colleagues did,
of course, including Drs. Paul E. Damon, Paul Martin and Cornelius "Corny"
Steelink. But whether he was essentially alone or not, whenever McDonald felt
the good of the public was involved, he forged ahead.

FIGURE 6. The happy McDonald family.

McDonald was immensely proud of his wife "Bets," not only as a home-
maker but especially because she stood staunchly by her principles. She was
arrested by Tucson police for picketing the draft board during the Vietnam War
with a group of demonstrators, and later stood trial with the prospect of being
jailed if convicted. A jury found her not guilty of violating the public order, and
McDonald later told some of his UFO colleagues about the event, expressing
his pride in the way "Bets" stood up for her beliefs.
As they were growing up, the McDonald children looked forward to at-
tending the University of Arizona to study various branches of science or to en-
ter the teaching profession. One of the perks given faculty members was that
their children could attend the university at reduced rates. The McDonald chil-
dren made full use of the privilege. They were proud of their eminent father
120 FIRESTORM

and their activist mother. To everyone who knew them, the McDonalds
seemed an ideal, happy family (see Figure 6).
McDonald's widowed mother,
Charlotte Linn McDonald, also lived
with the family after her husband's
death in 1958. She was called "Grand-
ma McDonald" by the children, while
their parents called her Hilve. Her polit-
ical views were diametrically opposed
to her son's and his wife, but being an
intelligent and graceful woman, she
never interfered with their life in any
way. She did confide to Dr. Dick Kas-
sander once that she thought her son
"got a lot of his political ideas from
Betsy," but she never expressed this
opinion to Betsy herself. It is very pos-
sible Hilve was wrong, for James Mc-
Donald's ideas were always his own.

F I G U R E 7. Lois McDonald Riley,

sister and only sibling of Dr. James E. McDonald.

McDonald also maintained a good relationship with his one sister, Lois
McDonald Riley (see Figure 7). Betsy McDonald got along well with her
mother-in-law Charlotte McDonald. She especially admired the way she
walked and dressed—always slim, fashionable, straight-backed and active
(see Figure 8). Hilve occupied the attached guest apartment with its separate
kitchen, which opened out onto the flagstone terrace. The back of the house
was not complete when McDonald bought it, but he immediately finished it
himself, and added on the apartment for his mother after his father died.
Hilve McDonald, a devout Presbyterian, attended a local church a few blocks
north of the family home. The McDonalds attended a Unitarian Universalist
church for a while but soon became dissatisfied with it. They joined a group
which split off from the larger church and helped found the Tucson Humanist
Association.
McDonald's father, James Patrick, was never discussed in the Arizona
household (see Figure 9). Even Betsy did not know the full story, but McDonald
privately shared with her some of his feelings about what was, for him, a difficult
childhood. The children realized early they were not to ask about "grandfather."
It was only much later that the reasons became clear.
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 121

Outside his academic and family life, with its many varied personalities,
McDonald was welcomed in the UFO field, by the numerous lay researchers
and also by fellow scientists who had been quietly researching the question. It
was a different matter at IAP. Although McDonald's impeccable reputation
continued unchanged, many of his university colleagues wondered about his
open interest in UFOs. Dr. Dick Kassander had been James McDonald's friend
since the early days at Ames, Iowa, where they were graduate students togeth-
er. He admired McDonald's cloud-physics contributions but felt he was wast-
ing his time studying UFOs. He gives the example of McDonald's creativity,
citing his work on the shape of raindrops. Kassander thought McDonald actu-
ally "shook up the society a little bit" when he proved that large raindrops re-
semble more the shape of a "tiny hamburger bun" than the "pearl drop" that
everyone else thought (See Chapter 1).

FIGURE 8. Charlotte Linn McDonald, at far right, mother of

Dr. James E. McDonald.

"Even just the thing he did with the shape of the raindrop was so inventive
and so important that we all felt that he was capable of some really great things
in the advances and in the knowledge of cloud physics and other areas of me-
teorology," states Kassander. "That was one of the reasons why many of us felt
that the UFOs...were an unfortunate diversion. There were very, very impor-
tant problems in our science that needed the kind of attention that only he could
give, that could have had extremely significant effects, especially as they relat-
ed to nucleation and, ultimately, cloud-seeding.
122 FIRESTORM

FIGURE 9. James Patrick McDonald, on right, father of

Dr. James E. McDonald

"[His UFO study] had to be at the expense of some of those problems and
programs," says Kassander. "But...nobody could better evaluate where he
should be spending his time as he could. We were confident that what he did
was done properly, without any 'little green men nonsense.' There were no fi-
ery arguments in the hall, or over lunch, or anywhere else. He decided what he
wanted to work on, and he did some great work in atmospheric physics. An aw-
ful lot of what he chose to do was on the edges, but that was his decision, and
I supported it. And that was academic freedom, too."
McDonald was well aware how Kassander, who, as IAP Director, was
technically his superior, felt about his UFO study. Fortunately, Kassander's
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 123

idea of being "Director" was not that of a martinet. He thought of himself as a

Chairman, rather than as a "Director"—a word which implied guidance. He re-
spected McDonald as a colleague, as a scientist and as a friend and never forgot
that McDonald had stepped down from his Co-Director's post into a Senior
Physicist position, at the same time recommending to President Richard Har-
vill that Kassander take on full Directorship. McDonald reasoned, as did Kas-
sander, that the two of them merely had an honest difference of opinion. To
McDonald's mind, UFOs were an important scientific question; Kassander's
position was that McDonald knew his science and his own abilities better than
Kassander himself did.
"He'd have exactly the same kind of conversations with Lou Battan, whose
scientific abilities he respected tremendously, more than mine, for good reason."
Kassander says. Kassander's own expertise was in administration, rather than
pure research, but he was also a creative expert in instrumentation, related to
many smaller facilities connected with the IAP in and around Tucson.
Dr. Bill Sellers, a meteorology professor at IAP, wondered what was going
on in McDonald's mind. Since so many other scientists felt there were logical,
conventional explanations for the UFOs, why was McDonald spending so
much time on them, instead of on atmospheric problems he was trained for,
and on which he had already contributed so much and on which he could have
contributed so much more? To Sellers, it seemed like McDonald was essential-
ly wasting his time studying UFOs.
"He obviously didn't get any support from anyone else on the faculty that
I know of," states Sellers. "We respected him, but it seemed so strange to us
that he was spending so much time on these things that were not related to his
own field of training."
However, Lou Battan and Dick Kassander, as well as other university col-
leagues, would listen with interest to his descriptions of UFO cases he was work-
ing on. His descriptions were vivid and his choice of words meticulous. He was
a stickler for details and, with his remarkable memory, he left out very few from
any description he gave. He was never boring, for the incidents he was describ-
ing were of such extraordinary content.
"He would tell us about some of these very interesting sightings with so
many factors that coincided," Kassander relates. "All of these sightings within a
several hundred mile radius, all converging on the same point. Hard to imagine
it was an accident, especially when it was reinforced with pilot radar reports, and
the Air Force would systematically deny they were on radar. Makes you wonder
about the Air Force radars!"
124 FIRESTORM

McDonald spoke about his UFO studies to any colleague who would stop
and listen. He had an uncanny ability to detect whether or not he was boring a
person, and could immediately change the subject to a mutually agreeable one
or terminate the conversation altogether.
Other university faculty members were not so kind. A few ridiculed his
UFO interest, privately and publicly. One of these was Gerard Kuiper, the
planetary astronomer who was Director of the university's Lunar and Planetary
Observatory. Kuiper openly derided UFOs, terming them "the worst kind of
pseudo-science." McDonald countered Kuiper, explaining that he had re-
viewed every possible explanation that he could think of, and he was driven to
the conclusion that no inner-space phenomena could explain them; therefore
UFOs had to be something to do with "outer space." Kuiper replied caustically
that fortunately McDonald did include the fact that he had reviewed all of the
answers that he could think of but that didn't necessarily mean all of them.
Kuiper, however, never offered any hypotheses of his own.
The irony in this is that McDonald was instrumental in securing Gerard
Kuiper to head the IAP's new Lunar and Planetary Observatory. Kuiper appar-
ently was not the easiest man to get along with. He had fierce battles with many
colleagues, including the eminent Harold Urey, whose pre-1969 theory was that
the moon's surface was covered with a very deep layer of dust, while Kuiper in-
sisted (rightly) that it was hard. Kuiper had been Director of Yerkes Observatory,
but had been essentially "unelected" by his own faculty at the University of Chi-
cago. President Harvill approached Kassander and asked if it would be possible
to find a place for Gerard Kuiper in the IAP. Barely a week before Harvill made
his request, McDonald had recommended in a faculty meeting that part of IAP's
activities should be directed toward planetary atmospheres and Earth's upper at-
mosphere. McDonald and the other IAP faculty were delighted when Kuiper
agreed to head their new Lunar and Planetary Observatory.
In suggesting the new observatory, McDonald had proposed, "It would be
very interesting to have a program that looks at the atmospheres of other planets,
as well as the Earth's upper atmosphere, [about] which we are doing nothing, but
it is becoming more and more interesting." Since Earth's atmosphere included
the ozone layer, McDonald was once again edging into a field where he would
be ahead of his time. He could not know that his later intense study of the ozone
layer would contribute, in a most unexpected way, to his own demise.
There is nothing in his journals indicating that his colleagues' attitudes ir-
ritated or bothered him in any way. He was not a man given to emotional out-
bursts; his rare displays of what a casual observer would consider "temper" did
not spring from an emotional base. The incident with the "kook" who wasted
a half hour of his time, for example, was prompted by a logical assessment of
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 125

the situation. His irritability with the loquacious woman was more planned
than explosive. He handled most annoying situations in the same manner. Typ-
ically with friends, he often saw their side of a debate as well as he saw his
own, and they would cordially agree to disagree.
Fortunately, however, McDonald had a few close friends at the university
who did more than listen when he talked about the puzzling sightings he was in-
vestigating. Even though their own interest in UFOs was minimal, they gave him
moral support. McDonald himself did not seem to recognize (at least conscious-
ly) that he needed moral support. His own confidence in his abilities and reputa-
tion seemed to be enough. It is entirely possible, however, that the enthusiastic
support and camaraderie he gained from his new-found lay colleagues and the
scientists who were already in the UFO field helped him through the next de-
manding years.
Dr. Benjamin Herman, whom McDonald had guided through doctoral
studies, remained at IAP as a member of the faculty and was one of his closest
colleagues.13
"When Mac said something, he wasn't off on a fringe trip," Herman states.
"He knew what he was talking about. I think he had the respect of everybody
on this campus, even though they may not have agreed on what he described
as UFOs."
He knew that McDonald was ridiculed in some quarters. "Anybody that
ridiculed Mac was ignorant, because Mac was stronger than anybody that rid-
iculed him, I'll guarantee you that," he says.14
Herman also comprehended McDonald's basic UFO hypothesis—i.e., that
the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) was the least unsatisfactory hypothesis.
Even to this day, McDonald's hypothesis is not well understood, even by re-
searchers well versed in UFO history and who knew him personally. Herman
remembers McDonald stating, "From what we know now, I can think of no
other scientifically sound explanation, and that's what I'm looking at.
"Basically he was saying, T really can't believe this, and it must be some-
thing else, but what is it?'" Herman says. "But I don't think Mac was understood,
and a lot of people would just say he 'believes' in the ETH."
It is an axiom that a true scientist does not "believe," because "belief' is con-
sidered an act of faith, rightfully belonging in creative and religious realms. Sci-

13. In 1995, Dr. Benjamin Herman became Director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, a
position he resigned in July, 2001, to resume full professorship.
14. Author's interview with Dr. Ben Herman, 2 November 1993.
126 FIRESTORM

ence studies and questions, and only when evidence is verified, does science
"know" or "is convinced." Herman points out, however, that there were many
scientists who did understand what McDonald was doing. These thoughtful sci-
entists realized that there was a problem in the flood of UFO reports from cred-
ible people. Herman himself realized a problem existed. "There's a lot of things
that have not yet been scientifically explained," he states. "But I don't believe
these things were from outer space." \ V 1 ^ 5
Two of James McDonald's IAP colleagues actively participated in a few
of McDonald's investigations. One was the so-called Brown Mountain trip,
which indirectly impacted on the UFO question. The colleagues who accom-
panied him on the trip were Ben Herman and George Dawson, whose doc-
torate was in chemistry. The "Brown Mountain Lights" of North Carolina
intrigued the UFO community, mainly because they were essentially "uni-
dentified" and had been reported for at least a century by apparently credible
observers. Some UFO investigators had studied them on-site and had deter-
mined that some of the reports could be explained as the headlights of distant
cars, wending their way down a unlighted road which ran through the sparse-
ly settled mountain. The fact that the strangely maneuvering lights had been
reported before automobiles had been invented, however, meant that all the
"lights" had not been explained!
McDonald regarded the Brown Mountain lights as unexplained atmo-
spheric phenomena, which lay squarely in the arena of conventional science.
A high school teacher in North Carolina heard of McDonald's interest in UFOs
and came to Tucson to talk with him and Ben Herman about the Brown Moun-
tain Lights. McDonald then discussed the situation with NICAP's Dick Hall.
Around 1960, Hall and Walter Webb, a NICAP astronomy consultant, had in-
vestigated "the lights" on site and had found some witnesses who reported
seemingly anomalous incidents. A ranger had seen lights moving horizontally,
and the proprietor of a lodge at Jonas Ridge claimed to see them frequently.
The proprietor's wife had encountered a large object, the angular size of the
moon, which moved horizontally and was so bright that it illuminated the road
and nearby trees. Hall and Webb found few reports of large lights, however.
They felt that most reports were caused by car lights on the mountain, or lights
from towns in the distance.
"The story, as related by the high-school teacher, was that there were these
lights starting at the bottom of the valley, and almost any night you go there,
you could watch them rise up beyond the mountain," relates Herman. "So we
made an appointment to meet him on a certain date at Brown Mountain.
George [Dawson] and I and Mac had radios, for intercommunication amongst
us. We wanted to try, among other things, triangulation...so we could get an-
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 127

gles and distances, if in fact we saw anything.... We brought some theodolites

with us, too, to make measurements."
With Jim Hughes' permission, McDonald paid for part of the trip expenses
with ONR funds, and the trio of scientists arrived at Brown Mountain at the
prearranged time. The high school teacher was there, and met them excitedly.
"You should have been here 20 minutes ago," he told them, "because there
were all kinds of lights. But they stopped."
McDonald and the others were not to be dissuaded, and the four men hiked
up to the top of the mountain, which is not very high; Herman remembers it as
about 2000 feet. They did not see any anomalous lights that night. The next
evening they made another trip. This time, they arranged to be at triangle loca-
tions. They stayed for several hours and saw nothing.
About the third day, Dawson had to leave to go back to Tucson. McDonald
and Herman stayed and did a lot of research in the files of local newspapers.
They also met a couple of people who were very active in "pushing" the Brown
Mountain Lights. One was a rhododendron specialist who ran a nursery partly
up the mountain. He had arranged several expeditions for people in the past,
and Herman was of the opinion that he was possibly charging money to take
the groups up the mountain.
"We arranged for him to take us up and show us the lights," he relates. "We
got partly up the mountain and then stopped. There's another mountain a mile or
two away and there's a road on this mountain. All of a sudden [the guide] looks
up and he says, 'Look over there, guys. There's a genuine Brown Mountain
Light!' I started to say, 'That's a car.' And Mac kicked me and told me to stop,
so I shut up. And what he pointed out to us for several occasions were cars on the
other mountain, which you couldn't hear. It was very dark, and it was a very rural
area...no houses."
McDonald, in warning his younger colleague, was silently teaching him
that, when a witness is misidentifying a conventional object for a UFO, you
don't immediately tell him he's wrong. He was letting the nurseryman reveal
just how untrained an observer he was! He possibly used the same technique
on everyone he took up on the mountain. However, McDonald and Herman
had binoculars; they could plainly see that the lights were cars.
Whenever a car went down the rural road, it was so far away that the two
headlights appeared as one light to the naked eye and so were not recognizable
as headlights. Also, both mountains were heavily forested. The lights would
vanish from sight temporarily as they went behind trees and then would reap-
pear again. With the equipment available to them, McDonald and Herman def-
initely identified the "lights" as cars.
128 FIRESTORM

The next night McDonald and Herman took one more trip up the mountain
to study another type of "Brown Mountain light" that behaved differently from
the lights which were identifiable as cars. From the top of the mountain, they
could see the lights of two towns, which were 10 to 15 miles away. Every once
in a while they would see lights that would appear suddenly and then, just as
suddenly, disappear. They were able to identify these lights as distant cars,
which at first would be headed toward them, then would abruptly turn a corner.
There were several other aspects involved. Car lights, from a distance, can
appear yellow-reddish instead of a yellow incandescent color. The fact that many
of the Brown Mountain lights had been described as reddish had made the car-
lights explanation seem unreasonable to many witnesses. But McDonald and
Herman reasoned that, because of atmospheric scattering, blue light becomes fil-
tered out, leaving the reddish tones predominant.
They also discovered there were a lot of young couples that were going up
the mountain road. "It was a good place to bring your girlfriend," Herman says.
"It was dark, and there was nobody around to bother you, and so the excuse
was, 'Let's go up to watch the Brown Mountain Lights."' Herman was of the
opinion that the youngsters who lived on the mountain probably knew the
"lights" were normal occurrences. He pointed out that some of them surely had
looked at them through binoculars at one time or another.
"I don't think it was fooling anybody," Herman states. "There was also a
lot of folklore involved. There were people who were telling us, 'Oh, yeah,
there's a headless woman you can see sometimes, carrying a lantern, looking
for her head and her murderer!'" He felt that some of the townspeople might
be superstitious, adding their fears to the general lore. The bottom line, in both
McDonald's and Herman's opinions, was that there was nothing to the "Brown
Mountain Lights." They were a combination of mistaken conventional objects
and folklore. To the best of Herman's knowledge, McDonald wrote up the
trip's results and sent the report to ONR. However, this paper is not mentioned
in McDonald's bibliography, and no copy has been located to date in his files.
After they arrived home. Dr. Herman did additional research on his own.
Talking over the situation with one of his psychologist friends, he learned
about "autokinesis." If one looks intensely at an object which is motionless and
which has no fixed reference points around it, like a star in the sky which does
not have other bright stars around it, the eye can play tricks, and the object, or
light, will appear to move. This is a common effect which UFO researchers
come across. In the UFO field, it is colloquially known as "eye jiggle"!
When Herman's colleague told him about autokinesis, he conducted an ex-
periment in his classroom. He turned out the lights and pulled down the shades.
When the room was pitch black, Herman struck a match, lit a cigarette, and asked
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 129

the class to tell him which way he was moving the glowing tip. Various students
responded, stating every possible direction. Yet Herman had not moved it at all.
In this way, he proved to himself and to his students that autokinesis was a very
real effect.
The fact that bright stars surrounded by black sky, with no immediate stars
nearby, will appear to move if stared at intently could have contributed to the
Brown Mountain lore. A local inhabitant like the nurseryman, for example,
could point out a bright star or planet near the horizon and tell his "group" that
it was moving and that it was a "genuine Brown Mountain light." He himself
might have been experiencing "eye jiggle" and really believed he was seeing
an anomalous object. Or locals might be perfectly aware of autokinesis, and
use it to convince others that they were seeing a mysterious light. McDonald
and Herman concluded that the reports of unexplained lights just above Brown
Mountain were quite possibly stars and planets.
A few other colleagues besides Ben Herman were accepting of McDonald's
UFO studies because they themselves had seen anomalous objects in the sky or
had "second-hand experience" which convinced them that there might be some-
thing to the UFO question. Dr. Paul Damon was one of these.
"Now, I did have a vicarious experience," Damon relates. "I was in Frank
Senftle's office at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in Washington
when they were on the same grounds as the National Bureau of Standards. He
received a telephone call while I was there."
The person who called Senftle was a geologist who had arrived late in Hous-
ton, Tex. He had been driving south on his way to Houston when, late in the
evening, a bright, brilliant object came low across the highway.
"As I remember [this occurred] in the Amarillo district," relates Damon.
"His car wouldn't function. There was something wrong with the electrical
system, and he noticed other cars had been having similar problems. He went
out and looked under the hood and took the cap off the battery, and the water-
sulphuric acid boiled out."
Damon had heard only one side of the telephone call, but Senftle filled him
in. The man who'd called so excitedly was a credible, hard-headed profession-
al with whom Senftle had worked closely.
"Then when I went back to my hotel," continues Damon, "there was a
group of paper boys who were yelling, "Extra! Extra!" about this event and
about a number of cars having difficulty. They were selling newspapers with
headlines about it."
130 FIRESTORM

He could not remember the date of the occurrence, but it sounds very much
like the classic car-stopping cases which occurred in and around Levelland,
Tex., on the late evening of the 2nd and early morning of the 3rd of November
1957. The identity of the geologist who called Senftle to report his encounter
is not known, and so the details of his experience are not complete. Damon
does not remember if he ever told McDonald what he learned at the USGS of-
fice. He and McDonald had many things in common, but Damon had no active
interest in UFOs at the time.
"1 have seen things that people might call UFOs, but I would stare at them
until I figured out what they were," he states. "For instance, radiosonde bal-
loons high in the sky—beautiful."
Probably Damon never mentioned the event in the Washington USGS of-
fice, but, had McDonald been aware of this car-stopping case, he very likely
would have tracked it down, just as he did most promising reports which came
to his attention. He would have determined whether or not the geologist's en-
counter was an unreported Levelland sighting or an entirely separate car-stop-
ping case. Either way, it is likely that he would have pursued it like a tiger,
especially since it was experienced by a fellow scientist. It is entirely possible,
however, that Damon had stumbled upon a Levelland sighting, on the very night
that headlines were blazing about multiple car-stoppings caused by a UFO.
McDonald was thoroughly familiar with the Levelland cases, having
read, in NICAP publications, descriptions of 10 cases occurring in that vicin-
ity in November 1957.15 He re-checked the cases himself, particularly the
weather conditions over that part of Texas at the time of the sightings, and
concluded that they were not conducive to thundershowers and lightning.
Blue Book had acted quickly to squelch the public interest in the sightings.
Captain G. T. Gregory, who headed Blue Book at the time, called consultant
J. Allen Hynek by phone. Captain Gregory had, off-the-cuff, evaluated all of
the Levelland sightings as "ball lightning" and so informed Dr. Hynek. It so
happened that Dr. Hynek, that same night, was officially responsible for
tracking the new Russian "Sputnik" satellite which was orbiting above the
Earth. Completely absorbed in that task, he had concurred with Gregory's
evaluation of the Levelland sightings without investigating any of the facts
himself. In a 1972 book, published after McDonald's death, Hynek stated
that he'd been under the impression that an electrical storm had been in
progress in the Levelland area at the time, a condition particularly conducive
to the formation of ball lightning.16

15. The UFO Evidence, Editor, Richard H. Hall, Washington, D. C„ Published by National
Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), May 1964, pp. 163-64.
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 131

McDonald's own research on weather conditions in the Levelland area

indicated that the sky was almost cloudless during the times of the sightings.
The subject of ball lightning was still on the fringes of science, and it irritated
McDonald that multiple car-stopping cases, apparently caused by close en-
counters with a large UFO, should have been summarily written off. Early in
June 1966, just before his first trip to Blue Book, he had discussed Levelland
and other UFO cases in a private meeting with Gerard Kuiper and a few other
scientists at the university.
At this meeting, mention of the "ball lightning" explanation elicited sur-
prising reaction from the other scientists; some of them had their own "ball
lightning" experiences to tell! At his second trip to Blue Book, McDonald
checked the Levelland sightings in the files and found three reports of low
clouds and drizzle or mist. This was a different picture from the weather con-
ditions McDonald himself had researched, as well as what Captain Gregory
had described to Hynek, i. e., a lightning storm in progress over the Level-
land area. Because of these inconsistencies, McDonald maintained deep in-
terest in the Levelland sightings. He often chose them as examples of good
UFO cases when talking before scientific groups and stressed that they were
events that should have been scientifically studied but which had been gross-
ly ignored.
A few other colleagues also assisted McDonald in UFO investigations. His
friend Professor Charles B. (Charlie) Moore, a professor at the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, N.M., was one of the first to
confide his own sighting to McDonald. In April 1949 Moore was in charge of
a General Mills (GM) research project out of Minneapolis. He had just been
given responsibility for the project and was pressing hard, searching for a suit-
able site to launch a large GM balloon. At about 10:00 A.M. on a Sunday morn-
ing, Moore was with a four-man Navy crew at White Sands, N.M., just south
of a town later called Truth or Consequences. They launched a pilot balloon to
determine the winds aloft at different levels.17
One of the four enlisted men on Moore's crew had never seen a theodolite
before, so Moore let him look through the instrument's eyepiece to track the
balloon. A Chief Petty Officer and Moore noticed an elliptical white object in
the southwest which looked like the balloon, but the theodolite was not point-
ing in its direction. Moore told the young Navy man to get the instrument back

16. Hynek, J. Allen, The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry, Chicago, Henry Regnery Com-
pany, 1972, p. 127.
17. Author's interview with Prof. Charles B. Moore, 27 September 1994.
 132 FIRESTORM

on the balloon, and he replied that he was looking at it. Moore took the theod-
olite away from him, and saw the balloon, right in the crosshairs.
"I abandoned the balloon and picked up this object which was in the south-
west," relates Moore. "We followed it for something like 65 seconds."
The theodolite magnified objects 25 times. The unidentified object was el-
liptical, white, with hard edges, but because it was moving so rapidly—about 5°
a second—Moore was unable to fine-tune the instrument enough to see much de-
tail. He could see no features or protuberances, just a large, white ellipsoid. "One
part of it was as though it was in shadow—it was more yellow," describes
Moore. "It had a line across, as if some of it were in shadow from the sun."
The object went from about a 45° elevation angle in the southwest, and
then across the sun, which was southeast of the group. Moore picked it up
again, as it moved away from the sun. The object made an about-face and then
traveled into the northeast.
"The interesting thing is, that as it got further away from us, the elevation
angle dropped," relates Moore, "and when it got down.. .to about 25° above the
horizon to the northeast, it suddenly increased in elevation and got very small
very rapidly...as though it were going up and out."
McDonald was fascinated by the description of Moore's sighting. With his
help, he tracked down some of the other witnesses. Their descriptions matched
Moore's in every detail. Moore wrote up his sighting for McDonald's personal
files— a rather brief written statement giving the essential details. The state-
ment emphasized that Moore had nothing more to add. He did not know what
the object was; he only knew that it was not a balloon or an aircraft.
"There was no way that it could have been one of the General Mills balloons,
because I was in charge of them, and it was nothing being flown out of White
Sands that day," states Moore. "In fact, when we called in to the blockhouse, we

I
were told, 'Are you guys drunk? This is Sunday. Nobody else is working, except
you nuts.' And we inquired as to where the X-l was, the experimental aircraft of
the time, and it was in the hangar out at Muroc Dry Lake."

The report was passed on to the Air Force. "The Air Force Intelligence peo-
ple told me that I 'misidentified' it when I reported it as an 'unidentified object,'"
relates Moore with a little laugh. "That was the Air Force assessment of it. They
said I misidentified an unidentified object! It was amusing, but this was an object
that clearly had different performance from anything I'd ever seen."
Eventually the report was passed on to Dr. Donald Menzel for his "expert"
opinion. Menzel's opinion was that Moore and the others had seen a mirage!
MAZES AND MONSTROSITIES 133

"I remember we calculated the elevation angle of the sun at that time, and it
was something like 70°," relates Moore. "And at that time of day, in April, any
thermal inversions would have washed out by the solar heating by 10:00 in the
morning.... It was just the best time, the best time of all not to have a mirage."
"I think [Menzel] had a mind like a steel trap," Moore states. "Closed a
long time ago." 18
In spite of his own rather extraordinary multi-witness UFO sighting, Pro-
fessor Moore remains basically a skeptic. "I think my position on this ever
since has been that even though we were visited from outside...and they left
no evidence, they wouldn't change humanity at all," he philosophizes. "If you
observe it, all you can do is tell people, 'Watch. It might happen again,' and if
it does, it might be significant. That's always been my view on this."
In spite of this, Charlie Moore was one of McDonald's closest colleagues
and supporters. He helped him personally over the years on the investigation
of a few UFO cases, unearthing data for his friend whenever he could.
McDonald found many good UFO reports among scientific colleagues and
associates in the militaty. He was surprised at the incredible experiences which
credible observers of impeccable reputation were recounting. He was even more
surprised that, unlike Charlie Moore, they kept silent about them for so long.

18 .Ibid.
CHAPTER 7

A Guy Made Out ofSteel

/ saw the danger and I passed along the enchanted way,

And I said, "Let grief be a fallen leaf, at the dawning of the day. "
—from "Raglan Road"

Knowledge is a sacred cow, and our problem is to figure out how

to milk her while keeping clear of her horns.
—Szent-Gjorgyi

Donald's colleagues expressed their reactions over his pub-

lic entrance into the UFO field in varied ways, but Betsy's
reaction was unique. It was not the UFO subject itself that
worried her. During his eight quiet years in UFO research, she had some-
times helped him find terrestrial explanations for reports which Tucson
witnesses had made to him. She also accepted the fact that there were
many unexplained observations in other areas. She agreed with
McDonald that UFOs should be considered a scientific question, but she
did not consider it a pressing problem. She instinctively knew that one
summer's study would be not enough, as he'd first thought. Most of all,
she was familiar with his work habits, and knew that he would pursue the
problem until he found a satisfactory answer. It had been that way with all
other projects he'd taken on.
She had experienced first-hand how he'd thrown all of his energy into
the Titan missile controversy, and she had worked at his side in that fight,
because she felt it was a crucial situation affecting their family. She'd seen
how that fight had taken away time from his professional work, and feared
that UFOs would do the same. McDonald never neglected his basic re-
sponsibilities to the IAP and the university, and she knew he never would.
But how many times could he go off on tangents which were not within
the normal realm of atmospheric physics? And would the UFO study even-
tually result in a depressive state such as he'd experienced during the Titan
fight, at the point when he'd felt the controversy couldn't be resolved? In-

Firestorm - Ann Drujfel

A GUY MADE OUT OF STEEL 135

wardly, she worried that an all-out UFO study would leave him discouraged
and exhausted, just as the Titan fight had done at one point. She was the only
person who knew that the Titan controversy had affected him that way.
Another thing concerned her. "As a side to the Titan project, he worked
on civil defense and in the process of proving that the Titans should be down-
wind, he did an analysis of what would happen to Tucson under a nuclear at-
tack," she relates. "He studied a lot about civil defense. People used to write to
him from all over the U.S. asking him where they could go in the event of a
nuclear attack. He wrote a couple of articles about Tucson effects, which were
published in Science and other refereed journals. 1 ' 2 After that, someone else
got a $50,000 grant to study civil defense. He had done the pioneer work for
no pay, and someone else had followed up!"
The innate unfairness of this had provoked her, but she'd come to terms
with it. When she saw McDonald taking on the UFO question in the same ti-
ger-fashion with which he had attacked the Titans, she feared that he would
end up doing the pioneering work and that some other scientist would receive
the credit and possible funding. She expressed these opinions frankly to him.
Her objections fell on deaf ears. Once McDonald made up his mind that a
scientific question existed which he might help solve, he plunged in wholeheart-
edly. His IAP friend and colleague, Dr. Benjamin Herman, has perhaps the most
picturesque description: "Mac did not get bothered easily," he states. "He had
more inner strength than anyone I've ever known. He might have been deep-
down bothered, but.. .the guy was made out of steel. If what he thought was right,
he would do it, no matter what."
McDonald's six children, with the exception of his oldest daughter, Roni-
lyn,3 were also cool to his new quest, regarding UFOs as unworthy of their dad's
time and effort. In June 1966, his elder son Kirk had graduated from the univer-
sity with a physics major, and planned to obtain a doctorate at Caltech. Ronilyn,
20, was a junior, studying psychology at the U. of A. Lee, the younger son, was
a freshman, planning to major in astronomy. The other three children, Nancy)
Gail and Jan, were still in high school and junior high. Although they wondered

1. McDonald, James E., "Backlash," Science, Vol. 133, #3460 April 21, 1961, p. 1271.
2. McDonald, James E., "Analysis of Civil Defense Hazards Being Created by Emplacement
of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles Near Tucson," Journal of the Arizona Academy Of
Sciences, Vol. 2, #1 August 196, pp. 3-19. Also, Civil Defense -1961: Hearings Before a
Subcommittee on Government Operations (August 1-9, 1961).
3. Ronilyn wrote a 96-page honors thesis titled "Psychological Aspects of Unidentified Flying
Objects" as part of her work toward a B. A. in Psychology at the University of Arizona. It is
dated May 15,1967.
 136 FIRESTORM

why the UFO question had become so important to him, they were accustomed
to his temperament and his penchant for pursuing unusual scientific questions.
One of his IAP colleagues once asked McDonald about his large family—
why he and Betsy felt that people who could afford to raise and educate several
children were obliged to do so. McDonald answered that they were contribut-
ing in the best possible way to the good of society. It was Betsy, however, who
had decided that six children was a perfect number, and he'd gone along with
her wishes. To Betsy's mind, six children would provide an ideal setting for
familial interrelationships (she had been one of six children also.) She took on
all the homemaking tasks, while McDonald concentrated on the financial re-
sponsibilities.
His family's lack of approval toward his UFO studies probably affected
him inwardly, but typically, he hid his disappointment. He was able to show
real emotion only to Betsy. McDonald loved his children deeply, but he was
not emotionally warm. Although he was a proud, caring parent, he did not
show feelings. Even when he became irritable and blunt from illogical cir-
cumstances encountered in the course of his work, he displayed these quali-
ties from an intellectual base, rather than from true emotional vexation.
There was another reason why his colleagues' lack of encouragement
didn't divert him from his course. He considered himself first and foremost a
professional, whose expertise was climate and weather modification—prob-
lems facing the world at large. He felt responsible for helping to resolve them.
Consequently his roles as husband and father tended to take a back seat a lot of
the time. He realized himself that he had a "less-than-warm" personality and
learned to make up for this with cordiality and a finely honed sense of humor.
These personality traits might seem paradoxical, but in his case they were not.
He forged ahead with his own convictions and seemingly boundless energy.
The government's neglect of the UFO subject had forced him to seek a solu-
tion, and the full support of the UFO research community and its "hidden" sci-
entists encouraged him.

tvi £ ^ McDonald was properly cautious, however. He recognized there was a

possibility that he might be treading in dangerous waters He realized that
there was, conceivably, a security link with UFO research somewhere in the
** o." web of government bureaucracy, and he set about finding out if this did, in-
deed, exist. In mid-June he phoned his colleague Gordon MacDonald, a
prominent scientist who served with him on a weather-modification panel for
the Environmental Science Service Administration. Gordon MacDonald,
who spelled his name in the Scottish way, was also with the Mitre Corpora-
tion, working in electronics under government contracts, and was also con-
nected with a heavy-duty government security agency. He was a logical
A GUY MADE OUT OF STEEL 137

person to ask about possible government security links surrounding the UFO
question. He carefully listened to Jim McDonald's description of his involve-
ment in UFO studies.
Gordon MacDonald had read Edward Ruppelt's book and knew about
NICAP's UFO Evidence. However, when McDonald voiced his opinion that
the enigmatic unidentified objects were possibly "from elsewhere," Gordon
MacDonald seemed shocked and didn't agree. Nevertheless, to help his
friend Jim, he talked to the Department of Defense (DoD), with officials in
the office of Secretary of the Air Force's Harold Brown, and with various se-
curity-agency people. He received the distinct impression that there was no
security tie-in whatsoever in the subject of UFOs. 4
"Mostly, people looked at me as if I were nuts," Gordon said lightly to
McDonald. "At Brown's office I heard something about Hynek's May 24th
letter, but it hadn't caused any real stir." (See Chapter 5.)
Gordon MacDonald, in scouting out the security question, had the impres-
sion that the CIA, or perhaps the National Security Agency (NSA), was the only
intelligence agency even perfunctorily following the UFO problem. No one hint-
ed to him in any way whatsoever that McDonald should back off from research-
ing the subject publicly.
After being reassured that he was not treading in forbidden waters, James
McDonald made his second trip to Project Blue Book at the end of June 1966
to glean more data from Blue Book files. When he arrived at Wright-Patterson
AFB in Dayton he was given VIP quarters—a four-room suite. In his journal,
McDonald jocularly noted that the suite was stocked with "18 bottles plus
beer," and a coffee-maker stood ready. "I'm equal to a Colonel," he wrote imp-
ishly in his journal. 5 Had Blue Book decided to treat him royally, hoping that
he wouldn't cause any more trouble?
The next day he met with a group of three military officers—Maj. Boyce M.
Smith, a meteorologist with the Army Weather Service, Maj. Bruce A. Dolan, an
electronics engineer with Air Technical Intelligence Command, whose main in-
terest was "information theory" and the head of this three-man team, Col. Louis
DeGoes. The latter was presumably a physicist, although McDonald did not note
DeGoes's specific expertise in his journal.6 FTD's Chief Scientist, Dr. Anthony

4. McDonald, James E., second journal, p. 16.

5. Ibid., reverse p. 24. Elton Boyer, an aviation expert and ex-military pilot who acted as a
consultant during the writing of this book, cites the policy of stocking the quarters of impor-
tant visitors with small bottles of various types of liquor, each bottle holding enough for one
or two drinks. The higher the visitor's military rank, the more bottles provided.
6. Ibid.
138 FIRESTORM

Cacioppo, had made good on his promise to appoint three qualified people to
conduct an FTD review of Blue Book's operations. Gen. Cruikshank had given
them the assignment of coming up with a report and recommendations for future
action within 60 to 90 days. McDonald's description of "DeGoes and Co.," as he
called them, gives the impression that they were new members of the Blue Book
staff, but an internal NICAP memo, written by Dick Hall after McDonald in-
formed him of this development, specifies that "DeGoes and Co." was a moni-
toring group instead of a Blue Book upgrading.7
Over coffee on the patio, McDonald pressed the issue with the trio about
the importance of the UFO question and the "foul-up" in which the Air Force
was engaged. He mentioned how the Blue Book staff had searched unsuccess-
fully for the B-36 case which he knew had been reported to them (see Chapter
3). After two hours of chatting with DeGoes and Co., he went inside and again
looked for Pestalozzi's 1953 case and failed again to find it. He asked Maj.
Hector Quintanilla for the Xerox copy of the Robertson Report which had been
promised to him and was told it still had not been prepared.
McDonald was inwardly irritated, for he realized the importance of this
Report, since it documented the CIA's role in recommending that the govern-
ment officially debunk UFO reports, beginning in January 1953. He said noth-
ing to Quintanilla, however, and instead went to lunch with DeGoes, Smith and
Dolan. Returning, he diligently typed information which he found on several
Blue Book cases which NICAP had investigated, including the Levelland
sightings in Texas.8
At McDonald's urging, Major Dolan began searching for Rudy Pestalozzi's
B-36 case. He dug out a February 1953 case at Ft. Worth, which involved radar
frequencies from a B-36. McDonald found this information extremely interest-
ing and put the data in his notes for future reference. The case did not match
Pestalozzi's precise description of the startling objects which had reportedly
paced the B-36 over Davis-Monthan AFB, and Major Dolan went back to his
search.
In mid-afternoon, McDonald went over to Gen. Cruikshank's office and
offered a number of suggestions which he thought would aid Blue Book's in-
vestigations. DeGoes and Dolan accompanied him. McDonald submitted a list
of books that Blue Book should get and also advised that certain cases, includ-
ing Levelland, be re-checked. He also expressed his concern, for the first time,
that the November 9, 1965, widespread blackout on the East Coast needed to
be closely studied for possible correlation with UFO activity.

7. Ha/I, Richard H., "Memo: July 5, 1966 USAF Shake-up," Internal NICAP memo.
8. McDonald., op. cit., reverse p. 24.
u/ J. f
0
A G U Y M A D E O U T OF STEEL 139

NICAP had uncovered several good sightings of unidentified objects

which had been seen hovering low over power stations along the Canadian bor-
der just about the time the "great blackout" began. NICAP's investigations had
been thorough, and the witnesses had checked out as reliable. McDonald was
not convinced that UFOs had caused that immense blackout, but he felt strong-
ly that interruption of electric power and the simultaneous presence of typical
UFO-type objects should not be simply attributed to coincidence. Throughout
the years, many other incidents of lesser blackouts had been reported simulta-
neously with the close presence of UFOs. Cruikshank, DeGoes and Dolan
were apparently noncommittal to McDonald's suggestion that the 1965 North-
east blackout should be re-investigated.9
McDonald also discussed his growing interest in pre-1940 UFO cases and
urged that Blue Book expand its operations into this aspect of the problem. He
cited the classic tome, The Books of Charles Fort, as a good place to start a lit-
erary search.10 He also described Hynek's recent Stamford, Conn., talk, in
which he had urged: 1. Immediate study, in depth, of the whole UFO problem;
2. Pattern analysis using computers; 3. Establishment of a UFO Center at a ma-
jor university.'1 Q)
"I feel that Dr. Hynek is coming off the fence," remarked McDonald. He
also told Cruikshank and DeGoes that Dr. Hynek was aware that UN Secretary
General U Thant was deeply interested in the UFO problem. At the time, U
Thant's interest was not publicly known, but certain persons involved in UFO re-
search were aware of it.
After about an hour in Cruikshank's office, Colonel DeGoes suggested
that McDonald come back to Blue Book and help them on a consulting basis.
Major Dolan added that "their study" might be turned over to outside con-
tractors but told McDonald that this was just something he'd casually heard;
he was vague on the details.12 DeGoes took McDonald to Dr. Anthony Ca-
cioppo's office to discuss the details of McDonald's consultancy. (In his jour-
nal, he now referred to Dr. Anthony Cacioppo as "Tony," another example
of how easily McDonald made friends.) He told "Tony" that he would soon
be making a trip to Washington, D.C., to brief NASA on the UFO problem
and could stop by Blue Book then. "Tony" told McDonald that they could
work out contractual arrangements then. He stressed that McDonald would

9. Ibid.
10. Fort, Charles, The Books Of Charles Fort: "The Book Of The Damned, " NY, Henry Holt
and Company, Sixth Printing 1957, pp. 183, 285, 301, 760.
11. McDonald, op. cit., p. 19.
M.Ibid., p. 25.
140 FIRESTORM

be entirely free, no strings attached.13 At this point, DeGoes pointed out to

Cacioppo "that they'd better hold back the Robertson Xerox, because it in-
volved the CIA and they must check if it was okay to give McDonald a
copy." It was agreed that McDonald could get the copy the following week. 14
McDonald was relieved to hear from Cacioppo that he would be free to
use any information he might learn from acting as an official consultant to
Blue Book; this was the only basis on which he could consider working with
them. He also felt that he was making headway changing Blue Book's as-
sessment of the UFO question and decided that it would be worth his time to
continue his association with Cacioppo and DeGoes & Co.
While waiting for his plane that evening, James McDonald called his friend
Tom Malone, and filled him in on his second Blue Book visit. Malone had
picked up information that new plans regarding the UFO question might be in
the works at the Department of Defense (DoD). Malone asked if Dr. William
Price was involved, because Price was the Executive Director of the Air Force
Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), which was under the Office of Aero-
space Research. McDonald didn't know. He asked Malone to call Brian O'Brien,
tell him about the session at Blue Book that day, and find out what was planned.
Malone was negative to this suggestion.
"Let him call you," Malone advised.
McDonald yielded to Malone's advice. Malone then asked if it was OK for
him to call John Coleman at the NAS and describe the new look at Blue Book.
McDonald concurred so strongly that Malone responded—as McDonald later
described—with "pained insistence."
"We have to proceed delicately, because DoD is all stirred up about this,"
Malone argued. "We've already gotten a lot of things going. To be effective I
need to remain invisible."15
It was not in McDonald's nature to remain invisible, and he was curious
why Malone felt that way. Malone explained that he'd been reading Aime
Michel's UFO writings. Michel was a respected French mathematician, who
had been able to retain scientific credibility while intensely researching French
UFO cases. In one of Michel's UFO books, many of the unidentified objects
were described as only about three feet in diameter. This fascinated Malone.
He'd recently made some inquiries about UFOs in the aerospace industry, but
had come up against a stone wall.

13. Ibid., reverse side p. 24.

14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
A GUY MADE OUT OF STEEL 141

Malone.
"That's understandable," responded McDonald. "Nobody takes it serious-
ly." Malone seemed disturbed by McDonald's comment.16
McDonald spent the flight time to Tucson writing in his journal, outlining
the Blue Book visit, and expressing newborn hopes that the Air Force could pull
itself out of the mess it had been in since 1953. Arriving home, he called Dick
Hall at NICAP and informed him fully about his second Blue Book visit. In me-
ticulous fashion, he noted in his journal that this call cost $29.00 for 56 minutes,
for, unlike travel expenses, this personal phone call was not chargeable to his
ONR funds. He told Hall that Blue Book "had three good men on the job now
and it looks promising."17
McDonald told Hall that he'd urged the new Blue Book staff to contact
NICAP directly, but they'd given excuses why they couldn't do this. Hall under-
stood, and agreed to send DeGoes back issues of NICAP's monthly newsletter,
The UFO Investigator, as well as a gratis copy of The UFO Evidence. He also
said he could forward any NICAP file material the USAF might want, to be cop-
ied as Blue Book wished. McDonald requested William Weitzel's report on the
Ravenna-Portage County UFO and offered to take it to Blue Book for copying.
Weitzel was also sending a copy to Major Quintanilla personally, in hopes the
Major would see the illogic of explaining the case as "a satellite and Venus." (See
Chapter 3.) Both NICAP and McDonald were willing to go to any lengths to get
suitable UFO case documentation to "DeGoes and Co.," who seemed so open-
minded and interested.
By early July, McDonald was ready to travel to Blue Book again and pro-
posed a three-day visit. DeGoes okayed the plan and told him that he'd received
the script of the "CBS Presents" UFO program that McDonald had sent to him.
McDonald had also sent scientific articles on the ball-lightning phenomenon, in
order that DeGoes & Co. could see how illogical Blue Book's official explana-
tion for the Levelland sightings had been.
An airline strike wiped out McDonald's carefully laid plans. By the time
he was able to re-form plans for a third visit to Blue Book, and to assume the
consultancy which had been offered, he learned that DeGoes, Dolan and Smith
were leaving for meetings at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank
based in Santa Monica. They would not be at Blue Book when McDonald
came. McDonald asked DeGoes if he'd connected with Jacques Vallee yet, to

16.Ibid., p. 25.
17./£>/</, p. 26.
142 FIRESTORM

discuss the solid French UFO cases which Vallee knew about first-hand. This
visit would give them an idea of the international scope of the UFO problem,
rather than continuing to regard it as a localized phenomenon which only af-
fected the U.S. Air Force. DeGoes replied that he hadn't yet taken any steps to
get Vallee down to Blue Book.
"Our work's not down to that level, yet," he told McDonald, "But the
problem's getting fascinating as hell."18
McDonald persisted, stressing that Vallee was leaving for France at the
end of July, and would be there a full year.19 This should not be put off, he em-
phasized, for Vallee was a prominent French researcher with many contacts
who worked closely with Allen Hynek in UFO research.
DeGoes apparently changed the subject. He told McDonald he'd consult-
ed with "Bill Price" a few days earlier. This was the same Dr. Price, the Exec-
utive Director of AFOSR, about whom Tom Malone had questioned
McDonald so closely. DeGoes told McDonald that Dr. Price was in favor of
engaging McDonald as a consultant on UFOs. They planned to meet with Price
in Washington, D.C., after McDonald had briefed NASA officials, as NASA
had requested.
On the 3rd of June, McDonald had had the opportunity to discuss the UFO
question with A1 Eggers, a friend and colleague who worked with NASA in
Washington, D.C. Eggers had asked how one could attack the problem scien-
tifically. McDonald explained general techniques which could be used, as well
as specific information about how to set up a tracking system, ideas which
seemed to impress the NASA official. Eggers had then asked him to give a
briefing to NASA officials in July. Although Eggers had seemed interested,
McDonald wrote later in his journal that he "wasn't sure that A1 got the real
point" or that "Eggers senses [the] potential NASA importance."21
McDonald was glad for the chance to brief NASA officials, however. If he
could convince NASA—the official U.S. organization in charge of outer-space
exploration—that UFOs presented a serious scientific question, he might be
able to influence the powers-that-be to take the problem out of the hands of the
Air Force and put it in NASA, where he felt it belonged.

18. Ibid., reverse p. 27.

19. Ibid., reverse p. 22. Later, Hynek apparently met with Vallee in France, where Vallee was
working with a small group of scientists who were interested in UFOs. This group was
called "The Invisible College."
20. Ibid., reverse p. 28.
21 .Ibid.
 A GUY MADE OUT OF STEEL 143

NICAP and Don Keyhoe openly advanced the "extraterrestrial hypothe-

sis" (ETH) to explain these unidentified aeroforms which played "footsy" with
our fastest jets and performed maneuvers which seemed to defy the known
laws of physics. McDonald, in considering the ETH, was more cautious. When
asked about what UFOs might be, his standard reply was, "The extraterrestrial
hypothesis is, at present to my mind, the least unlikely." s
On July 19th, at NASA, during a casual conversation with a colleague,
McDonald obtained confirmation that "DeGoes and Co." had, indeed, gone to
The RAND Corporation to discuss the subject of UFOs. McDonald had talked
. recently with Paul Cerny of SFO-NICAP who'd remarked, "At RAND perhaps
^ they'll have people who're willing to think about the unthinkable!" McDonald
considered this a good quote and wrote it down in his journal. 22
yx / Just before McDonald's NASA briefing, Eggers had advised him to
r
^ "Make it as scientific as hell!" 23 At the briefing, Brig. Gen. B G. Holzman
(USAF Ret.) was in charge. Also present were George C. Dentsch of the Re-
search Division, Office of Advanced Research Technology, Mason T. Charak,
Conrad C. Moody of the Space Vehicle Research and Technology, and Jim
Danberg.24 General Holzman went out briefly and brought back a sixth listen-
er, Wes Fletcher, and A1 Eggers popped in once or twice but had to leave for
other commitments. McDonald ran over USAF history, the Robertson Report,
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, and Dr. Donald Menzel. He pointed out emphatically that
study of the UFO question had been wasted at Blue Book.
He emphasized that, in his considered opinion, NASA was the agency who
should be studying it, for the phenomenon seemed to be other than purely terres-
trial in nature and NASA's province was beyond terrestrial concerns. The Air
Force could act as an additional data-collection agency and refer its cases to
NASA for serious scientific study. He recommended that the officials present get
a small group working on it, and fast. He spoke for an hour and fifteen minutes
and then fielded questions. At the end of the briefing, McDonald felt "the seed
had been planted."25
He spent the next three days at Blue Book. "DeGoes & Co." were still at The
RAND Corporation, but surprisingly, Quintanilla now reported to DeGoes! Gen-
eral Cruikshank had been transferred elsewhere—just where, McDonald
couldn't find out. At lunch, McDonald discussed Allen Hynek's claims that he'd
had to bow to USAF pressure during his 18 years as Blue Book consultant in as-

22. Ibid., reverse p. 27.

23. Ibid., p. 29.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
144 FIRESTORM

tronomy. Quintanilla objected and replied that he didn't have the authority to put
pressure on Hynek. He was only a Major, and Hynek was a professional astron-
omer and an Air Force consultant. In recounting this conversation in his journal,
at this point McDonald again wrote the enigmatic phrase, "See small note-
book."26 Until McDonald's smaller notebooks are found, the history of his ex-
ploration into the UFO question remains incomplete. Crucial information lies
hidden in those notes.
McDonald asked, the third time, for the copy of the Robertson Report that
had been promised to him more than six weeks before. Quintanilla informed him
that the report was now re-classified. At Col. DeGoes's orders, he'd written the
CIA 10 days earlier to clarify the "declassification" that had permitted him to
give the uncensored version to McDonald in the first place. The CIA had balked.
Quintanilla told him that some part of it would be cleared so that McDonald
could at least be given a partial version. This didn't satisfy McDonald.
"Who de-classified it in the first place?" he asked. "You gave me a de-
classified version to read when I first got here on June 6th!"
"I have no idea who de-classified it," Quintanilla replied.
"You can tell by the date and the initial of the person who declassified it!"
reminded McDonald.
"There's no date or initial on my copy!" answered Quintanilla. "The CIA
couldn't even find its copy! I had to identify what I was talking about by show-
ing them the Xerox we'd made for you."
At this point, McDonald again wrote in his journal, "See smaller note-
book" and stated his opinion that he didn't believe either General Cruikshank
or Dr. Tony Cacioppo had ever read the Robertson Report! "No one else, no
reporter or anybody else, has ever asked for it before you did," commented
Quintanilla.27 McDonald couldn't believe what was going on. It was apparent,
however, that by reading the uncensored version, he'd stepped on a raw nerve
somewhere! He realized that further discussion about the Robertson Report
was fruitless, at least right then, and changed the subject.
"Now, about the Portage County case?" McDonald asked. "I gave Col.
DeGoes information that proves that the huge UFO which Deputies Spaur and
Neff chased from Ohio to Pennsylvania couldn't possibly be an Echo satellite
and Venus! What do you plan to do about that?"
"I'll change it to 'unidentified,'" Quintanilla muttered.

26. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
 — — — - r —
A GUY MADE OUT OF STEEL „ v ^Ao-fi 145

That was about all McDonald could ever hope for from Blue Book! He
and Quintanilla continued their discussion, their lunches not sitting very
well. McDonald brought up his concern about the November 1965 Northeast
blackout. Quintanilla was aware that The New Yorker had published a rather
astonishing article about the blackout, written by J. Allen Hynek, which de-
scribed UFOs seen by six members of the famed magazine's staff, from their
own darkened New York building.
"So now Blue Book has to check into that blackout," McDonald insisted.
Hynek, Blue Book's own astronomical consultant, had brought up the possi-
bility that UFOs were associated, at least in some way, with it. "Consequent-
ly," McDonald contended, "Blue Book doesn't have the right to ignore it any
longer." Quintanilla reluctantly conceded.28
McDonald knew what he was talking about. Less than a month before,
he'd gone personally to the Federal Power Commission (FPC) in Washington,
and had discussed with an FPC official, William E. Dean, the possibility that
UFOs might have been associated with the unexplained power surge that
caused the blackout which had darkened the entire Northeast section of the
country for many hours on 9-10 November, 1965. Dean advised McDonald
that a "vague outage pattern" was involved, with the tripping of a relay known
as Q-29. The fundamental cause of the massive blackout, however, was not yet
known. The best that the FPC investigators had come up with to date was that
a "random fluctuation" had occurred. McDonald asked Dean, "What was the
average rms departure from the mean load?" 29
The FPC official hesitated. "I don't really know," he said.
McDonald sensed that Dean didn't even understand what he was asking
and clarified the question.
"We don't have any data on that in our files," replied Dean. "I'd have to
get that from Ontario Hydro."
McDonald was amazed at the FPC's lack of available information, but
pursued the issue.
"Was the rise time of the surge that triggered the Q-29 relay unusual?"
asked McDonald.
"I don't know that, either," said Dean.

28. Ibid.
29. rms is root-mean-square, a tighter statistical measure of variation than the mean.
146 FIRESTORM

"I'd like to see any compilation of statistics FPC has on outage frequen-
cies, preferably categorized as to apparent cause," McDonald requested.
"We don't have any," replied Dean. "We can only get that by going to indi-
vidual power companies, and they might give them to us, or they might not."30
McDonald persisted, trying tactfully to educate this uninformed FPC offi-
cial. He told Dean about NICAP's research into several UFO reports which
were possibly involved with the original power surge, including an unusual,
very low-level "fireball" seen in Syracuse, NY, just before the blackout oc-
curred in that area. He urged Dean to try to get the rise time of the surge and
the exact time the Q-29 relay had tripped and to let him know when he obtained
that information. Dean seemed interested in the NICAP investigations and
asked McDonald for copies of clippings from NICAP files which McDonald
had with him. McDonald doubtless wondered why the FPC didn't have their
own clipping file on the mysterious blackout but tactfully said nothing. He
shared his clippings with Dean.
Toward the end of the session, Stewart Crum, another FPC official,
joined the discussion. He said that FPC had received many UFO reports from
New York City, which the witnesses thought might be involved with the
blackout. McDonald later took this information to NICAP, and found out that
these particular reports were probably caused by misidentifications of the
planet Venus. McDonald resolved to check again to make sure.
Now, three weeks later in July, discussing the Northeast blackout with
Major Quintanilla at Blue Book, McDonald tried to reach FPC's William
Dean on the Blue Book phone. Dean was not available. At McDonald's sug-
gestion, Quintanilla phoned Bill Powers, Hynek's aide, in Evanston. Powers
said he and Hynek had done some investigation on that blackout and had
found out that Odan Bech had lost its load to the north, so the original power-
surge had not directly affected New York City. Subsequent tripping of relays
along the Northeast power grid had been responsible for that.
The basic question, however, still remained: Why had relay Q-29 fired in
the first place? The unanswered question bothered McDonald. It was not that
he "believed" or "disbelieved" that the Great Blackout had been caused by
UFOs, but he was simply researching the matter in ways no one else had done.
It was not until two years later that McDonald learned from a colleague that
someone had gone to the Odan Bech plant personally and asked about the of-
ficial explanation of "relay-failure." The official taking him through the plant
had said, "We had to tell the papers something."31

30. Ibid., reverse p. 23.

A GUY MADE OUT OF STEEL 147

Getting nowhere discussing the Great Blackout with Major Quintanilla,

James McDonald changed the subject. He asked about AFR 200-2, the trou-
blesome regulation which prevented Air Force personnel from speaking out
publicly about UFOs they had personally witnessed. The regulation was be-
ing revised, and Quintanilla handed him the revised draft. Reading through
it, McDonald discovered what he termed "bothersome language" about the
necessity to reduce the percentage of "Unidentifieds," and penciled-in some
less offensive wording. He suggested further revision, aiming at complete-
ness and accuracy.32
McDonald pointed out that a lot of questions were going to arise in adopting
AFR 200-2 to the new university teams, which the Air Force was still seeking to
establish. For example, how could they get accurate information from air base
witnesses if these individuals were prevented from discussing any sighting
which the Air Force had not officially explained? He urged Quintanilla to point
out this paradox to his superiors and advise that perhaps the 200-2 revision
should be held up for the time being. Quintanilla saw the logic and agreed.33
Shortly after McDonald left Blue Book the third time, he telephoned
Jacques Vallee at Northwestern, telling him that he'd urged FTD officials to
send someone up to Northwestern to see Vallee, since Blue Book hadn't acted
on his suggestion to invite Vallee down to Blue Book. Vallee hadn't heard any-
thing from them. Privately, Vallee had problems with McDonald's entire ex-
cursion into the UFO research field. He couldn't forget how McDonald had
pounded on Hynek's desk during their first meeting, barely one month before.
"He'd told Allen, 'Look at this case!' and 'Look at that case!'" describes
Vallee in an interview for this book. "And Hynek would say, 'Yes, I knew about
those cases.' And Jim would say, 'How could you sit on this if you knew that
witnesses were actually seeing those things?'"3
Vallee knew why Hynek had not spoken out publicly; he understood why
his good friend and mentor had remained silent for 18 years: "At that time,
Hynek said to me, 'It was very simple. If I had said so, I would have lost my job,
and I would have lost my credibility with the scientific community because these
things are not proof! They are anecdotes. They are interesting anecdotes.'35 And
Hynek kept asking McDonald, 'Where is the evidence, Jim? Where is the evi-
dence? Where is the stuff that you're going to take to the NAS to convince those
guys?' And of course Jim felt—you could ascribe it to his scientific integrity and

31. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 21.

32. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 29.
33 .Ibid.
34. Author's interview with Jacques Vallee, 6 June 1994.
148 FIRESTORM

his intellectual integrity—that, given the strength of the data, it should be pre-
sented no matter what. 'You should go public with it. It should be presented.'
"Or you could say he was a bull in a china shop, going off with preliminary
data, with not enough evidence," continues Vallee. "Allen Hynek had his prob-
lems with Jim, which had to do with the fact that they were such different men,
[with] different temperaments and philosophies. But I had my own problems
with Jim.... He didn't really understand how Hynek's position had changed, and
why it had changed. And why, in fact, Hynek had been in a kind of impossible
position with his job...."
Vallee pauses, remembering. "And I don't know who was right, you
know? I was unhappy with both. What I would have liked to see was a real sci-
entific panel. If Jim and Allen had gotten together, they could have created a
team of scientists who could have gone public and really pushed the problem
before their colleagues."
"Would it have taken both of them, though?" Vallee was asked.
"I think so," Vallee replied.36 3 ^ t ^ j S l P ^
Returning to July 1966, when McDonald called Vallee to tell him that he
was still urging DeGoes to send someone up from Blue Book personally to see
him at Northwestern, Vallee was non-committal. He had seen the Blue Book
offices in 1964, when he went to Dayton with Hynek. Vallee, also, had been
amazed at the "explanations" that were being given for the sightings which
were pouring in from reliable sources. He had likewise been underwhelmed by
the three-person staff which ran Blue Book in .1964. , ^
-VW3 <ec!W. (M*"««, WP e « •
"This was a long time before I was even aware that there was somebody
like Jim McDonald," states Vallee. "No one but Tucsonans, the NICAP official
staff in Washington, D.C., and a few of McDonald's close colleagues knew of
his early interest in the field."
The conversation between McDonald and Vallee turned to the Air Force
search for appropriate university teams for the newly funded government UFO
study. The Air Force was experiencing difficulty finding even one university
that wanted to be associated with UFOs, particularly since the Air Force want-
ed too much control in case selection and review of published material. Vallee
wondered why they hadn't asked Dr. Hynek, who was willing and ready to

35. Most UFO data at the time was anecdotal, but the sheer volume of sighting reports from
trained observers was "evidence." Researchers seek additional data which amounts to a type
of physical evidence, i.e., documented radar-visual cases and photos. Hynek was asking
"where is the irrefutable evidence?"
36. Interview with Vallee, 6 June 1994.
A G U Y M A D E O U T OF STEEL
7l
VX/**?'
fr
149

serve if asked. McDonald commented that probably they would not select
any scientist who knew anything at all about the subject, because the Air Force
was ostensibly seeking a neutral study.
McDonald, through a high-placed contact, USAF Col. Bob Hippler, had
learned that the Air Force considered the UFO subject "a can of worms" and
that they felt they had "a tiger by the tail but couldn't let go." 38 Hippler had
told McDonald that the Air Force had tried twice in the past to give the job
to NASA and had been turned down flat! The Air Force had also tried, un-
successfully, to get the NAS to take on the job. Hippler had told McDonald
that neither he [McDonald], Hynek, nor Donald Menzel would be chosen to
participate.39 McDonald had encouraged this attitude, probably figuring that
whoever was selected could be brought up to speed when NICAP and other
objective researchers, including himself, shared their own data freely.
It isn't clear how much of the above McDonald shared with Vallee. He
did tell him how Quintanilla had responded when he'd told him that Hynek
had overruled him in certain instances. Vallee agreed that there had been no
pressure placed upon Hynek in regards to the Dexter, Mich., sighting, but
that when Hynek disagreed with Quintanilla about "a satellite and Venus"
being the cause of the Portage County chase, Quintanilla told him, "If we be-
lieved every story we heard we'd have 100% unknowns." 40 (5
Now July 1966 was almost over, and McDonald had heard nothing further
from DeGoes or any other Blue Book official about the consultancy which had
been offered him. He waited another month, using the time to study radar prop-
agation theory and reading widely on rumor, hallucination, and other psycho-
logical matters. He was educating himself, refining his list of hypotheses
which various sources used to "explain" UFO sightings. Then late in August,
tired of waiting to hear about the consultancy, he called Wright-Patterson AFB
to talk with DeGoes. DeGoes was unavailable; he was in the middle of a meet-
ing with Dr. Thomas Ratchford, a solid-state physicist who was visiting from
Washington, D.C. ^

^ '

37. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 29. V

38. Ibid., reverse p. 23.
39. Although Col. Hippler had told McDonald this, another confidential source, AF Chief Sci-
entist Winston Markey, had "revealed" to Hynek that Northwestern University might be
chosen for the $500,000 study and that three men would supervise everything about the sci-
entific program there. These three men would be Hynek, Menzel and McDonald! To Hynek
and Vallee's credit, they listened to Markey's words with extreme skepticism. See Vallee,
Jacques, Forbidden Science: Journals 1957-1969, Berkeley, CA, North Atlantic Books,
1992, p. 192.
40. Ibid., reverse p. 29.
150 FIRESTORM

Ratchford was connected with the AFOSR—the USAF counterpart of

ONR. McDonald had met with Ratchford and Dr. Bill Price at AFOSR the
day before he flew to Blue Book for his third visit. He'd been told by Tom
Malone that Ratchford had been asked to "look into the UFO problem by a
high government official." Malone guessed, but wasn't sure, that Ratchford
had been given the assignment by Secretary of the Air Force Harold
Brown.41 Malone told McDonald at the time that Ratchford was in the pro-
cess of forming a scientific panel for the new Air Force study. During their
meeting, Ratchford had informed McDonald that he was not forming a panel,
but rather was searching for an individual scientist to head the study. It was
not like Tom Malone to make mistakes. McDonald wondered about this and
noted in his journal, "Tom Malone's evidently not gotten it straight." 42

In his mid-July meeting with Ratchford and Dr. Bill Price, McDonald had
been rather astonished at an opinion expressed by Ratchford that criticism of the
Air Force came from kooks and cultists "who'd never shut up." Hiding his as-
tonishment, McDonald tried to interpret what was really going on:
1 quietly insisted that their trouble does not come from kooks, but from
reasonable people and pointed out NICAP's study [wasJ superior to
the USAF's.43
Ratchford and Price had listened carefully to McDonald; his appointment
with them had begun at 8:00 A.M. and had continued through lunch until 2:00!
Ratchford seemed to be earnestly seeking a way to properly study the UFO
question. He had met at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute at Cape Cod, in
a private meeting with Brian O'Brien, John Coleman of NAS, and Aden
Meinel, a prominent astronomer who was one of McDonald's colleagues at the
University of Arizona. 44 ' 45
Now, in late August, when McDonald called Blue Book to inquire about
the consultancy which had been offered him, he had to settle for talking with
Quintanilla. He asked the Major, for the fourth time, if his copy of the Robert-
son Report was ready for him yet. Quintanilla informed him that there was no
news on that.

41. Ibid, p. 29.

42. Ibid., reverse p. 28.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., p. 28.
45. Ratchford was meeting secretly with three of McDonald's close colleagues. What was said
at that meeting?
itCr V WW ditcVL
A G U Y M A D E O U T OF STEEL 151

"The CIA may sanitize the report and release that to you," he told James
McDonald. "But I'm still trying to get it fully declassified. I've got Colonel
DeGoes's OK to do that."
"What about the change on the Air Force explanation for the Portage
County case?"
"There's no change on that," replied Quintanilla.
"Why not?" asked McDonald, pointing out that even Allen Hynek thought
Quintanilla's satellite-Venus explanation was ludicrous.
"I'm not going to change anything until my superiors tell me to," said
Quintanilla.
"Well, then, what about your investigation on the November '65 blackout.
How's that going? Haven't you interviewed those six members of the New
Yorker staff who saw that object near their building during the blackout?" pur-
sued McDonald.
"I've talked to Dr. Hynek on that," replied Quintanilla. "He won't tell me
any of the names of the six people. How can I go ahead and investigate if I
don't have names of witnesses?"
"Tell Lou DeGoes to send my ball-lightning stuff back," said McDonald.46
It seemed apparent by now that not much was going to change at Blue Book, in
spite of the encouraging signs he'd seen a few weeks ago from "DeGoes & Co.,"
and it was also apparent that the promised "consultancy" wasn't going to mate-
rialize. Besides Quintanilla's flip-flop on the Portage County case, it was also ap-
parent that the information he'd sent to DeGoes about ball lightning wasn't going
to affect the Levelland sightings "explanation" one bit.
"In general, he [Quintanilla was] was very cool," wrote McDonald, de-
scribing the above contact.47
Five days later, Tom Malone called McDonald to inform him that Dr.
Ratchford was fairly sure that Dr. Edward U. Condon, of the University of Col-
orado, would take on the job as lead investigator for the new half-million dollar
Air Force Study. Shortly afterward, this was announced in the press. Condon
was 66 years old and a prominent, respected physicist. He had a long list of ac-
complishments, including participation on committees that established the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the atomic-bomb development program. He

46. McDonald, second journal, p. 31.

47. Ibid.
152 FIRESTORM

had headed Westinghouse radar research and had also been involved in theo-
retical radiation physics.
Condon was also used to personal attacks, having been called before the
House Committee on Un-American Activities as a possible pro-Communist but
had been exonerated; he didn't worry about what people thought. McDonald was
well acquainted with Condon's work. Privately, he wished him well and hoped
that a scientific staff, under Condon's leadership, would work vigorously and
open-mindedly to unravel the UFO problem. He planned to help, unofficially,
any way he could, by referring cases he thought worthy of study.
Malone told McDonald that Will Kellogg, of the National Center for Atmo-
spheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, who was a friend of McDonald's, might
possibly be invited to serve on Condon's staff. Malone had talked to him, and
Kellogg pointed out that he hoped to get McDonald in on it, too. Malone, how-
ever, advised his younger friend not to push the issue. He said he'd spent quite a
bit of time telling Dr. Bill Price of AFOSR about McDonald's past two years'
activities in UFO research. McDonald, of course, had filled Price in on the same
thing.48
After Condon accepted the Air Force offer to head their new study, further
forays into Project Blue Book files took a back seat in James McDonald's
schedule. He was still curious, however, about the Robertson Report and the
incredible revelations he'd seen in the uncensored version. He never received
any copy from Blue Book, sanitized or not and gave up asking for it. He had
his notes, however and distributed the information widely; NICAP wrote an ar-
ticle about his discovery in The UFO Investigator. NICAP's revelation sent a
shock through the entire UFO research community. For most people in the
field, it was their first introduction to McDonald. Five glorious years—1966-
1971, "the McDonald years"—had begun.
From July 1966 on, McDonald set out to re-check classic cases which
NICAP had investigated and, in general, to explore all aspects of the UFO
question that were anywhere close to his own expertise. The Robertson Report
was especially intriguing, since it had recommended a public-education pro-
gram of "training" and "debunking." By "training" was meant that the public
should be educated to believe that all UFOs were misidentified conventional
objects. In spite of his impression that the Air Force had engaged in a "grand
foul-up," instead of a true cover-up, McDonald wondered if an official de-
bunking policy had affected Blue Book's operation since 1953. In late Septem-
ber he called J. Allen Hynek to ask what he knew.

48. Ibid., reverse p. 30.

A GUY MADE OUT OF STEEL 153

"Did you know, all along, the uncensored content of the Robertson Re-
port?" McDonald inquired.
"Well, I think I've seen all of it," replied Hynek vaguely.
"You think you've seen all of it? Then someone showed you the final report,
uncensored, the one Quintanilla accidentally showed me?" pursued McDonald.
"I think someone showed me the final report," replied Hynek again.
"Well, what did you think about the Robertson Panel's recommendation,
'that the American people need to be educated about UFOs, and that the educa-
tional program should have two major aims: training and 'debunking'?"
"I do recall the decision to try to educate the public," replied Hynek.
"What about the 'debunking' aspect?" pursued McDonald. "Do you re-
ally think that debunking is the proper way to go about educating the pub-
lic?"
"I can't recall any such term being used," denied Hynek.
"You don't recall the term 'debunking' in the report? It's on page 20."
"I never thought that 'educational' recommendation had much effect," re-
plied Hynek. "I never felt that public ridicule was the real factor in deterring
pilot reports and other promising sightings."
"There's a definite step-function drop in USAF reports after 1953," stat-
ed McDonald bluntly. "You don't think Air Force Regulation 200-2 had a
profound effect in preventing pilots and other Air Force personnel from re-
porting sightings to Blue Book, much less reporting them publicly?"
"I'd like to think it didn't," replied Hynek. "I feel Don Menzel's influence
was much greater. How is an ordinary pilot going to speak out in seeming con-
tradiction of a Harvard astronomer?"
"Allen," said McDonald. "It's a bit naive to think 200-2 had no effect on
flow of information from USAF pilot and radar sightings. What about the
Tinker-Carswell 1965 case, where radar data got out and was then retracted af-
ter someone remembered 200-2?"
Hynek didn't seem too familiar with that particular case. McDonald tried
another tack.
"If the Robertson Report was as inconsequential as you claim, why was it
withheld from the public for four years and even then the key portions not dis-
closed?" inquired McDonald.
Hynek didn't have any answer.
 154 FIRESTORM

"I think you've been quite remiss in never straightening Quintanilla out on
various optical and other matters," McDonald told him. "I specifically asked
^ the Major if you'd ever discussed with him the absurdity of the Blue Book cat-
3'tW egorizations, and he said you hadn't."
1
"How can you change the military mind?" asked Hynek, attempting levity.49
^ 1 M c D o n a l d made many other attempts to talk out with Hynek what he re-
ysfa garded as the astronomer's penchant for "re-writing history." His sense of hu-
mor was totally absent during many of these discussions with Hynek; this fact
was not lost on Hynek's closest colleague.
"I felt that, with Allen Hynek, he didn't have much of a sense of humor,"
says Jacques Vallee. "He didn't have a perspective of being able to laugh at
himself and laugh at things. We tried. We were a pretty funny group. Bill Pow-
ers was a great prankster. And we were always joking and laughing whenever
we got together. But Jim seemed to be taking himself very, very seriously. He
was very rigid."
McDonald was rigid in his thought processes, in some ways, but the situ-
ation was more complicated than that. McDonald was delightfully sociable and
fun-loving with people he got along well with, but was deeply troubled by
Hynek's failure to admit that he had contributed to Blue Book's "grand foul-
up." Sociability, honest communication and humor were, to McDonald's
mind, inextricably linked. Hynek, from about 1966 onward, was very slowly
changing, however. It is generally conceded by most veteran UFO researchers
that he sincerely wished to forget the past, for he had become convinced that
UFOs were a subject worthy of scientific study. By 1967 he was giving con-
servative talks about the scientific problem posed by UFOs.
In direct opposition to his difficulties with Hynek, James McDonald's com-
munication with Donald E. Keyhoe was easy and mutually beneficial. In certain
ways, the two men were much alike. Keyhoe had no scientific credentials but
was blessed with excellent common sense; his investigations of the problem had
convinced him that UFOs were a problem of highest importance. He also knew
that Blue Book files held the kind of "pay dirt" that Menzel and other skeptical
scientists were pontificating about. When he managed, through his own govern-
ment and military contacts, to get hold of factual material in Blue Book, Keyhoe
continued to write objective, fact-filled UFO books.50 McDonald quietly re-

49. Ibid., p. 32. Actually, Hynek had made a very wise observation. According to Elton Boyer,
the author's consultant in aviation and military affairs, "the military mind" considers itself
"different" from the rest of the population, looking at things from a divergent angle which
most civilians simply don't comprehend.
50. For example, Keyhoe, Donald E., Flying Saucers: Top Secret, NY, G. P. Putnam, 1960.
A GUY MADE OUT OF STEEL 155

checked many of the cases in Keyhoe's books, curious to see how accurate they
were. After a couple of years, he privately told Idabel Epperson, who took over
the Chairmanship of the Los Angeles NICAP Subcommittee after the death of
Dr. Leslie K. Kaeburn, "Keyhoe's books are accurately written. He has his facts
straight."51
Even though McDonald was the ultimate academic and scientist, he also
tirelessly ferreted out data, as Keyhoe did. He also drew comparisons between
Hynek and Don Keyhoe, contemplating the different roles they'd played. He re-
mained convinced that, when the facts were all set forth, and UFO history was
written, Don Keyhoe would appear, in the deeper sense of the term, a better sci-
entist than Hynek, when the respective accomplishments of both men in the UFO
field were finally totaled up.52
In spite of his growing involvement in UFO research, McDonald contin-
ued full steam ahead with his professional work. He taught a full schedule of
classes at both the undergraduate and graduate level in the meteorology depart-
ment of the university, and continued with his numerous atmospheric projects.
In March 1966 he appeared before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insu-
lar Affairs, stressing the importance of maintaining a broad, integrated concep-
tion of national goals in weather and climate modification. Typically, in such
public appearances, he was a teacher as well as a speaker, and his 20-page
statement on this occasion expertly summarizes the history of cloud modifica-
tion.53 He urged caution on artificial rammaking, because McDonald always
took the long-range view. In experimenting with nature, the needs of the public
must be considered first.
McDonald circulated among the meteorological community a five-page
letter relating corrections and suggestions for the Weather Modification Act of
1966, to accompany a bill that was then before the Congress.54 The ease with
which McDonald moved in Congressional circles was to serve him well when,
two years later, he helped push through the first open Congressional Hearings
on the UFO question.

51. Personal conversation, McDonald to Epperson, 1968, and Epperson to author, 1969.
52. McDonald's letter to J. Allen Hynek, July 1970 (see Appendix Item 5-A, p. 7, page 532).
53. "Statement by James E. McDonald Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U.S. Senate Hearings on S. 2875," March 22, 1966.
54. Described in Valerie Vaughan's bibliography of McDonald's voluminous scientific works
as, "Self-published paper presented to the Washington, D.C., chapter of the American Mete-
orological Society (Oct. 19, 1966) and to the Department of Physics, University of Arizona
(Oct. 5, 1966), 4 pages."
156 FIRESTORM

But he also began to talk publicly on the subject of UFOs. On October 5,

1966, he conducted a scientific seminar for an overflow crowd at the university's
Department of Physics. Encouraged by this reception in home waters, two weeks
later he spoke on "The Problem of UFOs" to the Washington, D.C., chapter of
the AMS. In these seminal talks, he discussed in depth the discrepancies in
Project Blue Book and the "pat" answers being passed off to the public.
In this AMS talk, McDonald established the custom of distributing printed
summaries of his talks. He also sent these to his numerous correspondents. He was
going full speed ahead, and the scientific community was learning from a consum-
mate professional about UFOs—a subject which had previously been regarded as
"a fringe subject" and unworthy of attention.
 CHAPTER 8

Forays Into Other Lands

my life I wanted to roam, to go to the ends of the earth.

But the earth really ends where you started to roam,
And you and I know what a circle is worth....
—"We've Come a Long Way"

Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up

every preconceived notion, following humbly wherever and
to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
-—Thurley

his first public talk on the subject, McDonald spoke on "The

I T*| Problem of UFOs" before the AMS in Washington, D.C. He
explained to his scientific colleagues the true meaning of the
TU term "unidentified flying object." To him, UFOs meant veritable
"unknowns" described by credible and trained observers as machine-like
"craft," which remained unidentified in spite of careful investigation.
Only about 1% of the reports he had studied personally met this criterion.
He presented eight broad categories which various groups—ranging all
the way from arch-skeptics to "kooks"—were using to explain the
aktt reports:
Hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds;
uvj- X Hallucinations, mass hysteria, and rumors;
pCrMW Misinterpretations of well-known physical phenomena (meteorological,
uAC T ^ astronomical, optical, etc.);
Vvil'^t
4. Advanced Earth technologies (test vehicles, satellites, re-entry effects);
5. Poorly understood, rare atmospheric and electrical phenomena;
6. Psychic phenomena—psychic projections, archetypal images, (parapsycho-
logical phenomena);
7. Extraterrestrial probes;
8. "Messengers of salvation and occult truth"1

Firestorm -Ann Druffel

158 FIRESTORM

He pointed out that there was general agreement among objective UFO re-
searchers that the first four categories did, indeed, account for the majority of
reported "UFOs." "However, when such cases are eliminated, there remains a
still-sizable residuum of unexplained reports from credible observers," he stat-
ed. "Categories 5 and 6, to the extent that they constitute explanations in terms
of the still-unknown, were intrinsically difficult to handle in logical fashion....
I would emphasize that I now regard Category 6 as the only important alterna-
tive to Category 7."2
This was a most unexpected statement, considering the fact that he was
speaking before a large audience of "hard" scientists. He was saying that, if
true "unknowns" (UFOs) are not from an extraterrestrial source, the parapsy-
chological/psychic hypothesis was the next logical choice! Leaving that state-
ment to fend for itself, he proceeded further down his list of hypotheses:
"My own study of this problem has led me to the conclusion that Category
7 [ETH] now constitutes the least unsatisfactory hypothesis for accounting for
the intriguing array of credibly reported UFO phenomena that are on record
and that do not appear to fit acceptably into the first six cited categories." The
double negative he used demonstrates how carefully he had formed his hypoth-
esis. He could have just as easily stated that the ETH was "the most likely" or
"the most satisfactory," but he deliberately chose the more tentative phrase,
giving his colleagues no chance to accuse him of sloppy thinking.
In Category 6, however, he had referred to a startling concept, one which
only a few NICAP associates even considered tenable. Most veteran UFO re-
searchers living today don't even remember that he ever even referred to the
psychic/parapsychological hypothesis. To his mind, that category probably en-
compassed many possibilities which might fit into his term, "other-worldly."
As early as 1959, the famous psychologist, Dr. Carl G. Jung, had suggested
that UFOs were "archetypal" or psychic in nature, i.e., that they were "projec-
tions" formed by mental processes.3 McDonald had Jung's book on the UFO
subject in his own library, well-annotated.4 The fact that Jung had formed the
"archetypal image hypothesis" made it "respectable," although most objective

1. McDonald, James E., "The Problem of the Unidentified Flying Objects," Summary of a talk
given October 19, 1966, to the District of Columbia Chapter of the American Meteorologi-
cal Society, Wash., D.C., pp. 1-2. (See Appendix Item 8-F, page 545.)
2. Ibid., p. 2.
3. Jung, Dr. Carl G, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies, Translated
from the German by R. F. C. Hull, from the collected works of C. G. Jung, Volumes 10 and
18, Bollingen Series XX, NJ, Princeton University Press 1959.
4. Jung, Dr. Carl G, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies, NY, A Signet
Book, New American Library, paperback, 1969.
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 159

UFO researchers didn't ascribe to it. Toward the end of his life, even Jung him-
self stated that UFOs were most probably more physically real than he'd first
hypothesized.5
One of the very few colleagues in the UFO research field who remember
that McDonald initially listed the psychic/parapsychological hypothesis is Dr.
Berthold Eric Schwarz, a psychiatrist and veteran parapsychologist.6 He feels
that McDonald might have been criticized early on by certain colleagues for
his open statement of Category 6.
"To come out openly, especially in those days, for such a hypothesis
would have been considered very unscientific," says Schwarz. "But Jim's
mind was like that, completely open and scientific. He would read everything
and consider everything."7
Most of McDonald's scientific colleagues in sciences such as physics and
chemistry regarded parapsychology with scorn. To their minds it was equated
with "ghosts," "telepathy" and other "fringe subjects."8 A clue exists in his jour-
nal which might possibly throw light on this puzzle. Just before the AMS talk,
two friends warned him about safeguards he must take to preserve his credibility:
10/5 & 6/66 Tom Malone called twice re. my talk, concerned lest I go
too far. Also talked to Lou [Battan] about same.9
Although most of his professional colleagues scorned parapsychology,
there was one exception at the University of Arizona. Dr. Paul S. Martin, the
paleo-ecologist who was his friend and colleague from the mid-1950s onward,
relates: "There's a little bit of theory that says that's why prehistoric people
succeeded in hunting animals so well, that the human mind is able to reach
out," relates Dr. Martin. "It's not totally impossible that some people can com-
municate without direct contact. The case is always open; there's no exclusion
of that possibility."10

5. In the Foreword of the 1969 edition of Jung's book cited above, researcher Martin Ebon
points out that Dr. Carl Jung continued to refine his hypothesis regarding UFOs and by 1969
had stated, "If these things are real—and by all human standards it hardly seems possible to
doubt this any longer—then we are left with only two hypotheses: that of their weightless-
ness on the one hand and of their psychic nature on the other."
6. Schwarz, Berthold E., UFO Dynamics: Psychiatric <4 Psychic Aspects of the UFO Syn-
drome. Volumes I & II, Moore Haven, FL, Rainbow Books, 1983. This is the earliest com-
prehensive study of psychic and psychiatric components in UFO incidents and in the
witnesses reporting them.
7. Author's interview with Dr. Bert Schwarz, 24 January 1993.
8. In the three decades since McDonald's death, the existence of psychic phenomena was
slowly being accepted by some respected members of the scientific community.
9. McDonald, James E., second journal, p. 33.
160 FIRESTORM

The fact that telepathy was being studied in university labs such as Duke
University by pioneers like Dr. J. B. Rhine made no difference to most scien-
tists. It has never been clear precisely what McDonald was suggesting in his
own "Category 6." No known recording of the AMS talk exists. We have only
his hand-out summary to guide us. By "psychic projections" he probably
meant Jung's "archetypal images," but it is not known what he meant by the
broader term, "parapsychological phenomena."
McDonald dropped Category 6 from his list immediately after the AMS
talk and never referred openly to it again. He remained aware, as did many re-
searchers, that some credible witnesses reported paranormal phenomena in
their homes shortly before or after close encounters with UFOs. Some witness-
es "knew" that UFOs would appear and rushed out to see them, as if possibly
alerted by some type of ESP. Other equally credible witnesses state that their
automobiles had been levitated in the presence of UFOs, occurrences which
might fall loosely into the phenomenon of "psychokinesis" (PK). He seemed
fascinated by these "mass displacement" repeats, as he termed them, and de-
voted a separate file to them.11
McDonald was fearless in his search for knowledge, and was privately in-
terested in various aspects of parapsychology which had been studied by rea-
sonable people. These included PK, mental telepathy or ESP, materialization
and dematerialization. He read widely on the subject, just as he read voracious-
ly on numerous phenomena which are more deeply rooted in the physical
world. He never discussed parapsychology with his colleagues in atmospheric
physics. However, a few objective researchers in the UFO field, including
some scientists, shared this interest and, with them, he discussed the subject
freely. Isabel Davis, for example, had a large collection of books on psychic
research and parapsychology. She and McDonald had many long talks about
the subject, as well as with Dick and Marty Hall and Gordon Lore.
"Jim meant 'space craft' when he said 'extraterrestrial'," relates Dick Hall.
"But also he considered, I think, other dimensions and that sort of thing when
he mentioned 'not of this world.' He was very private about that...but I think
actually that's what he meant. We discussed parapsychology. He liked to talk
about lots of things."
Hall stresses, however, that their discussions about parapsychology were
never directly related to UFOs, but were treated as a separate subject. Al-

10. Interview with Dr. Paul S. Martin, 16 July 1994.

11. "Mass Displacement" case file in McDonald's Personal Collection, University of Arizona at
Tucson Library.
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 161

ways, McDonald's study of anything sprang from a need to study that subject
scientifically.
Probably McDonald dropped Category 6 from his list because he realized
the difficulty in presenting this particular hypothesis scientifically. In subsequent
talks, he sometimes added the phrase, "If UFOs are not extraterrestrial, they
might be something even more bizarre." He also substituted the "psychological"
hypothesis for Category 6 in subsequent talks, indicating that UFO sightings
might be some form of rare or as-yet-unknown psychological phenomenon.
"I think probably Hynek and I had some impact on his listing [Category 6
initially] as a possible hypothesis," states Jacques Vallee, for he and Allen
Hynek had discussed alternatives to the ETH before they first met McDonald
in June 1966.
"I said to Jim, 'Well, what if it's not extraterrestrial? Wouldn't that be even
more interesting?'" relates Vallee. "I don't want to put words in his mouth, but
he said something like, 'Yes, but for now the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the
least unsatisfactory hypothesis.' But he left the door open for other things.
"We didn't communicate [well]," relates Vallee. "And it's as much my
fault as his. When I say that.. .it can be real and not extraterrestrial, I don't nec-
essarily mean that it's psychic. There could be other physical things, that could
manifest in our physical environment."12 In other words, UFO phenomena ^ j
might be more than temporarily physical, when viewed by witnesses. " T h e y i | = j T
would be physical all the time," Vallee replies, "But we wouldn't have access • i f ^
to them with our science of today, except when they were in our environment." o ;
I
Vallee is not referring to the term "interdimensional" as it is commonly a-j-J |
used today. "One way to think about it would be 'interdimensional,' but the ,
metaphor that I try to use is watching television," Vallee replies. "You'd have s ?
a very hard time explaining it to a 17th Century scientist, that this image on a 3
television screen is actually going through all of us. The television picture is a ' f j f j
physical signal, an EM wave. It's not an interdimensional or psychic thing, tf
Now, to physicists in the 17th Century, or even in the 19th Century, that would t
make no sense whatsoever. They would say, 'You're just talking about diabol-
ical things, about the occult, about psychic stuff.' UFOs could be, among other « | | . f
things, another level of that concept. It could be a phenomenon... that knows = *
how to manipulate space and time. But that doesn't mean it's not physical. I ft.
could never get into that discussion with Jim McDonald. cJ
8 3 •»" «
"These things could be more than EM phenomena," Vallee continues. \ s f
"They could be more fundamental than that. And I don't want to pin it r ; h

12. Author's interview with Dr. Jacques Valine, 6 June 1994.

162 FIRESTORM

down...because there are many hypotheses that could be proposed here. There
are many similar examples in parapsychology, and it doesn't mean that it's
necessarily 'psychic stuff.' Although that kind of physical entity would prob-
ably be able to control a lot of effects in parapsychology, as well." 13
McDonald must have realized that it was going to be difficult enough to get
over to the scientific community that the UFO question itself was a serious prob-
lem. The ET hypothesis was a viable one, widely held by researchers in the field.
Unidentified physical "craft" were being photographed by reliable witnesses and
were being viewed by credible observers both visually and on radar. McDonald
decided to concentrate on physical data, hoping to obtain hard, physical evidence
of UFO reality.
Intrigued by the entrance of a top scientist into the UFO field, the pow-
erful American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) invited him to speak
at their spring 1967 annual meeting in Washington, D.C. There, he would be
addressing numerous individuals who could give the UFO subject serious
media coverage, an opportunity long sought by objective researchers.
At the ASNE meeting in April 1967, he shared the podium with arch-skep-
tic Dr. Donald Menzel, a prominent astrophysicist who had written widely on
the subject of UFOs. 14 Menzel was more than a scientific critic; he took up the
cudgel against McDonald in a slashing manner, using neither tact nor any sem-
blance of collegial courtesy (see Appendix Item 8-A, page 540). A verbal bat-
tle between the two scientists ensued, as McDonald tore Menzel's arguments
apart with cold logic.15 Without malice, McDonald stated, "He seemed to
calmly cast aside well-known scientific principles almost with abandon, in an
all-out effort to be sure that no UFO report survives his attack." He gave de-
tailed explanations why he considered Menzel's' claims erroneous.16 His me-
ticulous data contrasted sharply with Menzel's rationalizations (see Appendix
Item 8-B, page 541.)
Not even Menzel's bitter criticism could dissuade him, McDonald contin-
ued, urging the 500 editors of leading newspapers to do a better job of seriously

13. See also Vallee, Jacques, Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contact, NY, Contemporary
Books, 1988. This recent book gives a comprehensive view of Vallee's present hypothesis
on the UFO question.
14. Menzel, Donald H., Flying Saucers, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1953,
hardcover.
15. The first public debate between McDonald and Menzel was widely reported in newspapers
throughout the U.S. For example, "Scientists Clash On UFO Theory," Los Angeles Times.
16. McDonald, James E., "UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times?" (This paper was
prepared as a "hand-out" for the 1967 annual meeting of the American Society of Newspa-
per Editors, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1967, 28 pp. (See Appendix Item 8-G, page 546.)
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 163

investigating local cases, to get more of the good cases on the wire services and
to demand reasonable explanations for these cases from the USAF.
"Part of the problem is the 'half-life' of newspaper interest," he explained.
"The Air Force has repeatedly exploited this. They wait two to three days, then
come out with a nonsensical explanation, and nine out of ten times, the press
passes on to other news." 17 In this one paragraph, McDonald latched onto the
core of a serious media problem.
He also discussed the 1953 Robertson Report, particularly its recommenda-
tion that public interest in UFOs be reduced by an official policy of debunking.
He felt that the four-day panel study—under CIA sponsorship—was the turning
point for the current Air Force handling of UFOs. Dr. Howard Robertson, who
had been the panel's chairman, had died several years prior, but McDonald had
talked at length with Robertson's son, who was a medical doctor living in Arizo-
na. In doing so, McDonald began to realize that the Air Force had not merely se-
lected a scientist at random to head the panel, for the younger Dr. Robertson
emphasized all the DoD committees and panels his father had been on, before
and after the 1953 UFO panel. Much of his work with the government had been
io
classified and involved Air Force and DoD operations!
Speaking eloquently, McDonald brought many facets of UFO research to
the attention of the ASNE. He told the editors that UFO reports were not in ca-
pable hands with the Air Force, despite the assurances the media and the public
had been given for so many years. He concentrated on yet another point—his
deep concern for individual witnesses who had been caught up in the official
"debunking" policy:
[Responsible citizens have, in all good faith, reported significant en-
counters with unidentified objects at close range...only to have the
Pentagon press desk release official explanations in terms of "twin-
kling star'...and the like. I truly doubt that Air Force personnel can
have any notion of the bitterness they have created among persons
who have been made the butt of ridicule.19
Following the two scientists' clash before the ASNE, Donald Menzel con-
tinued to attack McDonald throughout the next four years. In a paper titled
"UFOs—the Modern Myth," he wrote, "McDonald's interviews [with hun-
dreds of] people who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatev-

17. Handwritten "ASNE Notes," from which McDonald gave his ASNE talk. In McDonald
Personal Collection, University of Arizona Library.
18. McDonald, James E., Notes in "Robertson Panel" file.
19. McDonald, James E„ "UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times?" p. 3. (See
Appendix Item 8-G, page 546.)
 164 FIRESTORM

er—except to confirm McDonald's well-known bias for the ETH and against
the Air Force and myself...." 20 Menzel's paper continued with similar unsci-
entific remarks.
Menzel continued flooding the media with examples of UFO reports
which he claimed to have solved. On television, he performed simplistic "sci-
entific experiments," which he presented as "proof' that UFOs were nothing
but refraction and/or reflection of light sources. UFOs, according to Menzel,
were all mirages and other optical phenomena. McDonald was well versed on
conventional phenomena in the atmosphere, including mirages. He knew that
Menzel's negative attitude had influenced Blue Book, for Menzel's theories
and writings were well known to Blue Book personnel. McDonald felt that
( Menzel had contributed to, and perhaps had even created, the "grand foul-up."
. He coined the word "Menzelian" to describe Menzel's inept explanations for
k
excellent, documented cases, and set about collecting his own accounts of air-
is, borne mirages to counter the arguments.
Menzel never had the grace to admit that McDonald solved most of the
"UFO" reports which came to his attention. The bitterness with which he treat-
ed McDonald passed all understanding. McDonald doubtless added to the fray
by expressing open amazement at what he considered Menzel's ignorance of
optical properties of the atmosphere. It was not until the 1980s that facts about
Menzel's "secret life" began to emerge, facts which might possibly explain the
astronomer's acrid attitude (See Chapter 14).
McDonald continued to investigate new, promising reports, re-investigat-
ed classic cases, and presented scores of talks before prestigious scientific
groups. Large crowds attended, for his scientific analysis of the problem im-
pressed many who had privately wondered about UFOs but who had been hes-
itant to express their interest. But scientists and newspaper editors weren't the
only ones who were listening.
Philip J. Klass, an electrical engineer and senior editor of the prominent
technical publication, Aviation Week and Space Technology, also became an
outspoken critic of McDonald. At first it seemed that he was taking an objec-
tive interest in the subject; in the mid-sixties Klass visited NICAP's Washing-
ton, D.C., Headquarters to read and study reports, just as McDonald himself
began to do in June 1966. Klass's and McDonald's correspondence at first was
on a cordial tone.

20. Menzel, Donald H., "UFO's— The Modern Myth", pp. 8-15. See Appendix Item 8-A,
page 540.)
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 165

Apparently he felt that he and Klass might be able to work effectively to-
gether. In September 1966, he wrote to him at Aviation Week, enclosing a "Let-
ter to the Editor" which was in response to an article by Klass in the August issue
titled "Plasma Theory May Explain Many UFOs." In it, Klass referred to the
"plasma hypothesis" that he was in the process of developing. "Plasmas" are es-
sentially balls of ionized gases, ranging in size from a few inches to a foot or so
diameter. This is the phenomenon which, in its natural state, is known as "ball
lightning" lasting from a few seconds to a few minutes. When produced in the
laboratory, they are very short-lived, and are termed "plasmas" or "plasmoids."
"Your opening up a discussion of the UFO problem in Aviation Week is an
excellent step," wrote McDonald to Klass. "As you'll see from my letter [to the
editor, attached], my own fairly extensive study of the matter, and my famil-
iarity with the meteorological and physical matters involved leads me to dis-
agree with the hypothesis you develop. It might account for a few cases,
but...most good UFO reports involve phenomena that cannot reasonably be
equated to any ball lightning or plasmoid processes."
The letter continued in a friendly fashion, with McDonald expressing the
hope that he and Klass might meet soon to discuss the matter further.21
Klass was not convinced. In the October issue of Aviation Week, he present-
ed another article on the same subject, the title of which was not at all tentative.
It was titled, "Many UFOs Are Identified as Plasmas." In a side bar, Klass at-
tempted to explain a NICAP case in which a huge UFO was detected on Air
Force radar and estimated by experienced military radar personnel to be "at least
as big as any of our larger transport planes." He "identified" this huge object as
a plasma. McDonald disagreed, mainly because the huge blip had remained in
place for over 30 minutes.
McDonald filed Klass's article, after having made handwritten notes on
the back, discussing scientific references which contradicted Klass's theory
and listing technical questions raised by Klass's explanation of the NICAP
case, such as, "Where could one get the energy to sustain [such a huge plas-
ma]?" See McDonald's notes, Appendix Item 8-C, page page 542 2 2
Jim Hughes, McDonald's ONR contract monitor, also agreed that Philip
Klass's mistakes were quite apparent.
"He made a lot of errors on his physics," relates Hughes. "He was an elec-
trical engineer, but he was never quite able to figure out the distinction between

21. Letter from McDonald to Klass, 28 September, 1966. Attached to this letter was a "Letter to
the Editor," bearing same date.
22. These notes are in McDonald's Personal Collection, U. of A. Library.
 166 FIRESTORM

the difference of electrical tensile and strength of atmospheric field. He was al-
ways getting those kinds of things confused. And McDonald pointed out some
of these errors to him." 23
In spite of public critics like Menzel and Klass, McDonald continued his
whirlwind research. Within a few weeks after his first trip to Blue Book, he'd
t taken on an arduous schedule of talks, given a briefing at NASA, met with
tf Nick Golovin, the President's scientific advisor, and recommended that the
* : Presidential office take a serious look at the UFO question. He had also con-
tacted the Director of the Office of Defense Research and Engineering, Dr.
ftSS^Finn J. Larsen, and urged him to review the matter. No part of the scientific
J
' community, the military or the government seemed closed to him. He had con-
tacts everywhere—most of whom seemed willing to help.
However, McDonald was not naive. He quickly realized that his recom-
mendations to Cruikshank, Cacioppo, and "DeGoes and Co." had not led to
any actual changes in Blue Book operation. He wrote to Philip Klass, before
the two men began to engage in open controversy:
"One salutary effect of my first visit to WPAFB [where Blue Book was
headquartered] was that Brig. Gen. Cruikshank put a colonel and two majors
onto the problem to find out whether my complaints had any substance," James
McDonald wrote. "But they've clammed up and I don't know what conclusions
they've reached. For reasons I could discuss if we can get together for a phone
call, I'm pessimistic about their changing their position."24
Project Blue Book had not only "clammed up"; McDonald was never giv-
en the consultancy he'd been promised. His briefing at NASA unlocked no
great interest, and no significant funding. He approached Dr. Gerard Kuiper, a
NASA scientist at the U. of A., hoping to share in NASA's annual $100,000
grant to the University. Kuiper agreed to consider McDonald's proposal, pro-
vided that he removed all reference to "non-terrestrial," and merely state he
was studying "unusual atmospheric phenomena." McDonald agreed, and was
granted $1,300 of NASA monies. This amount was minimal, but it permitted
him to conduct telephone interviews with witnesses in localities where he
could not travel.
Setbacks didn't seem to trouble him. After each reversal, he simply reached
out elsewhere. His talks were well received. Scientists, engineers and military
personnel approached him, divulging accounts of personal UFO sightings they'd
never reported. He respected their confidentiality, knowing that government and

23. Author's interview with James Hughes, 21 December 1994.

24. Letter from McDonald to Klass, 28 September 1966. See Ref. 21.
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 167

military personnel were liable to imprisonment and/or fines if they publicly re-
vealed involvement in UFO sightings. By this time, it had become apparent to
McDonald that a summer's study hadn't solved the UFO question. He continued
on, concentrating on UFOs whenever his schedule permitted. A short entry in his
journal reveals his two-edged life:
9/5/66: Nothing further in this direction (UFOs) for several weeks.
Spent latter on mainly non-UFO topics such as friction, plastic flow, ki-
netic theory, and 'stalloff on doing new ONR proposal and other
tasks ....In meantimefall term underway... several days on gas solubility
in water and ice. [About] Sept. 25 resumed review of UFO problem.25
McDonald's correspondence and other contacts with researchers nation-
wide grew to immense proportions and soon extended into other countries.
Australia, for example, had several active UFO research organizations. One of
the largest was the Victorian UFO Research Society of Melbourne (VUFORS).
Its public relations officer was an engineer, Paul Norman. Peter Norris was the
president, Geoffrey Rumpf vice president, and Judith Magee was secretary.
Many of their excellent reports had been reprinted in U.S. and European re-
search journals.
Paul Norman corresponded with McDonald shortly after his public en-
trance into the field, and the two exchanged UFO reports and other materials.
McDonald became aware of the mine of information awaiting re-investigation
in Australia, and the prospect intrigued him. He wondered if Australian sight-
ings were basically the same as those reported from America or if they differed
in some significant way.
In early May 1967 Paul Norman came to the U.S. to see relatives and also
to visit McDonald in Tucson. Norman first visited J. Allen Hynek and Jacques
Vallee in Chicago, principally to discuss a couple of UFO photos which had been
taken by reliable witnesses in Australia. He then went on to Boulder, Colorado,
where he met with some of the staff of the Condon Committee, for Condon's
staff also had interest in cases worldwide.
Norman brought key Australian cases with him, discussed them in an
eight-hour meeting, and let Condon's staff photocopy them. The next day, a
Saturday, he discussed the cases for another ten hours with Dr. Dave Saunders,
a psychologist on Condon's staff, then went on to Tucson where he spent the
rest of that weekend with McDonald. The scientist was his usual cordial self,
inviting Norman for one of Betsy's special dinners. He listened closely to Nor-
man's description of his two days at Boulder and recorded the information.

25. McDonald, James E., second journal, p. 31.

168 FIRESTORM

Like everyone else in the UFO community, McDonald was vitally interested
in how the Condon Committee was progressing. Like Paul Norman, all were
sharing their best data, at Condon's specific request. McDonald himself had
sent a list of "100 best" cases to Condon, recommending that at least some of
them be re-investigated (See Chapter 12).
"If I come to Australia," McDonald asked Norman, "will you line up
some of these people for me, the good cases?" 26 Norman gladly agreed.
When he arrived back in Australia he immediately began setting up arrange-
ments for McDonald's planned visit.
McDonald had also arranged, through correspondence with U Thant, the
UN Secretary General, to speak before an influential UN group in New York. On
June 5,1967, a Middle East war broke out, necessitating U Thant's absence from
McDonald's talk. It didn't dissuade McDonald, however, and on June 7th he ad-
dressed the UN's Outer Space Affairs Committee. In a follow-up letter to U
Thant, McDonald stated his concern that the number of credibly reported, low-
level sightings of machine-like objects might possibly constitute some type of
extraterrestrial probe 2 7 U Thanlf himself had confided to friends that he consid-
ered UFOs the most important problem facing the United Nations, next to the
war then raging in Vietnam 2 8
McDonald's work for the Office of Naval Research (ONR) sometimes
took him to other countries for meetings, consultancies and participation in
joint research projects. He had commitments in Australia in June 1967 and
checked first with Jim Hughes to be sure he would be free to investigate UFOs
in his spare time in Australia and New Zealand. Although Hughes had been un-
able to get "UFO research" written into any of McDonald's ONR contracts, an
understanding had emerged which was known to Hughes's superiors. There
was always the possibility that information could be gained on atmospheric op-
tics, radar propagation, and atmospheric electricity from a careful study of se-
lected UFO sightings. James Hughes clarifies the official ONR position:
"I did not support any UFO research," Hughes states. "I supported McDonald
on a contract to do cloud physics, and he was doing cloud physics, and he was
working on nucleation of cloud vapor. But McDonald had many interests, and
UFOs was one of them. He used to tell me about them, and I was glad to listen.
But I didn't support any of that research. The research we supported was strictly
on cloud physics."

26. Author's interview with Paul Norman, 22 May 1994.

27. Letter from McDonald to U Thant, dated 5 June 1967.
28. Pearson, Drew, "Skyborne Mystery Objects Are High on U.N. Agenda," Los Angeles Times,
June 27, 1967.
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 169

McDonald felt he was walking a tightrope, but Jim Hughes' tolerance

made the situation endurable. The openness with which he arranged his UFO
studies in conjunction with his ONR trips and projects is illustrated by a letter
which he wrote to Russell L. Lathrop, of the Pasadena, Calif., ONR branch of-
fice. In it, he asked approval for a planned trip to Washington, openly stating
his intent to discuss the UFO problem to Navy groups.
The primary purpose of the trip is to present to the ONR staff a sum-
mary of the findings of my recent investigations of the UFO problem,
with special emphasis on Navy-related aspects. I am speaking to ONR
on the 18th. Jim Hughes has also set up a talk on the 19th at NRL [Na-
vy Research Lab], and is making inquiries about possible interest in
this topic at a couple of other Navy facilities. I'm also hoping to talk
to USAF people while there....
This letter also asked Lathrop if the Pasadena Office would be interested in
having him come to give a briefing as well. He was^slated to go out to Southern
California to brief personnel at RAND Corporation about UFOs, and McDonald
wished to do both on the same trip. He suggested that Lathrop inquire if Naval
personnel in the area would be interested in joining an ONR briefing. Certainly,
he could not have been more open with the Navy.
He confirmed his Australia and New Zealand travel plans with Paul Nor-
man; research groups in those two countries worked together eagerly to make
his visit worthwhile. About a hundred of the best cases were selected, and the
witnesses made plans to be interviewed either in person or by phone, at several
meetings set up in various cities "down under."
McDonald's visit began on June 24, 1967. His first stop was in Auckland
where, on his own time, he interviewed New Zealand and Tasmanian witness-
es and met with top researchers in that area, including Henk and Brenda Hin-
felaar, Directors of the New Zealand Scientific Space Research (NZSSR). He
also met with Tony Brunt, a top journalist, and with Harold Fulton, founder
and Director of CSI (NZ). 29
"We met Jim McDonald at Auckland Airport, knowing that we had about
seven hours in which to cover a lot of territory," Brenda Hinfelaar relates. "In
the space of a few hours, he impressed us all with his total honesty, absolute
sincerity, and sheer dogged dedication to the task he had set himself." 30
He shared with them the shock he'd felt at the bungling incompetence at
Blue Book. "This was a major shock to us at the time, as from our distance

29. McDonald, James E„ third journal, "N. Z." Section.

30. Letter from Brenda Hinfelaar to author, dated 20 September 1994.
170 FIRESTORM

from the scene, we tended to believe that 'Project Bluebook' must at least be
serious," Hinfelaar states. "We spent the day at Tony Brunt's home, as Jim
talked by phone with some major New Zealand witnesses.... We managed to
skip lunch and survived on endless coffee! But I still remember a lovely meal,
eventually, shared with a man who was in all ways a gentleman, with a brilliant
mind and a heart bursting with the need to find the truth, and present it in ser-
vice to mankind. My personal view, at that time, and now, is that his humility,
and graciousness, allied with a mind of true scientific brilliance, was the mea-
sure of a very rare man."31
When they saw him off at the airport on his way to Sydney, however,
Brenda Hinfelaar had an instinctive feeling that all would not be well with him.
"My most lasting memory is standing on the tarmac at the airport, as we fare-
welled him onto the plane, with the tears streaming down my face, and a great
pain inside, as I knew full well that...this too-honest man [would not live] to
achieve his goal."
Upon his arrival at Mascot Airport in Sydney, TV, radio and newspaper re-
porters were waiting for him. McDonald ignored them, for he had notified all his
Australian contacts that he didn't want to do any mass media interviews until af-
ter he had investigated most of the cases which had been lined up for him. How-
ever, certain members of the Sydney branch of Unidentified Flying Object
Investigations Centre (UFOIC) had failed to abide by his wishes. A scientific
colleague of McDonald's was also at the airport to meet him. They greeted each
other heartily and began to talk earnestly with each other. Dr. M. Lindtner, UFO-
IC's President, grasped McDonald by the arm.
"Professor McDonald, we have the press here for interviews," Lindtner in-
formed him.
"I don't want an interview at this time," McDonald said.
"But we have them here!" persisted Lindtner.
"There's only one thing you can do about that," replied McDonald.
"Cancel it." 32
Lindtner tried to make the best of a difficult situation. "We have been cor-
responding with Dr. McDonald," Lindtner explained to the media. "He told us
he wanted to meet people who have seen unidentified flying objects." He brief-
ly outlined the plans the Centre had made to facilitate interviews of primary
witnesses.

31. Ibid.
32. Letter from Paul Norman to author, 18 October 1994.
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 171

A reporter from the Sun-Herald persisted, trying to interview McDonald.

"I have nothing to say," he bluntly told the reporter. "I have certain ob-
jectives and it is not my habit to talk about them until they are accom-
plished."
"Do you consider Australia a fertile country for flying saucer sightings?"
pressed the reporter.
"Do you think the press will treat this matter seriously?" McDonald
countered. 33
The reporter wrote an article in the Sun-Herald 6f June 25th, using the
scant information available. It stated that Dr. M. Lindtner, was "surprised and
embarrassed by Professor McDonald's secrecy." The article went on to state,
in a bold sub-title: "A top American scientist flew into Sydney last night on a
'secret mission' to investigate unidentified flying objects in Australia'." The
article mentioned "secrecy" and "secret mission" twice, a distinctly erroneous
slant.34 It was not a secret mission; neither did he plan to work in secrecy. The
Sun-Herald article also contained a peculiar large-font subtitle reading "Govt,
grant," but the article contained no explanation of this, and there was no men-
tion of the ONR projects which permitted him to travel to Australia in the first
place (see Appendix Item 8-D, page 543). This enigmatic subtitle foreshad-
owed a dreadful blow that was waiting in the wings.
The requests for media interviews continued unabated during his visit. He
refused all requests, preferring to use his precious spare time gathering infor-
mation first hand, judging the reliability of the witnesses and collecting data
which might possibly be correlated scientifically. He promised to answer the
media's questions at the airport on the day of his departure. He met all of his
ONR responsibilities, with his usual expertise; he attended meteorological
meetings and participated in other professional projects. Then, on his own time
he interviewed, by telephone and in person, 80 individual witnesses. He con-
centrated more on Victoria and Queensland, since the incident at the Mascot
Airport had soured relations somewhat with the Sydney group. In each city, lo-
cal research groups facilitated his access to witnesses and fielded incessant
queries from the media.
He consulted with numerous veteran researchers, including Peter Norris,
Ian McLaren, Roy Russell and Stan Seers among others. Brisk exchanges of
views lasted far into the night. The Australian research groups were like
NICAP—hard-working and serious. They found him serious and intense when

33. The Sun-Herald, June 25,1967.

34. Ibid
172 FIRESTORM

interviewing witnesses, but cordial and good-humored when he stopped to so-

cialize a bit. When meal times approached, McDonald would say, "That's
enough about UFOs for now. Let's talk about our families."
"I remember when he was talking to us socially, he'd laugh," relates Paul
Norman of VUFORS. McDonald's sense of humor got the better of him at least
twice. When describing the staff personnel of Project Blue Book, McDonald
lightheartedly remarked, "At Blue Book there was a sergeant, a secretary, and a
trash bin!" On another occasion, McDonald merrily described the process by
which "explanations" were conceived at Blue Book. "When the Sergeant
couldn't decide which 'explanation' to choose and which cabinet to file them
in," he quipped, "he'd turn his back, throw the files up in the air, and on whatever
cabinet each one landed, that was the 'explanation' assigned to it, and he'd file
them in that cabinet."35
These descriptions of Blue Book procedure was outlandish, of course, but
McDonald was using his impish humor to illustrate the unforgivable neglect
by the USAF of a serious scientific question. But someone on the other side of
the Pacific was listening.
In Melbourne, Paul Norman drove him to some of his meteorological
meetings. Then, when each day's professional work was done, McDonald
spent most of his remaining waking hours re-investigating the UFO cases
which the VUFORS had selected.
"He was making a difference," relates Paul Norman. "He was getting to
science, he was getting to the public.... He had more energy and a keener mind
than a lot of them put together. He was up early every morning, recording peo-
ple. He not only was recording; he was taking notes at the same time, witnesses
as far away as Perth... [W]e had him lined up on these good cases so he could
discuss the details of each case with them on the phone."
While in Australia, McDonald began his third journal, a green loose-leaf
10" x 11.5" notebook with 165 handwritten pages. It includes maps of Austra-
lia and New Zealand and shows the precise location of the cities he visited in
each country. In it, he listed the research organizations, names and addresses
of scientists, researchers and witnesses, as well as a list of things he had to ac-
complish when he returned home to Tucson! After the "Melbourne" tab in this
journal is a list of "Cases Selected"—16 classic Australian cases. He also cited
the tape numbers on which the interviews had been recorded. The rest of this
third journal is just as precise—handwritten notes on dozens of cases in other

35. Author's interview with Betsy McDonald, 11 January 1993.

FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 173

cities, conversations with researchers, addresses and phone numbers, all ar-
ranged impeccably.
McDonald showed other sides of his nature to a few of his Australian col-
leagues. He confided to Paul Norman that not all scientists in the United States
were listening, including many at the University of Arizona—his own home
base. He was not complaining about his colleagues' lack of support but merely
discussing facts. "He realized he was influencing many in the scientific commu-
nity through his efforts and he had hopes that the UFO question would soon be
taken seriously," says Norman. "He had faith that the Condon Committee would
come to the conclusion that the problem had been neglected by science."
McDonald was always on the lookout for cases where some type of possible
physical evidence had been obtained. In Australia and New Zealand, three UFO
photo cases had surfaced. McDonald valued these, for they had been thoroughly
investigated by Australian researchers and judged most probably genuine.
One series of pictures had been taken on March 5th, 1967, by a 15-year old
boy, John Coyle. He and his sister Miriam, 13, were walking on a clear, cloudless
day toward a wooded area 3/4 mile from their home. The time was about 5:30
P.M. John was carrying his first camera—a 950 Anny. The winding knob was
jamming, so John decided to use up the film shooting pictures of trains on nearby
tracks. He then planned to take the roll of film to be developed and get the camera
fixed at the same time. As they approached the wooded area, a glint of light in
the southeast caught Miriam's eye. She glanced over and saw a silvery object
moving very fast. She thought at first it was a plane but quickly realized that its
appearance was very different and called her brother's attention to it. John hadn't
seen the original glint, but he viewed the object as it quickly came closer—the
teenagers could not estimate the distance. It was weaving up and down "in a
peculiar way" as it circled them repeatedly at about 45° elevation. The bottom
of the UFO was dark, and the top was an "aluminum" color. It slowed while
circling; they estimated it took about ten seconds per revolution and circled
them about seven times. Then it went off toward the west, sped up and in 4-7
seconds was gone. John took six photos of the object as it approached and also
as it circled. His last picture was taken when the object was almost out of sight.
Judith Magee and Paul Norman took McDonald to the sighting location,
where he interviewed John and Miriam. He staked off the position from where
John Coyle had photographed the object and later measured the shadows of a
fence post and nearby trees. He confirmed that John was standing where he'd
said he was when he photographed the object.
174 FIRESTORM

FIGURE 10. John Coyle's photograph of a dark rim around a UFO.

When the photos were enlarged, a dark rim could be seen around the object
during its nearest approach (see Figure 10). John, however, had not been aware
of seeing this dark rim. McDonald doubtless found the dark rim very interest-
ing. He'd been working for over a year with the Los Angeles NICAP Subcom-
mittee, participating in the study of a set of UFO photos from Santa Ana, Calif.,
which also involved a blackish ring (see Chapter 12). McDonald was given
copies of Coyle's photos to bring back to the States.
"McDonald analyzed the Coyle photos," states Paul Norman. "They re-
main unknown." 36
Another Australian photo case was the Drury movie film, which had been
investigated by a Queensland team. One of the main things which intrigued him
about this film was the fact that most of the frames had reportedly been confis-
cated by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Film confiscation cases were
of special interest to him because NICAP researchers whom McDonald respect-
ed thought they confirmed the "cover-up" hypothesis.
The Drury film was taken in Port Moresby, New Guinea, on August 23,
1957, by Thomas C. Drury, Deputy Director of the Australian Department of

36. Letter from Paul Norman to author, dated August 30,1994.

FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 175

Civil Aviation. His wife Marjorie, and son Paul were also witnesses. Drury,
who was interested in meteorology, had noticed a cloud which was forming
rapidly in an otherwise cloudless sky. Fascinated, he filmed it intermittently
for several minutes with color film in his French 8-mm movie camera. Sudden-
ly, a bullet-shaped metallic object emerged from the cloud, traveling at very
high speed, trailing a thick vapor behind as it disappeared into the distance. In
spite of the comparative nearness of the object, no sound was heard. Marjorie
Drury and her son Paul saw the bullet-shaped object but do not recall seeing
the cloud from which it emerged.37
The Drury film was examined first by the Australian Air Force and then
sent to Project Blue Book. Blue Book sent it back after a period of time, with-
out comment. The part of the film which showed the developing cloud, the
emerging object, and the clearest frames of the object were missing. In spite of
repeated attempts by Drury and Australian researchers to recover the missing
portions, they were never recovered.
In his re-investigation of this intriguing case, McDonald tried several times
to reach Drury at his work. Even though his path had been paved by Melbourne
researchers, Drury did not return his calls. Finally, McDonald reached Maijorie
Drury on July 9. She told McDonald she didn't wish to discuss the sighting, be-
cause she had seen only the "very beginning." She referred him back to her hus-
band. McDonald persisted, but was still unable to reach him; apparently Drury
traveled widely in his job and remained unavailable. Finally, through the persis-
tence of Stan Seers, President of the Queensland Flying Saucer Research Bureau,
McDonald succeeded in getting a longer phone interview with Mrs. Drury. His
journal relates.
When failed to get Drury Monday A.M. 7/10/67, called her again (from
Sydney - no tape.) Pressed her for details. She was emphatic re the
point that she never saw a "cloud. " When she first saw it come she
perceived a "silver bullet," streaking upwards, at very high speed,
leaving a vapor-trail behind it.38
"I can still see it," emphasized Marjorie Drury, warming up a bit to
James McDonald. "I saw it from the start as a bullet, not in a cloud. In fact,
I didn't see any clouds in the sky at all.

37. Other incidents of unidentified objects emerging from unusual small clouds have been
reported by reliable witnesses. Mrs. Idabel Epperson, who was chairman of LANS from
1968 to 1973, reported seeing a silvery object emerge from a small cloud and dash west
across the daytime sky. The small cloud instantly vanished. Possibly something of this
nature occurred in the Drury case, explaining why Mrs. Drury and son Paul did not see the
cloud their father photographed.
38. McDonald's third journal, "NZ" section.
176 FIRESTORM

"What about the vapor trail associated with the object?"

"It wasn't a cloud," she replied. "The 'bullet' at all times was ahead of the
trail. And it was going fast! It was going hell bent for leather, climbing up-
wards. There were no wings or other appendages," she stressed. "It was just
like a bullet."
McDonald tentatively asked her if the object could have been an unfamil-
iar type of aircraft. Mrs. Drury was emphatic. "I've been around aircraft all my
life, and I know it was no aircraft!"
She asserted that [she],..was 'busy with other things after that.' (I did
not press her on that.) She evidently wished to leave all the rest of the
account to him. She had stated to me (as yesterday to Stan Seers) that
Mr. Drury "does not live here anymore," and it was awkward to press
on details involving him 39
McDonald was a tenacious, expert interviewer, but he realized that Mrs.
Drury's privacy was being violated. He phoned Drury's office again, pointing
out to his assistant, a Mr. Smith, that researcher Stan Seers of the Physics De-
partment of the University at Brisbane had arranged with Drury to talk with
him by phone between 9:00 and 9:30—in other words, now! Smith said Drury
wasn't there but he would see what he could do when he returned.
A meeting was finally set up. When the two men finally met face-to-face,
Drury was deeply upset, because all attempts to force the RAAF to return the
pilfered frames had failed. Paul Norman described the meeting, as he heard
about it from another Australian researcher.
"Drury was blowing his top when he was telling McDonald how the
film came back to Australia with several of the frames missing," relates
Paul Norman. 40
Norman kindly sent information about the Drury film for purposes of this
book, as did Roy Russell, who interviewed Drury's son, Paul. Paul Drury was
only eight years old at the time of the sighting and does not remember the cloud
from which the object emerged, only a trail near and behind it. The object's ap-
parent length was about 1/4" at arm's length, and the thickness at arm's length
was that of "a dressmaker's pin near the point." Although the object was small,
it was clearly seen; it glinted in the sun ahead of its vaporous trail. As the fam-
ily drove away in their car a half hour after the incident, Paul could still see the
trail in the cloudless sky.

39. Ibid.
40. Computer image analyses of one Drury movie film frame obtained with Paul Norman's
help concluded that it was too indistinct to yield any reliable or interesting information.
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 177

The Drury movie film, as it exists today, is only 11" long—about four sec-
onds' viewing time. Yet Maijorie Drury, who was also re-interviewed by Roy
Russell, estimates that her husband filmed the object on and off for about 10
minutes. Paul Drury concurs that his father filmed the event "for quite some
time." When the Drury film was sent to the RAAF, and later to Blue Book, it
was part of a roll 50 feet in length, with one join in the center at the 25-foot
mark.41 When the film was tracked down in the Drury family home in 1994, it
had been connected onto other family film and was in a collection of family
movies that hadn't been disturbed for years. Russell describes how the "New
Guinea" reel starts with a join, where it's joined onto other family film. Shot
(1) of the reel is of Tom Drury on a beach with children. Other segments fol-
low, but the day of the sighting starts with Shot (2) of a young Papuan spearing
fish. Shot (3) is of a similar nature.
Shot (4) is of the (about) 4-second segment of the UFO. Shot (5) is a
close-up of some foliage. After this... the next join in the film occurs.
The point is, no joins occur anywhere near the UFO segment, suggest-
ing that Drury filmed the UFO for only the four seconds, since there
are no joins to suggest that anything was ever cut out. But Paul and
his mother say that he filmed it for quite some time....42
Russell, an experienced and canny researcher, suggests a possible answer
to the puzzle, pointing to the fact that, on the day of sighting, at least two other
subjects, including a Papuan man spearing fish, were also on the 50-foot roll
which included the UFO incident:
[Ijt seems to me that...Drury sent the whole roll of film to the author-
ities (50 feet), that they cut out all the good shots, joined the film to-
gether again and then made a copy of the entire patched-up roll, and
sent it back to Drury as his "original" film. Therefore, not a join in
sight. This way, Drury could never seriously claim that his film had
been cut, since there are no join marks to be seen. This theory seems
the only way to explain the shooting time observed by the witnesses,
and the short "no joins " UFO segment on the film.43
The four-second segment which Blue Book returned to Drury shows only a
streak of light moving across the sky, no unusual cloud, no bullet-shaped UFO
emerging, no close-up frames of the UFO. Russell's report continues:

41. Letter and "Drury Report" from Roy Russell to author, 20 October 1994.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
178 FIRESTORM

Paul says his father, when the film was returned, was very angry.
Then, when a Port Moresby newspaper printed something about Tom
Drury seeing something through the bottom of an upturned rum bottle,
his father clammed up for good.44

FIGURE u. Jim Kibel's photograph of UFO flipped onto its lower edge.

Shutting up witnesses through ridicule was apparently used in Australia,

.too! And it was not the first time that Project Blue Book (or someone) had
snipped the best frames from UFO footage. It had happened in the Newhouse
case, now a UFO classic. That film attracted the attention of the highest mili-
tary officials, including General Samford, ATIC and the Navy.

44. Letter from Russell to author, op. cit.

FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 179

"The [Newhouse] film raised 'ned' at the Pentagon," Donald E. Keyhoe

wrote in his book, Flying Saucers From Outer Space. "General Samford had it
run for him three times."45
It was closely analyzed at a Navy photo lab where the speed of the whirl-
ing objects was calculated at 1,000 miles an hour. In 1952, no nation on Earth
had any type of aircraft in production which could fly at that speed, much less
make tight turns around other objects while flying in close formation.
Judging from incidents like these, it had become clear to most UFO re-
searchers that some group in government, or in the Air Force itself, was hiding
the best UFO data as it surfaced. But even Drury's experience failed to con-
vince McDonald of a cover-up, for he was seeking incontrovertible and scien-
tifically verifiable proof. Forging ahead on his incredible schedule down
under, he interviewed selected UFO witnesses every available hour, slept only
three or four hours a night, and pushed himself to complete his research before
his date for departure arrived. He kept careful track of each phone call he made
on UFO matters and paid the costs from his own pocket.
He also interviewed the witness in the classic Balwyn UFO photo case,
which had been written up widely in UFO literature. On April 2, 1966, James
J. Kibel was supervising alterations at his parents' home in Australia. He de-
cided to use up the film in his Polaroid 800 camera in the beautiful garden.
The film was so old, the witness told McDonald, that it "was of altered speed."
Kibel tried one shot, which turned out badly. He adjusted the speed setting.
Suddenly he noticed a bright flash on the ground. Although it was full day-
light, half of the garden lit up. Startled, he looked up and saw a peculiar shiny
object descending downward. The top was shaped like a bell, and a "stalk" pro-
jected from the bottom. The object bounced up and down in "yo-yo" fashion.
Kibel had similar difficulty describing how far the object descended. "Two
hundred to three hundred feet," he estimated. "It's terribly hard to say." 46
It was a warm, sunny day with a strong northerly wind gusting to 30
m.p.h., yet the wind seemingly had no effect on the object's bouncing mo-
tion. At one of its descents, the object suddenly stopped and flipped up onto
its lower edge. It hovered a half-second and Kibel hastily shot a photo (see
Figure 11). In his haste and excitement, the camera hit his nose so hard that
it hurt afterwards! He lowered his camera; he was unable to shoot again im-
mediately because the color Polaroid film demanded a 60-second wait be-
tween pictures. McDonald's journal continues:

45. Keyhoe, Maj. Donald E„ New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1953, pp. 152-53,220.
46. McDonald, James E., op. cit., "Melbourne" section, "Balwyn Photo" entry.
180 FIRESTORM

Rolling to the north, it then seemed to lose a bit of altitude, maybe 15-
20feet. At bottom of drop, itjerked violently upwards 30-40feet at an-
gle 30° to horizontal. Then curved over and accelerated at very great
rate. Disappeared behind trees.47
Kibel ran around the house trying to find other witnesses, meanwhile pull-
ing the film in the Polaroid to start the developing process. A workman, Mr. D.
English, was bending down in the yard; he had seen nothing. Kibel pulled the
picture out, startled by the clarity of the photo. He looked for other witnesses,
but could find none. It was an exclusive neighborhood where not many people
spent time outside, he explained. He told McDonald that the object, in his opin-
ion, was definitely "manufactured" and that its motions were "mechanical." He
estimated its size between 15-25 feet diameter.
Jim Kibel had seen two other UFOs from that same garden, when he was
still living at home. In late afternoon in August 1954, at the age of 15, his mother
had called him suddenly into the garden to view a disc which was flipping in the
sky, showing alternately a shiny side and a dull, dark bottom. Its angular size was
equal to an Australian ten-cent piece at arm's length, very much larger than the
moon. Mrs. Kibel reported the object to the staff of a Melbourne paper, who rid-
iculed her, suggesting she'd been drinking too much! After a sighting in 1958
which was also witnessed by his fiancee, Jim Kibel reported it to Peter Norris of
VUFORS, whom he knew personally. Remembering the ridicule his mother had
sustained, he didn't report it to anyone else. McDonald wrote in his journal "All
Jim Kibel knows is that the objects were definitely there."48
The Melbourne-based VUFORS gave McDonald a reception, which was
attended by numerous researchers, scientists and engineers. Around this time,
he had an opportunity to interview Fr. William B. Gill, an Anglican priest
whose 1959 sighting at Boainai, in Papua. New Guinea, was also a classic case.
The Gill case was intriguing to McDonald, not only because it involved an An-
glican priest of impeccable reputation and dozens of other witnesses, but also
because the sighting lasted more than three hours. The VUFORS had sent him
a comprehensive report of the case which they had prepared.
The Fr. Gill-Papua case has been written about in many books and jour-
nals, and Gill's sketches of the object appeared in NICAP's UFO Evidenced
The fact that NICAP had chosen to include Fr. Gill's sketch in spite of that re-
search organization's extreme care not to concentrate on "humanoid" reports,

47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. For instance, Hynek, J. Allen, The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry, Chicago, Henry
Regnery Company, 1972, pp. 146-50.
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 181

confirms the high regard in which Fr. Gill was held. The sighting occurred dur-
ing an intense but relatively short period of UFO activity over eastern New
Guinea, during which UFOs were viewed by Europeans, by educated Papuans,
and also by unschooled natives who were totally unaware of the Western con-
cept of "flying saucers."
Fr. William B. Gill was one of the 80 witnesses whom Australian research-
ers had lined up for McDonald to interview. Within a short time after meeting
him, McDonald was calling him "Bill." He gave McDonald a carbon copy of his
detailed report of the sighting including sketches of the objects and a map of the
site. This carbon copy had original signatures of 13 of the 25 witnesses, all 13
educated to differing degrees (see Appendix Item E, page 544.) McDonald was
impressed by Fr. Gill's objectivity, precise description, and detailed affidavit. He
avoided any witnesses who put any kind of religious or "salvation" meaning into
their UFO sightings, but Fr. Gill had no such interpretation.
Just hours before the sighting of June 26, 1959, occurred, Fr. Gill had sent
a letter to a friend at a neighboring mission about the UFOs that were being
seen in eastern New Guinea. He wrote, in part, "my simple mind still requires
scientific evidence before I can accept the from-outer-space theory. I am in-
clined to believe that probably many UFOs are more likely some form of elec-
tric phenomena or perhaps something brought about by the atom bomb
explosions, etc." The day after the June 26th sighting, Fr. Gill wrote to this
same friend. "Last night we at Boainai experienced about 4 hours of UFO ac-
tivity, and there is no doubt whatsoever that they are handled by beings of some
kind. At times it was absolutely breathtaking...." 50
At the time he met McDonald, Fr. Gill had resigned from the Papuan mis-
sion and was teaching history and English at Camberwell Grammar School
near Melbourne. McDonald's journal contains numerous handwritten notes of
their interview and the original recording and typed transcript are in his files.
Fr. Gill described how he had seen a large lighted object hovering over the
ocean, fairly close to the mission playing field. It was dull yellow or pale or-
ange in color with what he described as a "sparkling halo." When it moved oc-
casionally, it glowed very bright. Its apparent size was that of a hand-span at
arm's length; its features were clearly visible. There were four other lighted
objects of similar shape which hovered in the sky at greater distances. Fr. Gill
asked two of his mission helpers, including Stephen Moii a college graduate
and mission teacher, to confirm the object, then called other witnesses. The
group watched the objects from the beach.

50. Hynek, op. cit.

182 FIRESTORM

Because Fr. Gill and a group of his parishioners had seen a similar object
the night before, though not so close, he decided to keep a journal of events. At
7:00 P.M., two humanoid figures, seen from the waist up, appeared on the flat
top of the UFO. Shortly afterwards, a shaft of blue light emanated from the top
of the object at about a 45° angle, and two other "men" appeared on the "deck."
At one stage, one witness waved a flashlight, and one of the humanoids waved
back. Then several of the witnesses waved, and the humanoids responded with
more waves; at one time all four of the figures on top of the UFO were waving.
McDonald's journal continues, revealing his penchant for exact details:

Seemed to be a space between the object & the [sparkling] glow or halo
that traced its periphery. Same with the figures. [The space was] clear
or dark. Sparkles were perhaps afoot long & dark space about same.51
McDonald needed a precise description of the "glow" or "sparkling halo"
Gill had seen around the object, because Dr. Donald Menzel had thought up an
explanation—that Fr. Gill and the other witnesses had been watching the plan-
et Venus! Menzel insisted that since Venus was bright in the west on the date
of sighting and was not mentioned by the witnesses that naturally they'd seen
Venus! Menzel had also assumed that Fr. Gill was both myopic and astigmatic,
was not wearing his glasses while watching the objects, and so had seen Venus
as a large, elongated blur. Menzel had also assumed the Papuan witnesses
imagined the "men on top." 52
From Gill's precise descriptions, McDonald satisfied himself that Fr. Gill
and the others were not watching "Venus." It was also proven that Fr. Gill's
eyesight was corrected by glasses and that he was wearing them at the time.
Gill told McDonald that he had the firm impression that the central "figure" on
the top of the object was bending over and that one of the "fellows" just seemed
to be looking down at the people on the beach. Fr. Gill couldn't see a rail
around the flat, top "deck" of the UFO, but it was as if this being was leaning
over a rail. The central figure was bent over as if working on something. Most
of the time, however, the "figures" didn't seem to pay much attention to the
witnesses on the beach.
At 9:30 P.M. when the object finally moved away at high speed, its color
changed from white to deep red, then to blue-green. As it disappeared through
a cloud layer, it caused a bright glow on the clouds; the other four more distant
UFOs disappeared at different times. None of the other four objects had any
trace of "beings," not even the second largest, which Fr. Gill referred to as "B"

51. McDonald, op. cit. "Rev. Wm. B. Gill," Melbourne section.

52. Menzel, Donald H„ "Analysis of the Papua-Father Gill Case," December 20, 1967, Appen-
dix 2 in Hynek, op. cit., cited above, p. 241.
i-IDftft- sysVe1*' Q-f^ ^V*"* & i g^^Qf /u
FORAYS INTO OTHER L A N D S 183

in his affidavit. "B" was close enough to the observers that five panels of bright
"windows" could be discerned on its edge.53 Fr. Gill related the events from
memory to McDonald, admitting that he had not even looked at the report for
many years. He confided that he'd gotten "fed up" with the attention and con-
troversy which had resulted from his report.
McDonald inquired how far away the largest hovering object was from the
witnessed Fr. Gill had had one of his people walk out across the playing field
until he looked the same height as the "figures" on the UFO. This man was 5' 3"
tall, and looked the same size as the "men" at 35(f. He'd also determined the ap-
proximate height of the base of the cloud layer by comparing it with a nearby
mountain top. The cloud layer was at about 2,000' and the object hovered below
it during the entire sighting.54
The next day, everyone in the local village of Keiboda was discussing the
sightings, and more reports began to surface. Canon Norman E. G. Cruttwell,
Fr. Gill's associate, interviewed 60 New Guinea witnesses, none of which
mentioned any "beings." Cruttwell was just about the only white man in the
area who never saw any.55
The same night as the Gill sighting, a government employee in neighbor-
ing Barmara saw a glow in the sky toward Boainai/Gill tried to interview this
witness but could not get him to talk; Gill was left with the impression that the
man's government job precluded his discussing it—a strong correlation with
the situation in the United States. The RAAF was contacted by the New Guinea
witnesses, but were told that the other, smaller, luminous phenomena "could
have been planets." The RAAF ventured no explanation of the main object.56
The Gill case made a deep impression upon McDonald, but he did not dis-
cuss it very much during his numerous talks, mainly because it involved the
question of occupants. Only three or four days before he died, McDonald con-
fided to one of his close colleagues that heen could not believe that Fr. Gill, an
Anglican minister, was not being truthful.

53. McDonald, op. cit. "Rev. William B. Gill."

54. The brief description, including sketch, of the Gill-Papua sightings in UFO Evidence (op.
cit.) estimates the distance of the object from the observer at 450', probably because most
"occupant" reports of that period described entities a foot or more shorter than human
beings. In contrast, Fr. Gill compared the beings' size with a 5*3" mission worker, and came
up with an estimate of 350'.
55. McDonald, op. cit., Addendum 7/1/67, as told to McDonald by Peter Norris.
56. McDonald, op. cit., p. 2
57. Author's interview with Dr. Paul Damon, 27 February 1994.
184 FIRESTORM

While McDonald was still in Australia, he learned of a July 8th sighting of

multiple UFOs being pursued by several light planes, similar to the Andrew
Greenwood case, an older Australian case which had been thoroughly re-
searched. In this case the object and planes had been viewed by a school yard
filled with children and also had been witnessed by several teachers. In this
case, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the RAAF was aware of the incident but
showed little overt interest in it.

F I G U R E 12. James E. McDonald (right) with John Pearse, at the radio

station 2GB in Sydney, on June 26,1967.

This case occurred on the morning of April 6,1966, at Westhall High School
in Melbourne. One of the primary witnesses was Andrew Greenwood, a teacher
at Westhall, who was later interviewed by McDonald. A child had run into his
classroom to tell him that "flying saucers were outside!" Greenwood did not
wish to break up his class, and he instructed the child to go back to her physical
education class in the yard. Ten minutes later the morning recess bell rang, and
Greenwood went outside. Half of the school, about 300 children between 11-15
years of age, were on the playground staring at an unidentified gray object in the
blue sky. The object was cigar-shaped but at times "bulged" in the middle.
Greenwood could not determine the cause of this shape change but had the im-
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 185

pression that the object might be changing position in the sky, thereby presenting
different aspects to the viewers.
The distance of the object varied from about 1000 yards to about 500 yards
at its nearest approaches. It alternated between hovering motionless and accel-
erating almost out of sight, then returning to position. As Greenwood and the
children watched, a Cessna came up and tried to get near the UFO. The object
was about two-thirds the size of the Cessna. The object began to play "cat and
mouse," and more Cessnas came, until there were five. Moorabin Airport,
about four miles away, was checked, but personnel there stated there were no
planes from that airport in the air. "It was silly of them to deny it because there
are almost always planes up," Greenwood told McDonald.
Greenwood and the children watched the object and the planes for 15 min-
utes, until the object abruptly accelerated out of sight, leaving the planes still in
the air. Greenwood questioned the other teachers. The physical education teach-
er, Jeanette Muir, confirmed she'd seen it but then "clammed up." Claude Miller,
senior English master, saw the object near the end of the sighting. The Air Force
came to the school, ostensibly to check out the report. They spoke with Head-
master Frank Sambleble. McDonald's journal describes what happened:
Somehow Sambleble got on edge. At the assembly that noon he spoke
on it and said it was a lot of rubbish. Was his first year as Head [mas-
ter], went by book, wanted to keep things on regulation. When Air
Force came he refused to call Andrew Greenwood out of class to talk
to them. A. G. thinks he sent them packing, and came out muttering
'what rot. '58
Although several teachers and 300 students had seen a strange object pur-
sued by Cessna aircraft for almost a half hour, the RAAF made no further fol-
low-up, to anyone's knowledge. "What puzzles and amuses Greenwood most
is [that] Moorabin Airport claims that no planes were up," wrote McDonald.59
In his Australian journal, McDonald kept a list of a dozen physicists and
astronomers, to whom he had been referred by Australian and American re-
searchers. The list included Dr. F. A. Berson, a scientist with the Division of
Meteorological Physics, CSIRO, Aspendale, with whom McDonald met per-
sonally. Dr. Berson had seen an anomalous red glowing object in the night sky
in September 1963. It was large, about half lunar diameter, and later split into
two sections and disappeared. A similar object, appearing across town at the
same time and viewed by independent witnesses, was reported in the press.

58. McDonald, op. cit., "Melbourne" Section, "Andrew Greenwood" entry.

59. Ibid.
186 FIRESTORM

Berson tracked down the witnesses and was able to make azimuth readings
which demonstrated that the object was too large to be either a balloon or a
hoax.
Dr. Berson had done his own investigation of the Westhall High School
sighting. He'd called Moorabin Airport also, but had been told that he would
have to call four separate companies in order to try to track down the source of
the five Cessnas! He'd learned that students at Clayton School had also seen
the object at the same time. He went to the Department of Air, but was given
no information. There he was told by an aviation instructor, "We have a sub-
chasing aircraft with very bright lights that can be misinterpreted."60 The Aus-
tralian officials were reaching as far afield for "explanations" as Project Blue
Book did. (C5U(<VI ca-*

F I G U R E 13. A "Ttally" nest," a type of UFO "landing trace." Dead reeds,

swirled clockwise, are seen floating on top of a shallow lagoon.

Dr. Berson, together with another scientist, Professor of Theoretical Phys-

ics Stuart T. Butler of Sydney, quietly began their own study of Australian
sightings, possibly encouraged by McDonald's example.
"I would emphatically disassociate myself from the people who claim to
have contacted flying saucers [contactees]. Their stories are so wildly improb-
able that it seems to me to involve the suspicion of mental unbalance of some
-r- uo™" sbfltt "tnis", wa accep-l -Hwr -/Wit flbj-fdJ
0
art crrf-h f t o o« iftfclk*^ p W ^ r io
6 0 . I b i d , Dr. F. A. Berson entry. _ , L , L «)F «>«<* f ^ W * .
X Opias Gap* - a o" 'aen u\ y r
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 187

sort," Dr. Butler was quoted. "At the same time, in view of the probable exist-
ence of some other intelligent race in the universe, I think we have to keep an
open mind on the possibility of some UFOs being intelligently directed."
During the last few days of his Australian visit, McDonald began to speak
out publicly. He appeared at radio station 2GB, where a picture of a smiling,
happy McDonald was taken with John Pearse (See Figure 12). He also ap-
peared on "Talk Back With Barry JonesJ' At a packed meeting of the Sydney
UFO Investigation Centre at Strathfield, he reviewed his research to that date
and emphasized that the USAF had "fouled up" a complex subject by neglect-
ing to treat it seriously. He bluntly criticized Project Blue Book and the ridicule
curtain which the CIA had helped slam down.
Max Suich, who was a reporter for the Sydney Sun-Herald, attended Mc-
Donald's Centre talk and wrote a long article with blazing headlines, "Flying
Saucers Are Real, Says Scientist." The tone of the article was generally ob-
jective, but bold subtitles accompanied it which spoiled the general effect.
One subtitle screamed, "They come from another world out in space, he
said." 62 McDonald was being badly misquoted. He had carefully stated his
working hypothesis at the Centre meeting, just as he always did to anyone
else who asked. He was also quoted as stating that he considered about 90%
of Australian cases to be reliable. This was a gross misquote, for McDonald
regarded only about 0.5% of UFO reports as true "unknowns."
Besides the enigmatic subtitle "Govt, grant" in the Sun-Herald article of
June 25th, cited above, another article appeared in the Melbourne Sun on July
6th which bluntly stated, "McDonald's visit is being sponsored by the U.S. Gov-
ernment." It is possible that this article was simply a re-hash of the June 25th ar-
ticle, multiplying the serious error therein. The Melbourne Sun article also
contained another reference to McDonald's funding. Under a large subtitle,
"Learning the Cost," it stated, "His trip to Australia is being paid from U.S. Navy
funds allocated to him for physics research."63 This was a surprising statement
for two reasons: (1) The U.S. Navy was not giving funds to McDonald directly
for UFO research and the article concerned his UFO studies; (2) In 1967, very
few people in the UFO field knew of McDonald's ONR contracts, and it is
doubtful that McDonald discussed them with Australian reporters. This article,
and other Australian newspapers, also quoted McDonald's severe criticism of
the USAF and the CIA's debunking program. It must have puzzled Australian

61.Hallows, John, "What Do You Do If You See A UFO?", The Australian, May 14, 1968.
62. Suich, Max, The Sun-Herald, July 9, 1967. "Flying Saucers are real."
63. Ibid.
188 FIRESTORM

readers that this American scientist was "being funded by the U.S. government,"
yet was bluntly criticizing U.S. agencies in a foreign land.
The Sun-Herald article did, however, include a photo of the so-called
"Tully nests," a type of UFO landing-trace (See Figure 13). One Tully nest had
been connected with a sighting of a UFO. The witness, Albert Pennesi, was
working on his land in early January 1966. Suddenly the engine of his tractor
failed as he saw a large, steel-gray object rising from a nearby lagoon. His trac-
tor had been headed straight toward the lagoon. The object was shaped like two
saucers with their rims placed together, and the bottom part appeared "hazy."
It climbed into the sky at terrific speed, and disappeared into the distance.
It had no portholes, appendages or exhaust trail. In a circular area in the
lagoon, exactly where he had seen the object rise, the witness saw a large,
round circle of swirled grasses (tall reeds) on and under the water. "I decided
to carry on with my work," Pennisi told McDonald. "I figured people would
think I was a bit cracked." That afternoon, however, he confided in some
townspeople who advised him to report the incident to the police. The police,
including a sergeant, suggested he'd seen a helicopter. Pennisi thought they
were joking, until the police also suggested that he'd seen birds, or a whirl-
wind, or "crocodiles with lashing tails." Pennisi countered: he'd worked that
land for 20 years and had never seen anything like it. He returned to the spot
that same afternoon, and found the dead reeds, swirled clockwise, floating on
top of the water
Local researchers investigated the case. Smaller swirled circles, similar to
the one from which Pennisi had seen the object rise, were found near the same
area, but no objects had been seen associated. In these smaller circles, the
grasses were swirled counter-clockwise. He swam under water to investigate
the large circle and found "the roots all in a mat." Later, new grass began to
grow under the water to replace the dead "nests."
The Tully "nests" bear some resemblance to present-day "crop circles,"
widely reported from the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and oth-
er countries. However, in the corn-circle phenomenon, no large objects which
can be reasonably assumed to be the cause of "crop circles" have been reported
in close proximity.64

64. A possible exception occurred June 20, 1994, when several witnesses in Arad, Romania,
claimed that a huge "light," hovering over a cornfield, left typical "crop circles" in a corn-
field. One witness stated that he viewed two humanoids aboard the craft. To my knowledge,
adequate investigation was not made of this report. From Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 39,
No. 3, Autumn 1994.
FORAYS INTO OTHER LANDS 189

Toward the end of his visit, on July 4th, McDonald appeared on ABC-TV in
Melbourne, Channel 2. The program was called "This Day Tonight." The host
was Bill Pritchard and the "interlocutor," as McDonald referred to him, was
Brian King. Paul Norman describes the event:
Both Judy [Magee] and 1 were present. I recall he did not like the
background panel and had the crew remove it. He also objected to
some of the statements made on other occasions by the media. Those
were the usual misquotations which the media always make. The av-
erage newsman writes and talks about everything, expert on nothing
except misquotations and out-of-context reporting, as everybody who
has experienced interviews knows 65
McDonald spent his last day down under in Queensland at the home of
Roy and Pearl Russell. He kept an appointment at the University of Queen-
sland, where the book on meteorology to which he had contributed a classic
chapter on cloud physics was still being used, and then spent the rest of the day
interviewing Queensland witnesses.66
"In the evening, we drove him to the airport where he did a TV interview,"
relates Russell. He also gave an interview to the press, as he'd promised, and
numerous articles in several papers were subsequently printed. The articles dif-
fered in their objectivity and were written from differing points of view, de-
pending on which newspaper ran the story and the individual outlooks of each
reporter. On July 10th, the Brisbane Courier-Mail, for example, ran an article
with a large heading titled "Flying Saucer Idea On Blackouts." Its main thrust
was McDonald's concern that power outages and UFO close approaches might
be connected, for McDonald had found that there were good UFO/power out-
age cases in Australia, as well as in the U.S., South America and Europe.
"When one considers the great New York blackout, power failures in South
America and the high instance of [UFO] sightings occurring simultaneously—
then one concludes there is something to this UFO business," McDonald was
quoted.67 He refused to say what value his Australian interviews had in support
of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. He was waiting until he could study his notes
and interviews and correlate the data. At the same time, he praised the Australian
witnesses for their reliability and levelheadedness.
As much as McDonald had accomplished during those two weeks, he felt
he'd merely touched the surface "down under." He had not been able to accept

65. Letter from Paul Norman to author, 18 October 1994.

66. Letter from Roy Russell to author, 20 October 1994.
67. Brisbane Courier-Mail, July 10, 1967.
190 FIRESTORM

Albert Pennesi's invitation to visit Tully and investigate the "nests" first hand.
He was not able to follow through with the invitations of other veteran UFO
researchers in Australia and adjacent countries, nor could he know the chaos
that was awaiting him at home.
On July 9, 1967, the day before McDonald was due to return to the States,
Thomas Clark, the U.S. Ambassador to Australia, called repeatedly, but he
couldn't reach McDonald, who had left Melbourne for an ONR appointment.
Geoffrey Rumpf tracked him down and found him at the Meteorology Depart-
ment in Townville. By this time it was almost midnight on Saturday.68 The
same day Clark tried to reach him, there had been a sighting of multiple discs
being chased by several light planes in Victoria, but McDonald, being in
Queensland, could not participate in the on-site investigation.
When McDonald finally learned of U.S. Ambassador Clark's urgent calls,
he checked with Peter Norris, a Melbourne lawyer who was head of VUFORS.
Norris had been told only that McDonald should get in touch with Clark im-
mediately. Early the next morning, McDonald called the Sydney American
consulate but was told by a Mr. Wagoner that there was "nothing on the
logs."69 McDonald probably should have called the embassy in Canberra,
where the ambassador was based, instead of in the consulate in Sydney. The
fact remains, however, that the consulate should have told him how to reach
Ambassador Clark!
Paul Norman and the other Australian researchers never learned person-
ally from Ambassador Clark why he was so anxious to talk with McDonald.
After McDonald returned to Tucson, however, the puzzle began to fall into
place. Repercussions from his Australian-New Zealand visit affected his re-
maining years of UFO research—and the rest of his life.

68. McDonald, op. cit., "Melbourne" section, "Geoff Rumpf and "U.S. Embassy" entries.
69. McDonald, op. cit., "U. S. Embassy" entry.
CHAPTER 9

The First Attack

Inch by inch, row by row, someone bless these seeds I sow,

Someone warm them from below, 'til the rain comes tumbling down.
—from "The Garden Song"
" J HWow ft speor do^k . TVe* X
se-vA <y> exfwlrW '«+« junaV -ftrA of H*
r"~ -Hw (S lo^i'e.''- "Xoomar BerwAn.
Those who refuse to go beyona fact rarely get as far as fact...
Almost every great step in the history of science has been made by
the anticipation of nature, that is, by the invention of hypotheses
which, though ultimately verifiable, often had very little
foundation to start with.
—T. H. Huxley

W hen McDonald returned home from his Australian trip, he was

hardly prepared for the brouhaha which greeted him. He quickly
learned why Ambassador Thomas Clark had tried so persistently
to reach him. The U.S. Air Attache at the Australian Embassy had heard his
television remarks, criticizing the Air Force and the CIA, and had "reacted
strongly to them." The complaint reached Jim Hughes, his ONR contract
monitor, before McDonald arrived back on American soil.1
"Jim got on TV and radio down there and spoke about UFOs," relates
Hughes in an interview for this book. "And when [they] heard about that
speech in Washington, I guess you could hear the howls back to Australia,
because the newspapers, when they attribute something to somebody,
they're not very careful.... They apparently do what they like with the text,
just to make sensational news. And that came back to me. Some captain
came marching into my office with, 'Are you supporting this?' Because [the
newspapers] gave the impression we were. He was on an ONR contract.2

1. Coded letter from Jim Hughes to ONR official, addressed as "Code 400", dated 16
September 1968.

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

192 FIRESTORM

McDonald answered the charges candidly. He told Hughes he was not act-
ing on behalf of the Navy when he criticized the Air Force's sloppy operation
at Blue Book. His criticisms of the Air Force's handling were based on scien-
tific grounds, and he was speaking out as an individual scientist.
McDonald didn't write in his journals again until he began his fourth jour-
nal on April 28th, 1968.3 However, correspondence and other documents from
his files fill in the gaps.
"We never supported anything that said 'UFO' on it," Hughes states. "If it
was UFOs, it wasn't charged. Please make that straight, because people were
trying to give me static on that all the time."
McDonald survived the initial Air Force criticism, and the Navy did not
retaliate against him. From events which followed, however, it is clear that op-
position was amassing elsewhere. By February 1968, he realized that the ONR
contract which permitted him to research UFOs in his spare time while travel-
ing on ONR business was under attack.
Up to the time of his trip, McDonald assumed that any resistance he would
encounter would be by colleagues in the scientific community who simply did
not share his concern that a scientific problem was being neglected. He'd heard
a couple of critical remarks from colleagues and experienced unexpected cool-
ness from a few but accepted this in good grace. He soon found out that his ad-
versaries and antagonists were not all scientists. His criticism of Blue Book
and the CIA down under had struck deep in many places.
He had never been recriminated against when he spoke out against the Air
Force/CIA debunking policy within the confines of the U.S. Once he stepped
foot on foreign soil and spoke the truth about Blue Book incompetence, how-
ever, certain elements of the government wouldn't tolerate this. The erroneous
statements in Australian newspapers that his UFO studies in Australia were
"sponsored and funded by the United States Government" were curious. Were
they mere inaccuracies, or were the newspapers deliberately deceived by per-
sons unknown? Other UFO researchers were plagued by similar inaccuracies.
For example, Jacques Vallee was repeatedly quoted as a "NASA scientist" by
Latin American papers, although he always made it clear he had never been on
the NASA payroll.4

2. Author's interview with James Hughes, 21 December 1994.

3. McDonald's fourth journal is a spiral-bound notebook with about 50 pages of closely writ-
ten text, covering events in McDonald's UFO study from April 28, 1968, through March 17,
1971.
4. Communication to author from Jacques Vallee.
THE FIRST ATTACK 193

The inaccuracies in the newspapers were serious enough, but his two Aus-
tralian television appearances seem to have bruised the feelings of certain U.S.
officials even more. It was his TV appearances which directly caused the cut-
off of his funding. A brief entry in his fourth journal, describing a conversation
with J. Allen Hynek, reads: "I pointed out how my ONR funds cut off re USAF
protest [on] Aussie TV."5
McDonald had even discussed with Navy officials whether it would be un-
wise to criticize the USAF in Australia, as revealed in one of his letters to Paul
Norman during the planning of the Australian trip:
I'll have a chance to talk with some of the Navy people informally and
sound them out on whether blunt comments from me on Australian TV
concerning USAF incompetence, made while traveling with USN sup-
port, would be awkward from their viewpoint.... Aside from that, I
have no objections to appearing on serious TV programs. I prefer to
delay that until the last few days of my Melbourne visit.... "6
McDonald had sounded out Navy people on the question and drew no neg-
ative reaction.7 In informing Norman of this, he emphasized again that his prin-
cipal reason for visiting Australia, aside from his specific ONR duties there, was
the direct interviewing of key witnesses in important Australian cases, not media
appearances. An Australian research journal, Australian Flying Saucer Re-
view, gives the details correctly:
Dr. McDonald visited Australia under the auspices of the U.S. Navy to
further his research work in the field of atmospheric physics. While in
Australia, he was able to devote much of his time to his private inves-
tigations into the UFO problem, interviewing some 80 witnesses
throughout the Commonwealth, and addressing various groups of sci-
entists as well as the general meetings of members of the Melbourne
and Sydney Societies.
The Professor was also able to find time for appearances on several
ABC television and radio shows as well as the highly rated 2GB ses-
sion "Talk back to Barry Jones. "8
The criticism which resulted from his Australian trip, however, made
McDonald fully aware how ONR's unwritten "permission" to study UFOs

5. McDonald's fourth journal, reverse p. 24.

6. Letter from McDonald to Paul Norman, 31 March 1967.
7. Letter from McDonald to Norman, 5 June 1967.
8. "U. S. Scientist Addresses U. F. 0 . Societies," Australian Flying Saucer Review, Moorab-
bin, Victoria, Published by Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society, September 1967.
 194 FIRESTORM

on the side was affecting him. He set out to settle the matter once and for all,
sending a plea to Jim Hughes late in September 1967 which fully outlined his
quandary. His journal barely hints at his mood as he described the basic prob-
lem of his life as a UFO researcher:
... letter ofmine dated Sept 27, 1967, where I made plea to make honest
3Py man out of me by getting UFOs OK'd openly in my contract.9
Jim Hughes did not respond in writing to this letter, and the press of pro-
fessional responsibilities and his ever-increasing UFO research schedule pre-
vented McDonald from following it up. It was his usual habit to chase down
anything that was important to him when he didn't quickly get an answer. The
two men probably discussed the matter by phone, with Hughes offering to see
what he could do. They had discussed the subject numerous times in the past,
but Hughes hadn't been able to convince his superiors that "UFOs" should be
written into any of McDonald's contracts.
Two months later, Philip J. Klass openly assailed "McDonald's use of
ONR funding for UFO research." In December 1967, he sent a lengthy letter
to Dr. Robert A. Frosch, the Navy's Assistant Secretary for Research and De-
velopment, asking, "When does J. E. McDonald find time, in view of his ex-
tensive commitment to the UFO problem, to work on contract research for
ONR? 10 After my second (and last) UFO article was published by Aviation
Week and Space Technology (AW&ST) on Aug. 3, 1966, I was personally
funding all of my UFO research...out of my own pocket. Therefore, I was
shocked to hear that JEM's UFO efforts—including a costly trip to Austra-
lia—were being financed by the U.S. Navy...." 11
Jim Hughes immediately went to work on McDonald's behalf, gathering
materials in case Klass's objections continued. He collected lists of all of
McDonald's publications and reports produced under ONR funding, over 100
items in all, and sent these to ONR officials. Hughes' cover letter mentioned
two other reports McDonald was submitting under his 1967 contract: one on
ball lightning and another on the meteorological aspects of UFO reports,
which was to be printed in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological So-
ciety. His letter requested that McDonald be given a specific contract for
study of UFOs, citing the value to the Navy of the many atmospheric physics

9. McDonald's fourth journal, reverse p, 25. McDonald did not keep a detailed journal on his
UFO studies for several months during this period on the beginning of the ONR contro-
versy. It was not until September 25, 1968, that McDonald mentioned writing this letter in
his fourth journal.
10. Coded letter dated 21 February 1968 from Hughes to ONR "Code 400."
11. Correspondence from Philip J. Klass to author, dated July 20, 1995.
 T H E FIRST A T T A C K 195

projects in which McDonald was already actively engaged. Hughes' letter

said in part:
There now exists a wealth of good case material by competent observ-
s
-ry^ ers on the latter subject, and the work should be continued but probd-
, bly under another name and contract. I would suggest the
Atmospheric Physics of Unusual Aerial Phenomena. Because of his
„ wide involvement in weather modification and cloud physics projects
£
jya t "V such as his current activities for the National Academy of Sciences, the
V^jL m-'" National Science Foundation's panel on cloud physics, the ESSA-
Navy Stormfury panel, and his extensive publications, McDonald has
^ ^ N v been a valuable consultant to the Navy....12
(J^vs*^ University of Arizona administrators also came to McDonald's defense.
^ V They assured ONR officials that McDonald worked the equivalent of a full 40-
hour week, or more, on atmospheric physics and did his UFO work the rest of
the time. Dr. Dick Kassander also handled questions from the university's
Board of Regents, through whom state funds for the university's operation
passed. Arizona state funds paid about two-thirds of McDonald's salary.

"One question came up," states Kassander, "which I was asked by a member
of the university's Board of Regents. 'How can he have so much free time to be
doing this sort of thing?' ...And I said, 'It all depends on how many hours you
call a week's work. Nobody who had any reputation at all, particularly one like
his, thinks a 40-hour week is a normal week. If a man chooses to work sixty
hours, how are you going to tell which forty you should be getting? ...I'm his
supervisor, and I'm satisfied that the State is getting what it should out of a nor-
mal week's work by anybody's definition.' And that settled the argument."13
Philip Klass persisted. He contacted Russell S. Greenbaum, head of the pub-
lic affairs branch of ONR asking specifically what ONR business McDonald had
pursued in Australia. Greenbaum replied:
Professor McDonald, while in Australia, had a rather crowded sched-
ule which included visits and discussion at the Commonwealth Scien-
tific and Industrial Research Organization and the universities. His
topics of discussion included cloud physics, some problems in atmo-
spheric physics and composition, and anomalous refraction phenom-
ena which could possibly explain an unidentified aereal [sic]
observation.... However, the concern of this office is the question of

12. Letter from Hughes to ONR, dated 21 February 1968.

13. Author's interview with Dr. Richard Kassander, 19 November 1993.
196 FIRESTORM

anomalous refraction which the UFO problem raises and not the UFO
problem itself.... ",4
In spite of the fact that officials from the University of Arizona and ONR
were defending him, McDonald was irked at having his honesty questioned,
but in general he kept his troubles to himself. Although blessed with social
graces, his basic nature was rather on the shy side. One person who worked
closely with him day-by- day was his secretary, Margaret Sanderson-Rae, who
states: "As a person, there was nothing flamboyant about him. He was shy and
sort of reclusive and wanting to get his work done. He had no swagger to him."
McDonald continued his UFO studies and his ever-increasing rounds of
talks. Sanderson-Rae prepared his papers for publication, transcribed his in-
terview tapes, and duplicated the multi-page summaries which he gave out at
his UFO talks and sent to correspondents around the world. These "hand-
outs," as they were called, contained the meticulous UFO data which was the
essence of each talk and are some of the main writings on the UFO subject
which he left behind. A careful perusal of each reveals not one typo or mis-
take in any of them. The handouts stand as a tribute not only to McDonald's
thorough research and writing ability but also to Sanderson-Rae's skills!
She, like McDonald, willingly worked overtime many hours each week to
prepare them, without additional remuneration.
In the spring of 1968, Klass wrote his "JEM white papers,"-choosing this
method as a convenient way to challenge McDonald on various issues. He pre-
pared five of these two-page essays between May and June 1968, and several
others followed. Each was filled with specific charges against McDonald's UFO
concepts, and each was headed by a piquant quote, such as "A man who is al-
ways ready to believe what is told him will never do well. —Petronius;" and
"Half the truth is often a great lie. —Benjamin Franklin." (Apparently both men
collected quotes which took their fancy.) Klass disseminated these "White Pa-
pers" to a few dozen researchers in the UFO field and to selected Navy officials.
"I did send the first JEM white paper to McDonald, but he returned them
marked "Return to Sender," states Klass.15 However, UFO researchers rapidly
supplied McDonald with copies. Klass's close scrutiny of McDonald's writ-
ings and talks was apparent. They referred to McDonald's dismantling of the
"ball lightning" hypothesis, which Klass insisted explained some classic UFO
cases. They also endeavored to bring McDonald to task, when he initially ac-
cepted certain UFO cases and later changed his mind about them. The answer
CbHtA J v-wi" uWV» C<MC<?

14. Letter from R. S. Greenbaum, ONR to Philip Klass, 15 March 1968.

15. Letter from Philip J. Klass to author, op. cit.
 T H E FIRST A T T A C K 197

to some of these particular charges lay in the fact that McDonald's UFO re-
search was incredibly thorough. He uncovered data by delving deeper than
most other researchers were able to do, which permitted him to explain some
cases which had, up to that time, been accepted as "unknowns."
James McDonald was irritated by the "JEM white papers," which im-
pugned his honesty and questioned his scientific competence. His first incli-
nation was to answer them all point-by-point. He asked advice from several
of his close colleagues.
"Should I reply to Klass by answering his charges one by one?" James
McDonald asked colleague George Dawson. "I doubt that it would be wise
to lower yourself to reply," Dawson advised. "It may be futile, as well."
"But I feel that I should at least provide answers to the scientific argu-
ments he's bringing up, like his continued claims about ball lightning," rea-
soned McDonald. "There may be some point in your doing that," agreed
Dawson. "I suggest you deplore his introducing personal elements into a sci-
entific exchange."
Others gave differing suggestions. McDonald posed the question to one of
his students, Peter Du Toit, who answered, "They shouldn't be dignified with
a reply." Isabel Davis and Ted Bloecher also offered their consensus: "We fear
that non-rebuttal will be exploited by Klass."
Paul Cemy of the NICAP affiliate in San Francisco wrote: "Each of these re-
ports he sends me makes me madder, and also makes me realize how really.. .mis-
informed he is about the whole UFO picture in general.... I frankly cannot
see.. .motive for the work and time spent in his determination to 'put you down.'
I'm sure the Govt, would like nothing better than to see you discredited."16
McDonald, swamped by the demands of his teaching, his atmospheric
projects and his continuing incursions into UFO cases, finally decided that a
(^formal reply to Klass's white-papers would not justify the time and energy
he'd have to spend. He chose instead to rebut Klass's "ball lightning" hypoth-
esis every chance he got, with all the resources available to him. He managed
to get the topic on the agenda of a two-day conference on lightning which was
held at the University of Arizona in April. He chaired that session, which gave
him an opportunity to answer Klass's ball-lightning claims in depth. Klass was
advancing his ball-lightning theory energetically, and McDonald, loving any
scientific challenge, fired back. KloSS ^ Wu
i+
yPlhn "fit CW(tei oo'uHv" becww. ' V^U, .u , L 1 j+W
l:UU Vv Yw oWA w k w o e****^ 00. G&V ^ ^ km w ^ - H *
Vll;, \e«A

16. Letter from Paul Cerny to McDonald, dated August 26, 1968.
198 FIRESTORM

At a conference in Montreal, McDonald again addressed Klass's "ball light-

ning" theory before a group of scientists. In his A IV&ST article, Klass had claimed
that a plasmoid (ball lightning) could follow an aircraft which has acquired a
charge opposite to that of the plasmoid, by acquiring dust, snow or rain parti-
cles—the so-called "Coulomb attraction."17 McDonald analyzed this statement
using precise formulae and proved that the airplane would not draw the plasmoid
behind it "even at the pace of a very slow walk."18 He addressed other aspects of
the "ball lightning" hypothesis, including Klass's attempt to explain why auto ig-
nition systems often failed during encounters with UFOs. Klass had incorrectly
used the term "mirror image" in discussing the possibility that a plasmoid could
penetrate the hood of a car, thereby causing electromagnetic disturbances in the
engine. McDonald pointed out this "puzzling erroneous misconception.. .held by
an electrical engineer." He also cited other errors, pointing out that Klass confused
"voltage" and "voltage gradient"; that his description of how a gyroscope reacts
to external force was incorrect; and that his chapter on radar and UFOs did not
show a clear understanding of radar principles.19

He also humorously described the erroneous concept of the "charged pedes-

trian." Klass had written that a person can acquire a "very light charge," and that
a plasmoid would be drawn slowly toward him or back off as the person ap-
proaches, depending on whether the person and the plasmoid carried the same or
opposite charges. McDonald played fair, however, when he told the Montreal
scientists that the A W&STs Senior Editor did not claim that all UFOs were plas-
moids, but that
[Klass felt he had] identified most if not all of the previously unex-
plained UFOs as atmospheric electrical phenomena, using N1CAP 's
most convincing cases. By the latter, he referred to the more than 700
cases in Hall's The UFO Evidence. Such a claim is fatuous; there are
/«...The UFO Evidence hundreds of cases that could not even remote-
ly be reconciled with Klass's plasma-UFO hypothesis on any reason-
able, scientific grounds.20

17. Klass had refined his "ball-lightning" theory, as it was popularly termed by the UFOIogical
community and wrote UFOs Identified, in which he addressed classic UFO cases, re-inter-
preting them in the light of plasma technology. Published by Random House, New York,
1967. (In 1974 Klass published a second book, UFOs Explained, after he had investigated
many more cases, and put forth alternative explanations.)
18. McDonald, James E., "UFOs—An International Scientific Problem," 38-page summary of
a talk presented March 12, 1968, at the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute Astronau-
tics Symposium, Montreal, Canada.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid
 T H E FIRST A T T A C K 199

In the meantime, the ONR funding which allowed him to wholeheartedly

research UFOs was in jeopardy. James McDonald found this both irritating
and illogical. What made it more illogical was that he had briefed the staff of
the ONR on the UFO question shortly before his trip to Australia. McDonald
had written to Paul Norman regarding this briefing:
It's regarded as a rather loaded problem due to the Air Force being
under some public criticism for its handling of the problem.
For the Navy, which has no legaljurisdiction over the problem, to hear
someone who is on record as a strong critic of USAF, and to invite him
to their own offices, is a bit uncomfortable, I learned. However, the
tack... was something like this: One of these days we may be asked a few
C embarrassing questions about all our own Navy sightings..., so maybe it
would be prudent to invite McDonald to review his findings for us.'
-j How valid was Paul Cerny's assessment of the attack against McDonald's
funding, as cited above, regarding the "government's interest" in seeing him dis-
turb tsieA credited? Most NICAP members ascribed to the idea of a deliberate government
* ^ "cover-up" and hoped that this would not affect McDonald adversely. Evidence
i Ar-fc already cited shows that some government agencies including the DoD, of which
HFE the Navy was an integral part, were worried about his UFO research. Were the
cr.kc>2Wj forces who were attacking McDonald's ONR funding honestly concerned that
: hj s criticism of the Air Force and the CIA would cause harm to those agencies?
<wrs>l Q r
were they more worried that too many good hidden reports were being
wrenched loose by this respected gadfly?22 An excerpt from an August 1967 let-
ter which McDonald wrote to George E. Kocher of The RAND Corporation
demonstrates how he was wholeheartedly received by numerous government-
funded facilities.
I just got back from... a day at the Sandia base, where I spoke to the
scientific staff. There is keen interest in the UFO problem at Sandia,
and 1 picked up half a dozen quite good sightings from members of
their technical staff....23
Air Force Regulation 200-2 (later upgraded as AFR 187) specifically for-
bade Air Force personnel to discuss "unexplained" UFO sightings, and another
governmental regulation, JANAP-146, effectively silenced civilian employees
of certain military and governmental agencies in regard to UFO matters. Appar-
ently some people who "should not have been talking" were confiding their own

21. Communication from McDonald to Norman in JEM files.

22. "Gadfly" is used here in its most honorable meaning. Webster's defines the term as "a per-
son who stirs up from lethargy."
23. McDonald to Kocher letter, dated August 14, 1967.
200 FIRESTORM

UFO experiences to McDonald, unaware that they were breaking government

regulations. McDonald had also discussed with Sandia personnel the possibility
of using the base's facilities to analyze samples of presumably related UFO ma-
terials which the Condon Committee's staff were collecting from certain wit-
nesses, and one of McDonald's Sandia contacts had readily agreed to this plan!
Yet McDonald knew that any information of a confidential nature with
which he might be privately entrusted was, in essence, of little worth to him in
his public research on UFOs. Sightings related by his colleagues, of course,
strengthened his own conviction that UFOs were a serious scientific question.
However, as he wrote to Paul Norman on the eve of his visit to Australia in re-
gard to some intriguing sightings involving staff at scientific facilities in
Woomera and Adelaide:
Might I accomplish something with the Woomera people? ...If the trip
up there only led to discussions of a classified nature that neither I nor
anyone else could openly recount, it probably isn 't worth the effort?4
The fact that personnel at Sandia, near Roswell, N.M., were talking pri-
vately to McDonald may have been very worrisome to some government
sources, for it was one of the most sensitive bases in the country.25 His expens-
es for the August 1967 colloquium that he presented there were reimbursed by
the Sandia Corporation. A letter that McDonald wrote to John A. Anderson of
the Sandia Corporation reads in part: "I think we got quite a bit accomplished
with respect to information exchange flowing in both directions...and if any
other reports from Sandia personnel come your way, I shall certainly appreci-
ate any leads you may be able to send me." [Italics by author]
His sense of humor, and love for his children, surfaced even here. In the
same letter, he wrote:
...the [$150] honorarium which Sandia kindly gave me has already
been spent on a new sewing machine for the use of three of my daugh-
ters who are still at home and competing for tightly programmed time
on the existing Singer. The girls are delighted with the new 'Sandia'
sewing machine.26

24. McDonald to Norman, letter dated June 13, 1967.

25. A knowledgeable source describes 1990s security measures at Sandia: three electrified
fences, each fence encompassing a larger circumference, with guard dogs roaming between
the fences!
26. Letter from McDonald to John A. Anderson, dated August 9, 1967.
T H E FIRST A T T A C K 201

It is significant that a handwritten note in his journal, regarding his trip to

Sandia, mentions only that he "visited" there on August 2, 1967, followed by
the recurring enigmatic phrase, "See small notebook."
By the beginning of the ONR fiscal year in 1968, McDonald was advised
that the contract which he had been using partially for UFO research would not
be renewed, and he began seeking other sources. In a self-typed memo to Frank
Rand on February 12,1968, he wrote: "If you know of any loose money, let me
know. As a result of some criticisms of USAF made while in Australia, no ONR-
renewal! Please don't mention this in casual conversation much, as it nettles
me—it's not a point to air just now. Maybe I'll have to if all leads on UFO funds
fall through."2
In mid-February 1968 he requested a six-month extension of the small
NASA grant which had been given to him in 1966 through the help of Dr. Gerard
Kuiper. In a letter to Dr. Albert B. Weaver, chairman of the Space Sciences Com-
mittee at the U. of A., he stated his situation clearly:
The work done under my earlier grant ($1300) from your Committee
has, in my opinion, indicated that the subject area (observations of
anomalous aerial phenomena) warrants continuing careful study....
Certain areas of my problems that overlap atmospheric physics prob-
lems coming within the purview of my ONR-supported research were
approved for study under funds from ONR. Those funds are now lim-
ited and I seek an additional sum to carry me through until mid-sum-
mer and when new prospects for support seem more promising.28
The amount of funding which McDonald was asking from this NASA
source was a mere routine extension of his 1966 $1300 grant. It was minimal,
compared to the $200,000 NASA gave yearly to the university for distribution
to "appropriate" projects. However, it had helped pay for some long-distance
telephone interviews on promising UFO cases. While he was waiting for an an-
swer from Dr. Weaver, he spoke before the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics (AIAA) in Los Angeles. The title of his talk was "Are UFOs
Extraterrestrial Surveillance Craft?" As usual, the auditorium was crowded
with scientists and engineers. The summary handout of this talk begins:
If it were insisted that I limit my entire talk to a one-word answer to the
question posed in that title, I should find it hard to choose between the
safer answer, "possibly," and the riskier answer that actually comes

27. The identity of Frank Rand is unknown to this author. However, he is mentioned in a letter
from McDonald to Dr. Edward C. Welsh of NASA in Washington, D.C. He was apparently
a close friend and colleague of McDonald.
28. McDonald's letter to Weaver, February 16, 1968.
 202 FIRESTORM

closer to my present opinion, "probably." The ever-increasing weight of

the evidence I have been examining would drive me to the latter answer,
if I had to compress an hour's remarks into a single word.29
Jacques Vallee feels that McDonald made a mistake, as a scientist, in ti-
tling this particular talk and also in stating his position so strongly.
"Jim.. .could only antagonize a majority of his colleagues—by calling this
talk the way he did," states Vallee during interviews for this book. "The ti-
tle... implies that McDonald was already willing to jump to conclusions about
the nature of these objects. While most NICAP members agreed with him that
this was the most likely hypothesis (and I did, too, at the time) most scientists
definitely were not ready to make the jump on the basis of the available data."
Indeed, some NASA scientists might have been antagonized, as Vallee
suggests. On his arrival home, McDonald received a formal reply to his re-
quest for renewal of his small NASA grant. Dr. Weaver's April 3, 1968, let-
ter informed him that the Committee would not support an extension of his
work on "unexplained objects." The wording of the letter is strange, to say
the least, in its referral to "politics" and the "lay community":
° f^^.c'* This decision was based on the Committee's opinion that the NASA
*? Institutional Grant was not intendedfor use in gaining support for an
^ c^V^ investigation or for stirring up the scientific and lay community in fa-
^ ^ » vor of some particular study.... We realize, of course, that there are
' ef ^ c ' v overtones of selling some point of view or another in every scientific
\ investigation ...but as the emphasis of an investigation shifts to politics
(however necessary that shift may seem to be), we feel the use of NASA
<t grant funds becomes questionable.*0
Reading NASA's refusal letter (see Appendix Item 9-A, page 547) one
' is struck by the fact that NASA deemed it inappropriate to involve lay re-
- searchers or the public in a scientific problem. Even more ludicrous is Weav-
er's fear that UFOs should not enter the arena of "politics," for McDonald's
research was purely scientific. The NASA refusal is even more satirical be-
cause McDonald had sent Weaver a complete list of the talks and papers he
had delivered to scientific, technical, and academic groups on the subject of
UFOs. From October 5, 1966, through March 26, 1968, he had given 60 pre-
sentations on the subject of UFOs (see Appendix Item 9-B, page 548). Of
these, 57 were before scientific, technical, and academic organizations and
two were to journalist groups. Only one was a public lecture. NASA's objec-

29. McDonald, J. E, 'Abstract of March 26th, I96,8 talk before AIAA, Los Angeles," p. 1.
30. Letter from Weaver to McDonald, dated April 3, 1968.
T H E FIRST A T T A C K 203

tion to McDonald's "lay community" and "political" approaches was errone-

ous as well as illogical. He was spending his time and energy striving to alert
scientists, military and governmental personnel—with the finest data he
could possibly collect—to the problem of unidentified, craftlike aeroforms
flying in Earth's atmosphere, yet was being accused by a NASA official of^
stirring up the lay community and shifting his investigation to politics! ' •
This refusal of a NASA sub-group based at McDonald's own univer:
made even more curious by the fact that NASA Headquarters in Washington,^ '
D.C. never responded to his proposals for more substantial funding. This, in spite^/^ '
of his Washington, D.C. NASA briefing and his continual contact with NASA
colleagues, to whom he sent multi-page summaries of his talks before prestigious
scientific organizations. The extraordinary efforts he made to obtain substantial
NASA funding are hinted at in a letter which he wrote to Dr. Edward C. Welsh
of the National Aeronautics and Space Council in Washington, D.C. He had seen
Dr. Welsh at a meeting of the AIAA in August 1967, where he spoke to an en-
thusiastic crowd of scientists and engineers. His letter read, in part:
I believe that the UFO problem is one to which the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Council should give careful attention. If you have had
a chance to talk with Frank Rand about my visit with him last spring,
you will have some impressions that may go beyond the remarks I
made in the AIAA [Seattle] talk. I believe that this problem has been
very seriously misunderstood and warrants greatly expanded atten-
tion by all persons concerned with the space sciences.
In spite of McDonald's success with individual groups of scientists, his bold
efforts were being strangled. The funding on which he depended was cut off at
the source. The particular ONR contract in question had been first granted to him
on July 15,1958, for atmospheric physics research projects. It had been renewed
annually nine times and bore the ONR designation "Nonr-2173." It was not until
June 1966 that McDonald began to publicly research UFOs in his spare time, as
well as fulfilling all of the ONR obligations connected with Nonr-2173.
This particular contract was separate from other ONR contracts granted
him (all of which continued to be renewed annually) such as Contract 082-164,
which was specifically for study of cloud dynamics. The Nonr-2173 contract,
however, was completely cut off on June 30, 1968. One third of McDonald's
salary had been reimbursed from it, but this temporary loss of salary was made
up in another ONR contract which pertained strictly to atmospheric physics.
He wrote his "Final Report" on Nonr-2173 to ONR on December 13, 1968.32

31. Letter from McDonald to Dr. Edward C. Welsh, September 15,1967.

32. This document is in JEM Private Collection, U. of A. library.
204 FIRESTORM

Accompanying it was a letter by Dick Kassander, which shows the solid sup-
port IAP's director continued to give him.
Even after #2173 was terminated, Phil Klass continued asking ONR and
the Navy about McDonald's use of "public funds" to study UFOs. Kassander
and Jim Hughes, together, prepared other materials to confirm the scientific
use McDonald had made of his ONR funds through the years. These included
a list of atmospheric physics publications produced under the ONR Contract
2173. A few of McDonald's scientific colleagues around the country also be-
gan to openly criticize him for his interest in UFOs. One IAP colleague was
queried by scientist Chris Junge during a trip to a cloud physics conference in
Toronto in early 1968.
"Why has McDonald gone off the deep end regarding UFOs and dropped
his previously good cloud-physics work?" Junge asked. The story got back to
McDonald. He learned also that a woman colleague at the NCAR in Boulder,
Colo., had openly made very negative comments toward his position on the
UFO question. McDonald had met resistance before, but fault finding was
growing more vocal.33
The controversy about his ONR funding became public when a Jack
Anderson "Merry-Go-Round" column, "Dispute Marks Flying Saucers
Study," appeared in the Washington Post. Anderson had called to interview
him, pretending interest in his UFO studies. McDonald had trusted the journal-
ist to quote him accurately, but this particular column was a classic of dishon-
esty and character assassination. It stated that certain unnamed "accusers" of
McDonald were charging:
...that he was using Navy funds, intended for atmospheric research, to
investigate flying saucers. Pentagon regulations give the Air Force sole
responsibility for UFO investigations. Yet McDonald spent the Navy's
money, they charge, to visit Australia...where he interviewed 80 flying
saucer witnesses. Dr. McDonald told this column that his flying saucer
research and his expenditures had been approved by the Navy.
During the phone interview, Anderson had hinted about possible misuse
of government funds. McDonald made every effort to explain his judicious
use of ONR funding in selected instances, but Anderson made no attempt to
quote him accurately. The flat statement about "Navy approval" in the
"Merry-go-round" column is oddly reminiscent of the false statements in

33. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 21.

34. "Dispute Marks Flying Saucers Study," by Jack Anderson, "Washington Merry-Go-Round"
(column), Washington Post. September 14, 1968.
T H E FIRST A T T A C K 205

Australian papers that the "US government sponsored McDonald's re-

search." The statement about the sole responsibility of the Air Force to in-
vestigate UFOs was likewise distorted. All the branches of the military, the
FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies were investigating UFO sight-
ings in the 1950s and 1960s. This was not public knowledge at the time, but
FOIA disclosures of previously classified documents since 1975 have dem-
onstrated this beyond any doubt. Moreover, McDonald already had proof
that the CIA was directly involved and openly informed Anderson about
this. At the very least, Anderson's column amounted to inaccurate and irre-
sponsible journalism.
A few days after the column appeared, Jim Hughes phoned McDonald about
it, agitated over the problems it was causing. Hughes told him that Philip Klass
had sent a copy of it, with an accompanying letter, to Robert Frosch, Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Research & Development. In the letter, Klass accused
Hughes of condoning the "shocking misuse of Navy research funds." (See Ap-
pendix Item 9-C, page 549.) Hughes suggested that McDonald send a night letter
to the Chief of Naval Research with a carbon copy to Dr. Frosch. McDonald im-
mediately complied.35 In his telegram, McDonald stated what he'd carefully ex-
plained to Anderson—that "overlap between topics in atmospheric physics and
UFO explanations had made it possible to examine some overlap areas using
Navy funds." Hughes had also asked McDonald to follow the telegram with a
letter, so McDonald wrote an eight-page letter directly to Robert Frosch, explain-
ing the entire situation in detail. The last paragraph read:
Mr. Klass's previous efforts to use innuendo in place of pointed scien-
tific rebuttal have amused me more than they have annoyed me. My
disposition is still to be just a bit amused that he has managed to carry
his odd brand of vindictive attack to Secretarial levels within the Navy.
But, if this goes any further, I ask that you take steps to afford me an
opportunity to confront Klass directly rather than to have to defend my
position without full knowledge ofjust what he is charging.36
(See Appendix Item 9-D, page 550.)
McDonald sent Klass a copy of this letter he wrote to Frosch. Jim Hughes
comments: "He made a tactical error in discussing the controversy and refuting
what Philip Klass said, and sending him a copy. Klass could see all his argu-
ments first.... In a dog-eat-dog world, it's a bit na'ive." McDonald's fourth
journal continues the saga:

35. Western Union "Night Letter" to Frosch from McDonald, September 18,1968.
36. Letter from McDonald to Frosch, dated September 25,1968.
 206 FIRESTORM

9/19/68 Phoned J. Hughes 1700

Jim had called Dick Kassander midday, asked for theses I've super-
vised, to bolster his position. Pressure partly from general change of
attitude aroundONR to "productionfigures" viewpoint. Are wonder-
ing why no published reports & papers, I gathered.37
Kassander also sent the list of IAP publications produced under McDonald's
Nonr-2173 in which partial or total support by the ONR was formally acknowl-
edged. It was an impressive roster of 40 publications in refereed scientific jour-
nals, 21 of which McDonald had produced personally. The remainder had been
written by graduate students under his supervision. The Navy seemed satisfied
that nothing was amiss.
McDonald's mention of "no published reports and papers" in his journal
entry, cited above, referred to the fact that Klass was formally requesting Navy
officials to send him papers or articles McDonald had written on the subject of
UFOs with ONR support. There were none, for two reasons: Refereed scien-
tific journals were unwilling to accept McDonald's papers on UFOs because
of their fear of sanctioning "a fringe subject." (The same situation had been
met by Hynek and other scientists who were bold enough to enter the UFO re-
search field publicly.) However, McDonald's privately published writings on
the UFO subject were plentiful by this time, and they were widely distributed
among McDonald's colleagues and throughout the UFO research field.
The second reason why there were no McDonald UFO papers published
"with the support of ONR" was due to the fact that ONR had never directly
supported his UFO studies. Besides, McDonald considered his UFO study in-
complete, and he felt that a formal report was premature. There was still much
to be learned on the subject. In fact, he had begun to suspect that perhaps a dra-
matically new technique was needed to adequately study the problem.
By this time, McDonald was thoroughly irritated at Klass's attempts to
impugn his honesty and to stir up the Navy. He wrote in his fourth journal that
p,,^ it might be "a good point to call attention to the contradiction that Klass feels
f w ^ sure UFOs are atmospheric electricity, yet thinks I'm misspending funds in-
/ " i . tended for 'atmospheric research.' Jim Hughes agrees that it will be relevant to
^ v ^cite recent subsun studies [by which McDonald had been able to solve a puz-
zling UFO report] and to ask, 'You draw the line, Mr. Secretary, between at-
o^£>^mospheric physics and UFO research', and is it 'shocking'?" 38

37. McDonald's fourth journal, reverse side p. 25.

38. Ibid. This paragraph has been edited slightly to make the meaning clearer in relation to the
text preceding it. JEM's journals often used abbreviations and shortcuts in grammar and
clarification seemed necessary in this instance.
 T H E FIRST A T T A C K 207

Shortly after, Hughes called James McDonald again. Klass had now gone
beyond Robert Frosch at Navy R & D and was complaining to the Navy Chief
of Staff about what he regarded as misuse of Navy funds. As a result, Hughes
had been called before his superior, Dr. D. King. King at first seemed "amazed
with the whole business and didn't take it seriously." By the next day, however,
Dr. King was getting irritated over the situation, and, in Hughes' words, had
"chewed him out" for not replying to McDonald's letter of September 27, 1967
where he had made a plea to make an 'honest man' out of him by getting UFOs
OK'd openly in his contract. King told Jim Hughes that his failure to reply in
strong negative tones to McDonald's request made it look as if ONR was "con-
doning" McDonald's UFO research. The fact that Jim Hughes's immediate su-
periors knew about how the ONR funds were being used made no difference to
King. McDonald wrote in his journal that King's remark to Hughes was an "as-
tonishing commentary" regarding the UFO problem.39
McDonald looked in his files for his September 27, 1967, letter to Hughes
but couldn't find it. "Oddly," he wrote, "I can't find the copy in my files, but re-
call it."40 He habitually referenced and re-referenced items so as to be able to lay
his hands quickly on anything he might need. It was not the last time papers and
w^e-- other materials vital to his UFO research would inexplicably disappear.
Contract 2173 had been ended, but in November 1968, Klass was still sug-
gesting in letters to high Navy brass that McDonald had used the funds improp-
erly. The Navy decided to end the accusations once and for all and sent an
auditor to the IAP to examine all the expenditures on that particular contract.
U. of A. President Richard Harvill was informed that Mr. George E. Girard,
Director of the Review & Analysis Division of the Naval Audit Service would
personally conduct the audit. McDonald was embarrassed by the situation, but
he tucked his feelings deep inside. He wrote:
LJ J
I gave Dick copies of JEM white papers, of Federal Register on USAF "'
responsibilities re UFOs, also mimeo copy of Klass letter of Sept 30,
file on contract expenses & of my phone calls.41
Only a few of his colleagues knew about the audit. Dr. Lou Battan, Asso-
ciate Director of the IAP and head of the Meteorology Department, tried to
cheer him up with a horror story, recalling the time officials from the Depart-
ment of the Interior came on campus to audit the expenditures on a desaliniza-
tion contract.

39. Ibid., p. 26.

40. Ibid.
41. Ibid., p. 28.
 208 FIRESTORM

"They stayed two foil weeks," Battan told him. "And they were even ask-
ing about the cost of the paper cups which each of the guys on the project
used!"42 A reception had been held for the dedication of the desalting plant,
and a very large number of paper cups were used to permit all of the attendees
to test the water. Dr. Kassander suggested that Senator Fannin, who was
present, would be able to assure Secretary Udall of the success of the water-
tasting activity, should the auditor wish to disallow the cost of the cups. That
auditor dropped the matter!
McDonald appreciated Lou Battan's attempts to cheer him up with the
"paper cup" story. He decided that he wasn't going to let the situation get him
down and went about his work as usual. He spoke before the AIAA conference
in Oklahoma City, with expenses paid by the AIAA, and titled this talk
"UFOs—The Key Question and a New Hypothesis." The hall, as usual, was
crowded, and the talk was well received. A Maj. Thompson and his aide, a Lt.
Fielding from Tinker AFB, who were the UFO officers on base 43 attended and
spoke at some length to McDonald afterwards. Later he wrote in his journal:
"Thompson conceded afterwards there's a lot to my position."44
That Saturday morning, Kassander laid a handwritten memo on James
McDonald's desk. McDonald was not at his office that day, for he was still at
the AIAA conference in Oklahoma City.
"URGENTSat. A.M.
Mac: Attached is some of the material I have preparedfor [the auditor]
according to specific request. I believe his conclusion is that we have done
nothing without the concurrence of the contract monitor... that [ONRJ su-
periors had a pretty clear idea of what was going on and should have told
Klass that the Navy can look into UFOs if they want to.... "45
Meanwhile, McDonald was seizing every opportunity to talk with AIAA
colleagues about the serious nature of the UFO problem. He perceived that

the scientific community, other government agencies and the public, in order
to gather hard documentation which would prove the reality of UFOs. In
i,.-;such a network, the active participation of SAC bases would be crucial, for
if Ytfr" these bases had sophisticated radars capable of detecting unidentified aero-
il t W | < « l Z F 'f •ftfw rc*k Ore hoolwj
»r 'SffH ' nt-hjaA,. Tf -fW V rer^o^li a«pss o awW Vyi uy*' »
42 Ibid. or iHyJ,**^ (li\ s^vll^ I"

43. McDonald used the term "UFO officer" to denote the AF personnel on each Air Force Base
who were charged with the responsibility of receiving UFO reports and channeling them to
Project Blue Book in Dayton.
44. McDonald's fourth journal, reverse p. 28.
45. Memo from Kassander to McDonald, in JEM UFO files.
T H E FIRST A T T A C K 209

forms operating in Earth's atmosphere. McDonald was determined to draw

SAC into the investigation, if possible. His journal cites his efforts:
11/16/68 OMAHA AIAA
Lunch Friday with T. Penn Leary & Bill Strauss.... Knows all the SAC
brass & will try to get the word to them, knows Walt Roberts from ses-
sion at Aspen Inst.... May try to set up session with me & SAC gener-
al....
First Lt. Kebler camefor Gen. Stewart (Intelligence). Fielding does as
one duty, reporting to Gen. Stewart re UFOs at any & all SAC bases.
No previous knowledge of UFOs. Sounded naive.
Capt. Ernie Pope is in Trajectory Dir. programming warheads to tar-
get. Is Aero Engineer & getting out in couple months. V. Admiral Noel
GuylerJ. S. T. P. S. [title, group] Offut AFB came. Aviator.
\ Sharp. Sat at speakers' table & we got fair discussion. I'll send him
reprints. 46
When he arrived back at Tucson, after the non-stop weekend of interaction
with military and scientific types about UFOs, auditor Girard was still on cam-
pus. Girard spent two hours with him, going over all the details of how the
monies from Contract 2173 had been spent.
There is only one entry in McDonald's journal which speaks directly about
the cutoff of his funds. While in Oklahoma City, he phoned Jim Hughes to tell
him that his ONR Final Report on #2173 was on its way. Hughes told him that
Girard had also gone to the Pasadena ONR office, as part of his investigation.
Girard was quoting McDonald's "honest man query" and had also asked the
same question: "Why didn't Jim Hughes reply to McDonald's September 24,
1967,'honest man' letter?" ^
Hughes told McDonald that he had explained the whole thing to Girard in-
cluding the fact that ONR had invited McDonald to speak to the highest ONR
officials about his UFO studies, inviting all ONR staff. "What more could I do
to let ONR know of your interest in UFOs?" Hughes asked. "I added that ONR
only had 30% of your time anyway."47 McDonald's journal continues:
Jim gathers that Girard's final report will stress that UFO research
was going on, but there was no misapplication of ONR funds. Jim
urged Girard be careful re. wording because of what Klass will do
with it. Girard said it '11 be looked at by USN consuls in last stages.48

46. McDonald's fourth journal, reverse side p. 28.

47. Ibid., p. 30.
210 FIRESTORM

The Navy auditor found all of McDonald's expenditures on Contract 2173

open and aboveboard. Nevertheless, that particular contract which had permit-
ted McDonald to investigate UFOs on the side had been allowed to expire
without renewal. McDonald's reputation for ethical behavior remained intact,
and Navy Department officials, particularly those at ONR, continued to respect
him for his continual contributions to atmospheric physics, cloud dynamics
and weather modification. In spite of the contract cutoff, he continued on in
UFO research as though nothing had happened. His controversy with Philip
Klass and Jack Anderson made merely a ripple in UFOlogical waters, and he
never spoke openly of the loss of his funding. Only those who were very close
to him knew any of the details.
An unexpected poignancy, surrounding the tragedy of the bitter contro-
versy between McDonald and Klass was that Philip Klass, like McDonald, has
qualities of easy cordiality and a mischievous sense of humor which he uses to
very good advantage whenever he chooses. It is regrettable that the two men
were not able to direct their energies toward a common goal—that of alerting
the scientific community to investigate the UFO phenomenon as a scientific
question, just as McDonald had done with Donald Keyhoe, Dick Hall, and oth-
er researchers, engineers, and scientists.
Permission to use ONR funding in any way for McDonald's UFO research
was never re-established. The actual reason why the Navy cut off McDonald's
Contract 2173 remains unknown. He was exonerated completely of Klass's
charge that he had misused public funds; the cutoff of his contract indicates
that some high-level political concerns were involved. Two possibilities have
been suggested:
1. that high Navy officials (and perhaps other governmental sources?) felt that Klass
should be appeased, since he was a Senior Editor of a leading aerospace maga-
zine; or
2. that the DoD made the final decision, in the light of Air Force complaints that a
Navy-funded scientist was severely criticizing Project Blue Book. In other words,
was the funds cutoff done simply to ameliorate friction between the branches of
the military? "iW ^ + ^7 ^ ft ^
A TO * (KBOT IfMflMnt * * fulolicL
"The Navy feared that I might do a story in AW&ST," relates KlasS.
"When Russ Greenbaum assured me that...[they] would not continue to fund
JEM's UFO activities, I agreed not to write an expose article."49
So KU U.^ ^ W WcO«wi'» 'x*"^.- S (sJk v.orU

48. Ibid.
49. Letter from Klass to author, op. cit.
T H E FIRST A T T A C K 211

A hint that the DoD might have authorized the cutoff is found in a letter
which McDonald wrote to Jim Hughes in October 1968, in which he mentioned
that Jack Deyo was now the Head of the ONR in Tucson. He added, "As you
probably know, Deyo is now in residence here for ONR (and, I guess, DoD in
general)."50 The implication here is that there was such close cooperation be-
tween the ONR and the DoD that the same person could represent both in a par-
ticular city. This letter is included as Appendix Item 9-E (see page 551) because
it also dramatically demonstrates the complex involvement of McDonald in the
UFO field and the meticulous nature of his research.
Although McDonald was left virtually without resources to fund his UFO
research for several months, all of his atmospheric physics projects at IAP con-
tinued with ample funding. He used his modest honoraria from his talks to help
pay for the telephone interviews he continued to conduct on promising UFO
reports around the country. This source of funding did not cover all the expens-
es, however, and soon there was a $1,000 phone bill at the McDonald home,
which greatly worried Betsy. McDonald's overall income remained virtually
the same, however, for the contract that had terminated was replaced with an-
other ONR grant for atmospheric physics projects.
"The overall funding was not cut," explains Betsy McDonald. "But for us,
it specifically affected Mac in his work. I knew it. The important thing was not
the amount of money, but that they did it, that they attacked it that way and
tried to get at him that way."
In the midst of all the controversy, McDonald continued working on the Na-
vy's Stormfury Panel, the NAS's panel on weather modification, as well as chas-
ing down every aspect of UFO research which he considered worthy of attention.
One case in which he and other UFO researchers took great interest was the So-
corro, N.M., landing which occurred on April 24, 1964. The primary witness,
Deputy Marshal Lonnie Zamora, a law-enforcement officer of impeccable repu-
tation and undoubted courage, had seen a white, egg-shaped craft in an isolated
gully outside the town of Socorro. Zamora saw two small individuals standing
near it. He thought it was an upturned car that had crashed into the gully. As he
drove within 150-200 yards from the craft, he saw that the "little people," as he
termed them, were only about four feet tall, and that the white object was not an
automobile but an egg-shaped craft. He headed toward the gully on a dirt road to
render assistance. The "little people" seemed startled as he drove toward the
strange machine. Then a slight rise in the unpaved road hid it temporarily from
his view, and as he came over the rise the "little people" were no longer in sight.

50. Letter from A. Richard Kassander to J. C. Deyo, December 14,1968.

 212 FIRESTORM

As Zamora got out of his cruiser, the object rose into the air with a roar; a
bluish flame emitted from the bottom. Startled, he backed up and bumped into
his police cruiser; his glasses fell off and broke. The object traveled horizon-
tally toward the south, and mesquite and other green desert plants were left
burning on the site. Indentations were left in the earth where the object had sat
on rodlike legs, and smoke and ashes filled the air. Zamora called for assis-
tance on his police radio and then went to examine the site. He noticed a melt-
ed, lava-like rock where the object had rested on the ground. Within two
minutes, Sgt. Sam Chavez arrived on the scene in response to Zamora's call,
and he confirmed the ashes, smoke and burning mesquite. A third officer, Dep-
uty Sheriff James Luckie, arrived about two minutes after Chavez and also tes-
tified to the indentations, the smoking ground, and the burning vegetation.
"Those bushes are hard to set afire," Chavez stated later to the Air Force
officer who investigated the incident. "Maybe a blowtorch would do it.
They're always green and hard to burn."
l>y o't ') Strangest of all, perhaps, within 45 minutes, an unidentified military-type
^ vehicle, equipped with a binlike apparatus, entered the area. Stone-faced men
L i n uniforms without insignia scoured the landing site, taking away the melted
OtW rock, soil, and some charred vegetation. The only people who were aware of
C
Zamora's sighting for about an hour after the craft took off were law enforce-
r«Ww#nent officers in Socorro; their police radios had a range of only a few miles.
Where did this cleanup truck and its workers come from? Even more signifi-
cant, how did they learn of the incident; they could not have learned about it
by monitoring police radios.
Researcher William L. Moore) a well-known UFO investigator, while in-
terviewing Lonnie Zamora several years later, was the first to notice this pecu-
liar timing. Moore theorized that the unmarked truck was from Stallion Site, a
large up-range USAF radar site about 20 miles away on White Sands Missile
Range. Technicians there might have been following the craft on radar and sent
out equipment immediately to gather physical evidence of the landing. A time
span of 45 minutes would suit this scenario nicely.51
When J. Allen Hynek, as Blue Book consultant, investigated the case a
few days later, he expressed surprise that the object had not been caught on So-
corro Airport's radar, since the landing site was on the very edge of this civilian

51. Author's interview with researcher William L. Moore, 5 August 1994. Although it was a
well-known fact that military personnel cleaned up the landing site the evening of the land-
ing, Moore was the first UFO researcher to learn from Zamora the immediacy of military
reaction and the specifics of the equipment used. He was also the first to speculate which
NM radar site had detected the craft—Stallion Site, part of the huge White Sands research
grounds. The UFO landing site was near the edge of this government facility.
 Oo of C^v^ - KoflX^ '
THE MRST ATTACK 213

airport. Jim and Coral Lorenzen, directors of APRO, learned the answer quick-
ly. The incident had occurred on Friday afternoon, and all airport radar had
shut down at 4:00 P.M. No one apparently thought to inquire at radar sites as
far away as twenty miles!
This was one of the few cases where reported occupants of a landed UFO
could not be ignored or swept under the rug. Zamora was ridiculed by many
townspeople, but he stuck to his statement that he'd seen two "little people"
near the craft, and his two corollary witnesses corroborated the after-effects of
the landing.
The military wasted no time sending Capt. Richard T. Holder to investi-
gate the case the same day. Strangely, Capt. Holder's investigation was re-
quested by the FBI instead of the Air Force, the government agency
supposedly in charge of investigating UFO reports. Holder was accompanied
to the site by FBI agent, D. Arthur Byrnes. Holder specifically noted in his re-
port that the FBI had requested that no mention be made of FBI interest in the
case (see Appendix Item 9-F, page 552). Holder's extensive report included
Zamora's description of the object and the statements of the corollary witness-
es. He did not make any Brownie points with Zamora and Chavez when he sug-
gested to them that they might have been the victims of a "hoax." Zamora, who
felt all along that the unidentified craft was some type of experimental Earth
technology—an hypothesis shared by Chavez—did not appreciate Holder's
statement. "We're not kids," they told him. 53
The landing at Socorro was widely publicized in the media. J. Allen
Hynek and Maj. Quintanilla of Blue Book tried to identify the object as an
experimental craft, perhaps a lunar exploratory module (LEM) being devel-
oped at the LEM Test Facility at nearby White Sands Missile Range
(WSMR). All their efforts to identify it failed, and Blue Book listed the case
as "Unidentified." Later, McDonald researched the same aspect and also
came to the conclusion that the LEM hypothesis could reasonably be reject-
ed. In April 1965, a full year after Zamora's report, the LEM's ascent engine
underwent a five-second test firing at WSMR. In the early months of 1969,
five full years after Zamora's sighting, LEM test devices were being flown

52. "UFO Report," by Capt. Richard T. Holder (see Appendix Item 9-F, page 552), a copy of
an original U. S. Army document found in McDonald's files. This document identified an
FBI agent who had prior knowledge of the sighting and who referred it to military personnel
for investigation. It also cautions that no mention of FBI involvement in the Socorro case be
made public!
53. From McDonald's hand-typed notes in file, "Socorro Landing Report 4/24/64," p. 1.
214 FIRESTORM

in Texas, but were still experiencing malfunctions in some components. 54

Logically, the object was not the LEM.

McDonald did not realize that the FBI had also covertly investigated
Zamora's landing report; however, Byrnes made a full report, dated May 8,
1964. This formerly classified FBI report was obtained years later by research-
er William L. Moore through the FOIA. Byrnes wrote a straight-forward ac-
count of the incident. He apparently had been at the site before Captain Holder
was even notified, and he had noted the ground traces, including the four
"landing mark" depressions, which were rectangular in shape and approxi-
mately 16" x 16". Byrnes described Zamora as a "well-regarded, industrious,
and conscientious officer and not given to fantasy." An intriguing addendum
to Bryne's report is an "Urgent" teletype sent to the FBI from the SAC base at
Albuquerque, describing Zamora's sightings, so apparently SAC had notified
the FBI even before Capt. Holder was asked to investigate on behalf of the Air
Force. McDonald, of course, was not aware of SAC's and the FBI's partici-
55

pation in the case, but his idea about attempting to involve SAC in a network-
ing study of UFO reports was at least perceptive!
The Socorro case is the only landing trace/occupant case listed as "Uni-
dentified" in Project Blue Book files. The case also forced NICAP to relax its
ban on publication of occupant sightings. Because of Zamora's credibility,
NICAP began tentatively to publish, in the UFO Investigator, a few occupant
cases which had been carefully investigated by experienced NICAP personnel.
The Socorro sighting continued to intrigue McDonald. He carefully re-
checked the work which the Air Force, NICAP, APRO, and other researchers
had done on the case. His colleague Professor Charles B. (Charlie) Moore of
the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT) in Socorro
helped McDonald immeasurably by investigating on-site for him. Moore was
in a position to learn things about Zamora's character and credibility which
other researchers could not access. 56

Moore also knew Zamora's cousin, Moise Zamora, who stated that Lon-
nie was fed up with all the notoriety from the sighting. Moore met with Lon-
nie Zamora in late May 1966, gaining his confidence by telling him that he'd
had a sighting of his own in 1949 (see Chapter 6). Moore later reported back
to McDonald that he had been quite impressed by Lonnie Zamora because
"he was not promoting anything." Lonnie had worked for NMIMT about
seven years as an aircraft mechanic and had helped build that facility's Lang-
54. Letter from McDonald to Charles B. Moore, April 19, 1969.
55. "Unidentified Flying Object—Socorro, New Mexico 24 August 1964," FBI report.
56. McDonald, James E., fourth journal, reverse p. 19.
1HEHRST ATTACK 215

muir Lab, but later entered law enforcement. The publicity from the sighting,
continual harassment by the media and repeated requests for interviews by
UFO investigators led him to accept a tempting offer as manager of a Chev-
ron station in town. The better pay and anonymity it offered was more than
he could turn down.
Talking with highly placed Socorro officials, Moore learned that Zamora
had not been asked to leave the police force (as rumors stated) but had quit be-
cause of the better job offer. There were no complaints of any sort against him
from any quarters. Moore assured McDonald that Zamora's reputation and
character was "stolid and solid." 57 From 1966 through 1970, Moore worked
intermittently on the Socorro landing case whenever McDonald asked him,
cheerfully following up on his friend's intermittent requests for information.
"McDonald was a good person," relates Professor Moore. "We had dis-
agreements on how thunderclouds got electrified," he states with a chuckle,
"but...this was a scientific disagreement, none other." 58
Moore, at McDonald's request, also followed up on rumors that there had
been corollary witnesses to Zamora's sighting. "There was a Whiting Bros,
station on the north side of Socorro, and it was operated by a man named Opal
Grinder," he relates. "Grinder made the report later that day.... A Colorado
motorist had driven into the station and, I think the right word is "complained,"
that he was nearly struck by a flaming aircraft that came from the East as he
drove up Highway 85 into Socorro from the south side. And this was about the
level of Socorro Airport. Grinder reported that this person had been quite vocal
about it, and then had driven off, but he did not get the license number or the
name of the motorist. And he vanished into oblivion." Some attempts were
made by researchers to trace this motorist—who could have given invaluable
testimony regarding the strange craft—but their efforts were unsuccessful.
Lonnie Zamora took Moore out to the landing site. He told Moore that the
flame from the craft had melted some of the rock beneath it, and that in the area
of the "landing holes" there were some metal streaks, where metal had been
dragged across the rhyolite (lava rocks) on the ground. He stated that the Air
Force investigator, Capt. Holder, had come from Stallion Site, and that Holder
took the melted rock and the rocks with the metal streaks back there. Moore
wrote Capt. Holder, wishing to interview him personally on McDonald's be-
half, but by that time Holder had been transferred to Alaska. He wrote to him
in Alaska but received no answer. Moore recalls how he attempted, three years

57. Ibid., reverse p. 22.

58. Author's interview with Prof. Charles B. Moore, January 10, 1995.
216 FIRESTORM

after the fact, to find physical evidence at the site that the area had, indeed,
been subjected to high heat.
"Following what Lonnie said, I talked with the State Police people, and
they essentially confirmed the reports," relates Moore. "I then went back to the
site and took a coarse metal screen, and I sieved the whole area.. .that the ex-
haust had hit, looking for molten rock or previously melted rock. I found noth-
ing." He also noticed that fragments of rhyolite—a very acid volcanic rock
which is the lava form of granite—covered the area where the craft had report-
edly landed. As an experiment, Moore gathered samples of rhyolite and lava
from an area near the NMIMT and heated them with a blow torch.
"When I put a torch onto the rhyolite... it would expand and come off in
little flakes. They were very characteristic. And when I heated the lava—
which was black, vesicular, or bubbly—it melted into a glassy surface."
Moore went back to the area where Zamora had seen the odd craft land and
looked again for signs of rhyolite and lava rocks that had been heated. "I never
found anything at all—nothing physical or tangible that would confirm the sto-
ry. There was just no evidence at all that any heat had been applied there other
than some mesquite bushes there had charred roots.
"There was a fire when [Sgt. Chavez and Dep. Sheriff Luckie] came out,"
confirmed Moore. "It was established that there was some sort of fire in some
mesquite or creosote bushes there. A number of people here in NMIMT said
they went out the next day, and that there were well-marked indentations in the
ground." Moore had not investigated the site himself until he was first request-
ed to do so by McDonald in mid-1966, fully two years after the event. The in-
dentations had eroded away with the summer thunderstorms, but he
photographed the gully site and also a ring of rocks which still surrounded the
area where one of the "leg-holes" had been.
"My own feeling is that probably Zamora saw something, possibly some-
thing from the proving ground, the northern extension of which is just on the oth-
er side of the river," states Moore. "In fact, one of the people who still works with
me was there the next day and believes pretty strongly in the existence of some-
thing landing there." Moore states that he favors the possibility that Zamora had
seen an early version of the LEM, in spite of the fact that McDonald had written
to him the results of his investigation on that point. The Air Force, Hynek and
McDonald had all researched this hypothesis and had come to independent con-
clusions that the LEM was not operational in 1964.
McDonald pointed out another reason why the strange machine most
probably was not an experimental LEM. Zamora had described how a bluish-
orange flame emitted from the craft as it rose from the ground, but that the
THE FIRST ATTACK 217

flame ceased as the object traveled away on a horizontal trajectory. McDonald

reasoned that Earth technology like the LEM would require sustained propul-
sive power, represented by the flame, to travel on a horizontal path.
In early January 1967, McDonald wrote an account, as described by Pro-
fessor Moore, of a visit by Philip Klass to the Socorro site. Klass had invited
him to go out to the landing site with him. Unknown to Moore, Klass had also
invited Zamora and Chavez and sat in his car talking to the two officers. When
Moore attempted to join the conversation Klass, according to Moore's account,
turned "aggressive."59
"He argued with me about various points of plasma physics," Moore told
McDonald. "He tried to say that the [leg] holes were gopher holes. Then he
proposed that maybe Zamora saw a 'plasma'." Moore realized that plasmas
could not take on the white, machine-like features of the craft which Zamora
had described and sketched for numerous investigators. If one accepted Lonnie
Zamora's credibility, which Moore did, it was illogical to accept it as a "plas-
ma." He argued with Klass.
"Maybe Lonnie here saw a dust devil, then," said Klass.
To Moore, the explanation of "dust devil," a cohesive, whirling wind
which carries dust and debris along its path, looking very much like a tiny tor-
nado, was as unacceptable as "ball lightning." Charlie Moore's arguments
didn't discourage Klass, who persisted in trying to explain the Socorro object.
"He tended to twist all my statements around, and answered my questions
before I was half through with my replies," Moore related.60
In his frequent communications with McDonald regarding the Socorro
case, Moore expressed his surprise that the object landed scarcely a half-mile
from the nearest dwelling on the edge of town, and about a half-mile from the
north end of the Socorro airport's approach path. "No experimental FAA or
USAF craft would ever dare land one-half mile from residences, unless it was
an emergency," he told McDonald. Moore also relayed to McDonald another
incident which seemed significant to him: While he and Zamora were viewing
the site, some tourists came up, asked, "Is this the place where the cop saw the
flying saucer?" Zamora merely answered, "Yup."61 Moore was impressed by
the witness's desire to avoid publicity!

59. McDonald's hand-typed notes in file, "Socorro Landing Report 4/24/64," reverse side of p. 2.
60. Ibid.
61. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 23.
218 FIRESTORM

There were persistent rumors for years after Zamora's 1964 sighting, to the
effect that the town of Socorro had made a tourist attraction out of the "landing
site" in the gully, and that a road had been paved from the main highway leading
to it. In March 1970, Charlie Moore visited Tucson to give a colloquium at the
IAP. Afterward, he and McDonald discussed the Zamora case until after mid-
night. Moore told him that no road was ever paved into the site. Four years later,
the "road" into the gully was the original dirt track that Zamora and Chavez had
used to get to the landing site. No signs were ever put up, and there was no evi-
dence around Socorro that the site had ever been treated as a tourist attraction.
Moore doubted that any promotion was ever considered.
There was also a rumor that "fused sand" had also been found around the
landing area, and McDonald set about trying to track this down. Charlie Moore
searched the area but could find no traces of fused sand, even under the surface.
If a government-type vehicle/crew had scoured the landing site within 45 min-
utes, as reported, all traces of fused sand, if it existed, might have been re-
moved. The importance of the fused sand, of course, was that tremendously
high temperatures, far beyond the capacity of an ordinary hoaxer, would be
needed to produce it.
The "fused sand" rumors were never investigated until McDonald took the
opportunity in September 1968 to ask Hynek if he'd ever heard of the rumor.
Hynek said he had not, even though he'd investigated on-site for a full four to
five days, immediately after the incident occurred. One month earlier, howev-
er, McDonald had gotten a lead on the "fused sand" from Stanton Friedman, a
nuclear scientist who was openly involved in UFO research. Friedman had
spoken before the Las Vegas section of the American Nuclear Society (ANS),
and a member of the audience, Mary G. Mayes, came up to talk with him af-
terward. She told him that, while working on her masters degree in radiation
biology, she had been asked by the University of New Mexico to analyze plant
material from the Socorro site. Afterwards, she was told to turn in all records
and samples, and then heard no more about it.
McDonald, at Friedman's' suggestion, called Mayes and spoke at length
with her over the phone. Two other technicians had worked on samples from
the landing site also, but she could not recall who they were. They were grad-
uate students like Mayes; one a woman working in microbiology and the other
a man working on rabies research in biochemistry. Mayes did not know how
they were notified and knew no details about what work they might have done.
They were told to "keep quiet" about the work, just as Mayes had been. 62

62. McDonald file, "Socorro Landing Report 4/24/64."

THE FIRST ATTACK 219

Mayes had gone to the site the morning after the landing, to collect samples
of plants. While there, she met some "USAF people" who had heard about a rock
that was heat affected. She also told McDonald that she saw an area where the
heat had turned the sand "glassy." There were many people there, but the site was
roped off, so that "the others couldn't get down close."63 She collected plants,
parts of plants, and "plant substance" and took the materials back to the lab to
analyze. She found that the plants were scorched—"not charcoaled, but com-
pletely dried out." Plant sap phloem and xylem of creosote bush and low mes-
quite had "burst out through the surface of the bark in many places." She found
no evidence of radiation in the materials, but did find "two organic substances"
which were not identified. The rest were ordinary plant fluids.
Mayes's analysis was done under Dr. Howard Dittmer at UNM, but an Air
Force officer whose name Mayes did not remember took the results away.
Some time later she wrote to Wright-Patterson to try to get the results since she
felt she had "need to know," but she never obtained any information. She did
no work on the fused sand, since her specialty was radiation biology.
A few weeks later, McDonald was in Las Vegas and interviewed Mary
Mayes in person. She described the sand as "like glass and had holes in the
edge. It "looked like something splashed and dropped" and she felt it was a
"hot jet that hit it." 64 He showed her sketches of the landing area, and she
pointed out to him where she had seen the fused sand—on the southeast side
of the gully. There was a 25"-30" patch which ran down the side of the gully
as if in a stream 8"-10" wide, tapering down to about 1". The patch was about
0.25" thick. The portion toward the side of the wash was like "a Campfire Girl
cookie" but the near edge was smooth.65 McDonald pointed out to her that no
other researcher had located any other person who actually had seen the fused
sand. She said she just assumed others had seen it and supposed it was a well-
known feature of the event.
Mary Mayes visited Socorro toward the end of August 1968 and unsuc-
cessfully tried to locate the name of the two other graduate students. She
promised McDonald that she would search through her papers for clues to
their identities, since she had been acquainted with them both at UNM. How-
ever, no other mention of this has been found in his files to date.
McDonald continued in this fashion, following up leads on classic cases
like the Socorro incident, researching recently surfaced UFO cases, and coop-
erating with NICAP investigations. All this went on in the midst of his funding

63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
220 FIRESTORM

cutoff controversy. At the same time, his academic colleagues were sending
conflicting messages to him about how they felt about his involvement with the
"unknowns." But he was also making a major breakthrough. Largely through
his efforts, a Congressional committee was on the verge of an open hearing.
The subject: UFOs.
CHAPTER 10

Battering the Gateway...

Enniscarth is in flames, and all Wexford is won,

And the Barrow tomorrow we will cross.
On the hill o 'er the town we have planted a gun
That will batter the gateway to Ross.
—from "Kelly, the Boy From Killan"

New truth is always a go-between, a smoother-over of transitions.

It marries old opinion to new fact so as ever to show a minimum
ofjolt, a maximum of continuity....
By far the most usual way of handling phenomena so novel that
they make for a serious rearrangement of our preconceptions is
to ignore them altogether, or to abuse those who bear witness
for them.
—William James in Pragmatism

Mc Donald's entrance into the UFO field helped bring about

a major event for which NICAP had worked hard and
long. Ma. Don Keyhoe had always felt strongly that
Congressional action could penetrate the government "cover-up," for
the legislative and executive branches of the government controlled the
military. If enough members of Congress could be convinced that UFOs
were a serious scientific problem, and especially if they presented some
type of threat to the nation, Congress might demand that the Air Force
release all classified UFO data. He felt, as did McDonald, that the peo-
ple had the right to know.
Starting in mid-1957, NICAP members began urging their Con-
gressmen to hold open hearings on the UFO subject. A few secret Con-
gressional hearings were held, but their proceedings were never made
public. One of these secret hearings was held April 6-7, 1966, before the
Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. L. Mendel Rivers, where J.

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

222 FIRESTORM

Allen Hynek and Hector Quintanilla had testified. McDonald obtained ac-
cess to a partial summary of the UFO hearings, which was published by the
U.S. Government Printing Office and made available to the public. In this 1

summary it was revealed that veteran UFO researcher Raymond Fowler's re-
port on the Exeter, N.H., sightings, introduced by Fowler's Congressman
William Bates, had sparked a debate and the Air Force was made to retract
its evaluation of those remarkable sightings from "identified" to "unidenti-
fied." Aside from this one significant retraction, however, McDonald con-
cluded that no scientific evidence had been given which pointed to the reality
of UFOs and that "the Air Force line" prevailed throughout. He must have
been intrigued that, after the public part of this hearing had been concluded,
the Committee went into "Executive Session," the transcript of which was
never released.
One statement by Hynek at the public part of the hearing was especially
evasive and irritated McDonald. He later expressed his displeasure to Hynek
in no uncertain terms. Hynek had testified:
2

During the International Geophysical Year, I was in charge of the op-

tical satellite tracking program, and you would think that with the sur-
veillance the astronomers placed on the sky that, if these objects
existed as tangible objects, surely these astronomers would have seen
more than they did. It is a dilemma. 3

Other statements Hynek made in this hearing also irritated McDonald, es-
pecially his testimony about the Hillsdale, Mich., sighting: "No individual that
I talked to, and no group of persons, could agree that they had seen anything
either enter or leave the swamp," Hynek had testified. Yet NICAP had ob-
4

tained detailed reports from Michigan police officers which specified that disc-
shaped, solid objects had been seen emerging from a Hillsdale college landing

1. "House Armed Services Committee Document No. 55 'Unidentified Flying Objects,' Ref.
L. Mendel Rivers," Washington, D. C., Government Printing Office, p. 6009. The Rivers
Committee UFO hearings were published as a portion of other hearings before the House
Armed Services Committee, hence the page number cited, which does not reflect the true
size of the much smaller UFO Hearings document.
2. Letter (never mailed) from McDonald to Hynek, July 1970, third draft. (See Appendix Item
4-A, page 532.)
3. Barely three months later, Hynek was changing his tune. In an interview in a major newspa-
per in October, he listed several reasons why the UFO problem should be taken seriously:
His seventh reason was: "Radar, meteor cameras, and satellite tracking stations have picked
up 'oddities' on their 'scopes or films which have remained unidentified." Chicago Tribune,
byline Ronald Kotulak, October 22, 1966.
4. "House Armed Services Committee Document No. 55 'Unidentified Flying Objects,' op.
cit., p. 6071.
 I LS Jt i- ' x. -
19 or"
BATTERING THE G A T E W A Y . . . 223

location,5 which McDonald later verified was not a swamp, but a large, well-
cared-for lawn. The fact that false testimony had been given to Congress was
intolerable to McDonald, and he threw the weight of his Washington contacts
and reputation behind NICAP's push for open Congressional hearings. Key-
hoe and he agreed that only reputable and authoritative scientists who had stud-
ied the subject should testify. Congressional hearings were not new to
McDonald; he had testified before a Congressional committee during the Titan
controversy and on several other matters concerning atmospheric physics (see
Chapter 1).
Keyhoe shared with McDonald all the facts of his early attempts to bring
about open UFO hearings "on the hill." During 1960-61, he had almost suc-
ceeded. Keyhoe was acquainted with many Congressmen and other govern-
ment officials and had convinced a number of them that the UFO question was
a serious one. The incessant flow of letters and telegrams from NIC AP mem-
bers to their own Congressmen also helped. In August, an extra impetus ar-
rived: Keyhoe received from NICAP Board Member Vice-Admiral Roscoe
Hillenkoetter (USN-Ret.) a signed statement in which Hillenkoetter urged im-
mediate Congressional action to reduce the dangers of UFO secrecy, specifi-
cally: the risk of accidental war resulting from UFO formations being mistaken
for a Soviet surprise attack; and the danger that the Soviets might claim that
UFOs were secret Russian weapons against which our defenses were helpless.
Hillenkoetter's warning was part of a "NICAP Report on Secrecy Dan-
gers," which contained verified evidence of radar-visual and photographic
cases and was endorsed by more than 200 pilots, rocket, aviation, and radar
experts, astronomers and military veterans. 6 This report was distributed con-
fidentially to several Members of Congress, including then-Senator Lyndon
Johnson. Parts of it were put into the Congressional Record by Rep. Leonard
G. Wolf from Iowa (see Appendix Item 10-A, page 553).
This powerful document helped convince Congressmen that UFO hear-
ings should be held. Sen. Lyndon Johnson ordered the Senate Preparedness In-
vestigating Subcommittee to keep close watch on UFO developments and on
Air Force investigation of recent, significant sightings. But it was the House,
not the Senate, who eventually acted. In May of 1961 the House Space Com-
mittee formed a subcommittee to study the UFO problem, and the members de-
cided that open hearings should be held. They were on the verge of doing so

5. McDonald, James E., second journal, p. 3.

6. Congressional Record: Proceedings And Debates Of The 86th Congress, Second Session,
Statement by House Representative Leonard G. Wolf.
7. From "NICAP UFO Report," (see Appendix Item 10-A, page 553).
224 FIRESTORM

when suddenly, and inexplicably, Vice-Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter abruptly

resigned from NICAP's Board of Governors, stating: "In my opinion,
NICAP's investigation has gone as far as possible. I know UFOs are not U.S.
or Soviet devices.... The Air Force cannot do any more under the circumstanc-
es.. .and I believe we should not continue to criticize their investigations." The
flat statement negated a great part of NICAP's work in the eyes of the Con-
gressmen, and hearing plans collapsed. Keyhoe, and all NICAP members,
were astounded at the setback (see Chapter 4).
McDonald's entrance into the UFO research field revived hopes for open
Congressional hearings. He was personally acquainted with powerful Con-
gressmen and other government officials, including both of the Udalls from
Arizona—Morris "Mo" Udall, a Representative, and "Mo's" brother, Stewart
L. Udall, the Secretary of the Interior. Still, he was fully aware of the difficul-
ties. He questioned Keyhoe and Hall about Admiral Hillenkoetter's inexplica-
ble about-face which had helped destroy the 1962 UFO hearing plans, but no
one could explain why Hillenkoetter had acted as he did. Finally, McDonald
wrote in his journal: "Hillenkoetter never retracted his serious concern." 8

McDonald's lobbying is a masterful example of how to work the halls of

Congress. His journal gives complete details of the convoluted process he
undertook. Eighteen months before the actual hearings took place, he became
acquainted with Rep. J. Edward Roush of Indiana, who was well known to
Keyhoe and convinced that a Congressional inquiry was in order. McDonald
gave Roush copies of his UFO talks and other materials. He also became ac-
9

quainted with Roush's staff assistant, Phyllis O'Callaghan, Ph.D., who had
earned her doctorate in History. 10

By April 1968 plans for an open hearing were in motion, and Roush had
made a public statement that such a hearing was essential. McDonald wrote
regularly in his journal during the next few months. Two things especially con-
cerned him: He wanted to be certain that nothing about UFOs was classified or
involved with national security; and he wanted all UFO testimony by the par-
ticipating scientists before Congress to be strictly objective and irreproachable.
Betsy McDonald, meanwhile, felt growing anxiety about her husband's
incessant research into a subject which she felt was not worthy of his time.
She worried that he would become exhausted and, perhaps, depressed as had
happened briefly during the Titan controversy, but McDonald gave little

8. Ibid, reverse p. 19.

9. These newsclips included articles from the Tucson Citizen, Oct. 5th, 1966, and New York
Times, October 18th, 1966.
10. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 33.
BATTERING THE GATEWAY. 225

heed to her warnings. He was spurred on by continuing criticism of high-pro-

file skeptics like Menzel and Klass. In all his talks before scientific audienc-
es, he continued to rebut their statements. He looked forward eagerly to open
discussion of UFOs in the halls of Congress. If the hearings could convince
the government that UFOs must be seriously studied, the objections of skep-
tics would fade naturally into the background.
The Condon Committee at the time was studying the UFO phenomenon
with their half-million government grant, but by now NICAP, McDonald,
and other researchers were receiving evidence from members of Condon's
own staff that the study lacked proper objectivity. The Committee's Report
was due out soon and researchers expected it to be essentially negative (see
Chapter 11). In McDonald's opinion, Congressional hearings, therefore,
were of prime importance and should be held at the earliest possible date.
Early in May 1968, after Roush's public statement, McDonald met with Is-
abel Davis and Gordon Lore in Washington to discuss the proposed hearings.
Dick Hall had had to resign his NICAP post due to growing family responsibil-
ities, and Lore had been appointed Assistant Director. Davis had moved from
New York and was working at NICAP full-time. She'd rented a spacious, three-
room apartment in an old walk-up building, where she lived with several cats.
Early the next day, McDonald went to Congressman Roush's office. At
the Congressman's instructions, Phyllis O'Callaghan had already done a lot of
ground work. She'd discussed the proposed hearing with Congressman Men-
del Rivers and Air Force Secretary Brown. She'd also talked to Dr. Thomas
Ratchford at the Office of Scientific Research.
Ratchford confided to O'Callaghan several bits of information about how
the work of the Condon Committee was proceeding, and she shared them all with
McDonald. As she talked, McDonald realized with some consternation that
Ratchford's "facts" were all erroneous!11 That same day, he spoke with Dick
Olsen, aide to "Mo" Udall, discussed power outages with Rep. Ryan, and talked
to one of Rep. Daddario's aides. All of these Congressmen agreed to lend sup-
port to Roush for the hearing.
The wheels of government ground slowly, but by June 20 O'Callaghan
was handed the job of tentatively planning the scientific panel. She requested
McDonald's advice. He urged her to tell Roush that, during the actual hearing,
he should expressly ask about military-related and "obfuscation" cases, of the
types that NICAP and similar groups had brought to light and which were so
plentiful in Blue Book files. He suggested that Roush officially ask him to put

11. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 1.

226 FIRESTORM

some of his criticisms of Air Force UFO investigations in writing. In that way,
McDonald reasoned, he could put his objections into terms that the testifying
scientists would have to confront. O'Callaghan concurred. Still, no date had
12

been set for the hearings, and Roush was not even sure they would be held.
The same day, the indefatigable McDonald, at Roush's suggestion, spent
an hour with Rep. George Miller. Miller, being an elder statesman, had great
influence over which subjects would be discussed in certain Congressional
committees. He was known to be interested in UFOs, and McDonald was de-
termined to cover all bases. Miller had a "grandfatherly chat" with him, with
Miller doing most of the talking. He cited the pros and cons of UFO reality,
13

using popular logic. There were billions of planets, Miller told McDonald;
consequently, on some of them, there logically could be civilizations more ad-
vanced than ours. On the other hand, Miller advised, "It pays to be skeptical.
Remember Shakespeare, and the advice to Laertes, 'There are more things in
heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy'."
McDonald had heard all this before, but he tactfully let Miller talk. Miller
told him about a woman in Silver Spring, Md., who claimed to have movies of
UFOs and who called him up from time to time, complaining that local aircraft
landing patterns interfered with UFO landings at her home! McDonald was
aware of this contactee, Madeleine Rodeffer , and commiserated with Miller.
14

He told Miller that the "crackpot fringe" had discolored the UFO problem bad-
ly, and Miller seemed to agree. 15

Miller also brought up the possibility of a jurisdictional problem: Would

open hearings interfere with the Air Force's official responsibility for UFO in-
vestigation? McDonald explained his discussions with various officials, which
had indicated there didn't seem to be a jurisdictional problem. He'd also heard
that the USAF was planning to rid themselves of the problem by the fall, any-
way, so the question was moot. The two continued to discuss the problem pro
and con, with McDonald citing promising cases which kept surfacing.
"Things like this keep coming along," he told Miller. "I'm convinced that
we've missed the boat on the UFO problem." 16

12. Ibid., reverse p. 4. Roush later requested that McDonald write this statement, which he
called a "bill of particulars" (See Chapter 11.)
13.Ibid., reverse p. 4.
14. Her name is also spelled Rodifer in some sources.
\ 5. Ibid., p. 5.
16. Ibid.
 BATTERING THE G A T E W A Y . . . 227

So 4V\* ^ ec^l^ff 0- SfE'or ^ frr V

Suddenly, Miller casually told McDonald, "Well, I've told Mr. Roush he
should go ahead and have some hearings. I've warned Roush to be careful not to
overstep jurisdictional barriers, however. I told him to use care not to prejudge
the USAF shortcomings."17
McDonald was a bit puzzled at the offhand way Miller indicated his
"okay." His reaction reminded Miller that the Air Force's shortcomings were
all too apparent, and he tried to reassure him. "If the Air Force has mishandled
it, Congress has ways to handle that," Miller said. "For example, I sit on the
Armed Services Committee." • So «"> 4W c u r j cW.r -H*firmedServ
Cj CM* i-Wee
Because of Miller's low-key manner, McDonald really wasn't sure that
the elderly Congressman had said they'd definitely have hearings! After their
meeting, McDonald went straight to Roush's office to meet with Phyllis
O'Callaghan and Roush's other aide, Bill Stanton. He gave them the news
about George Miller's go-ahead, and Stanton confirmed that they knew Miller
had said this to Roush.
"But Miller is so elderly, Ed Roush was afraid he'd forget
1Q
he'd said it,"
explained Stanton. "So Roush felt unsure it was definite!"
The three decided to go ahead with plans for the hearing, assuming that
Miller's okay was definite. Phyllis O'Callaghan called Rep. J. E. Karth's of-
fice, since Karth was instrumental in the Committee on Science and Astronau-
tics (CSA) before which the hearings would be held. Karth was at roll call, but
his administrative aide Robert Hess came to the phone. He was personally dis-
interested in the idea of UFO hearings. McDonald briefly outlined the Herman
UFO sighting, which had occurred near Hess' home town.
"I don't know anything about that case," replied Hess in a rather deroga-
tory manner.
McDonald tried again, telling Hess about the Long Prairie case, which was
also a well-documented sighting.
"Well, I know about that case. Joyce Kilmer comes from Long Prairie," re-
marked Hess irrelevantly. "But nothing ever happens in Herman!" McDonald
cut the call short, fed up with the aide's attitude. He then went to "Mo" Udall's
office and summarized the day's results to Udall's aide, Dick Olsen. While they
were talking, Udall came in. He said he'd just seen George Miller in the hall,

17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
228 FIRESTORM

who'd told him he planned to have some UFO hearings. McDonald was relieved
to have the information confirmed!
McDonald discussed the casual Air Force handling of current promising
cases which were being investigated by NICAP. Olsen suggested that now was
the time for McDonald to write up a scholarly summary as a basis for the
planned Hearings. "This will be a document that Roush and the others can use
as a core of the hearing," Olsen said. "It'll give the Congressmen's staff people
something they can get their teeth into." McDonald was well aware that Con-
gressmen normally leave most preliminary work to their staff aides but cited
the need to get a request for such a document from Roush first. 20

In helping to plan the hearings, McDonald was probably impelled by in-

formation he'd recently learned: UFOs were being discussed in Pentagon
briefings. He had learned this during a discussion with his ONR contract mon-
itor, Jim Hughes, and wrote about it in his journal:
5/24/68 J. Hughes phoned. UFO matters came up in Pentagon budget
briefing he attended. See yellows.... 21

"Yellows" referred to pages from legal pads which McDonald filled with
notes about important meetings, phone conversations, and the like. Hundreds
of pages of handwritten "yellows" were found in his files, covering many dif-
ferent topics. It was of great interest to him that UFOs were being discussed
secretly in Pentagon briefings. The "yellows" on the Pentagon briefings have
not yet been found in McDonald's files, but when Hughes was asked if this
journal entry could be quoted, Hughes replies: "If it fits into a chapter. I can't
remember anything on that specific briefing, but UFOs were such a common
subject in the newspapers, and the military was involved. There's no secret
about that. So naturally they could have come up in any DoD briefing, but I
can't remember a specific instance.
"But you know, there was a time around Washington, when UFOs were
making sensation," continues Hughes. "They were scrambling Air Force jets
to send them out here or there, to look at this or that phenomenon. The military
was involved because if there was anything to UFOs, they'd have to know
about it." Hughes might have been referring to the 1952 Washington, D.C.,
22

overflights or possibly a flap that had occurred around Washington, D.C., in

the 1960s.

20. Ibid., reverse p. 5.

21 .Ibid., reverse p. 2.
22. Author's phone interview with James Hughes, 21 December 1994.
BATTERING THE GATEWAY. 229

During the period of advising Roush's office on the proposed hearings,

McDonald sought input from his good friend Tom Malone. Malone was still
worried about McDonald's need to study UFOs so openly, and he advised
caution. As early as June 1966, McDonald had cited two concerns: power
outages apparently associated with UFOs, and the fact that UFOs were being
reported from various arenas of the Vietnam war. Malone listened carefully
and ended up warning him again that he'd have to be careful not to lose cred-
ibility.23 McDonald apparently listened to this advice, for his concerns about
the Vietnam sightings, as well as power outages, were always cautiously
phrased in his talks. If he made any mentions at all, they were backed up by
the best documentation he could glean from his personal investigations.
With the support of NICAP colleagues, McDonald continued full speed
ahead. He planned to make up for the inadequacies of the closed April 1966
UFO hearings by presenting the best of the evidence, including the 1952 sight-
ings when, for several nights, UFOs had overflown the nation's capitol, includ-
ing the forbidden air space over the White House. These startling events were
written up by the media nationwide, for military jets had been scrambled in
vain attempts to confront the unidentified objects. Each jet chase ended with
the UFOs darting quickly away.
The July 1952 sightings had long intrigued Keyhoe, NICAP and others,
but the sightings had been dismissed by Hynek and Quintanilla in the closed
April hearings as "temperature inversions." NICAP investigators and James
McDonald had proven from meteorological data that there were no tempera-
ture inversions on the nights of the sightings strong enough to cause the solid
radar blips and visual sightings which had occurred, but Blue Book was not in-
terested in facts. McDonald was hoping to settle the 1952 controversy once and
for all by proving that the Air Force had handled those sightings in a grossly
neglectful manner.
He also planned to discuss the weaknesses of the Condon Report, in order
to forestall any anticipated objections that further government action was un-
necessary because "Condon was already studying it." The situation at Con-
don's Colorado offices was steadily growing worse, and some of the
competent scientific staff members had been fired for "insubordination." Dr.
Condon was limiting his own "UFO investigations" to wild stories of contact-
ees and was giving lectures about their shenanigans, which kept receptive col-
leagues highly amused. The Committee's funds were being misspent, and
Roush's staff, encouraged by McDonald, was attempting to launch a Govern-
ment Accounting Office inquiry. There were other signs that the final Condon

23. McDonald, James E„ second journal, reverse p. 10.

 230 FIRESTORM

Committee Report would be essentially negative, in spite of excellent cases

which were being studied competently by some of Condon's more objective
staff members (see Chapter 11).
In late June, McDonald met with Jim Hughes, to discuss the information
McDonald wanted to include in the document he was planning to write for
Congressman Roush. Since it was Rep. George Miller's expressed wish that
Roush not prejudge the Air Force's neglect of the UFO problem, Hughes ad-
vised McDonald to merely state bald facts as he had personally gathered them.
With no editorial comment at all, the needed points could be made. 24

Toward the end of June, O'Callaghan informed McDonald that Roush's

staff had come up with the idea of a one-day "seminar." Six to eight working
scientists would present papers on the UFO question. She assured him that
Congressional committees often did this to get briefed on some problem prior
to deliberation, or as a background for more extended hearings, and that such
seminar papers were usually published by the Government Printing Office and
made available to the public. She also informed him, in no uncertain terms, that
^ . . it had been decided that testimony presented in the seminar could not relate in
r, a any way to the Condon Committee—there could be absolutely no criticism.
^ Nor could the Air Force be criticized. Only the objective face of the UFO ques-
o* tV tion and specific cases could be discussed. 25

e>* ! > £ < ^

^ ,v McDonald's journal gives no hint of how he felt about these restrictions.
^ ^ He had probably suspected all along that one part of the government would not
^ ' » ^ permit criticism of another. An NAS panel was due to review the Condon
Committee's Final Report before it was released to the public, and McDonald
V ^ hoped that the published Proceedings of the upcoming Congressional "semi-
v * nar" would inform and guide the NAS panelists so that they could more objec-
tively and knowledgeably judge the worth and accuracy of the Condon Report.
He therefore agreed with Roush's plans with good grace, and wrote in his jour-
nal: "Idea sounds excellent & I pointed out salutary effect on NAS Panelists to
have this seminar on record before they deliberate." 26

The main question as far as Roush's aides O'Callaghan and Stanton were
concerned was: Were there six to eight working scientists who were actively in-
volved in UFO research? McDonald assured them there were. He had already
prepared a preliminary list of 21 scientists whom he felt could discuss the ques-
tion thoroughly and objectively. This list included: J. Allen Hynek; Frank Salis-
bury; Robert L. Hall; Roger Shepard; Seymour Hess; Charles B. Moore; A1
'her M'
24. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 6.
25. Ibid., reverse p. 6, p. 7.
26. Ibid., p. 7.
BATTERING THE GATEWAY. 231

f
Cameron; Robert M.L. Baker; Robert M. Wood; Eugene Epstein; Gordon Mac-
Donald; Robert Wilson; and R. Leo Sprinkle, among others. Not included in this
list was Jacques Vallee, who had left the United States in disgust when he real-
ized that the Condon study would be a whitewash. He'd taken a job in France,
and was working quietly on the UFO question behind the scenes.27 McDonald
also listed Walter Sullivan, Frank Drake, and Carl Sagan as possible participants,
although they had done no direct UFO research. Also on the list, for balance, was
Dr. Thornton Page who was basically a "skeptic."
We might wonder about McDonald's inclusion of Carl Sagan on the list,
since the eminent astronomer, for decades, was a vocal arch-skeptic. This
was not so in Sagan's earlier days; Jim McDonald and the younger Carl Sa-
gan were cordial colleagues and, in addition to his objective interest in extra-
terrestrial life, Sagan had professed interest in UFOs as a scientific question.
McDonald had sent Sagan a copy of his American Society of Newspaper Ed-
itors (ASNE) paper and received a warm response:
I have carefully read your article "UFO's: Greatest Scientific Prob-
lem of Our Times ? " and want to tell you immediately that, although I
may object to an occasional point here and there, I think the article is
altogether creditable, and I want to congratulate you on it.... I think it
is very important that someone with your background has looked into
many of the classic sightings and has reached opinions different from
the official ones. If your article is widely disseminated in the scientific
community I think it can only stir interest and unharden opinions....
(See Appendix Item 10-B, page 554.)
A few days after Sagan sent this letter, he called from the Department of As-
tronomy at Cornell to ask McDonald's advice about the forthcoming sympo-
sium, to be held by the AAAS. It was planned for December 1968 with Sagan
and Page as co-sponsors. Due largely to McDonald's growing influence in the
field, the theme was to be "The UFO Phenomenon." Sagan asked McDonald
what his choice of speakers would be for that AAAS gathering.
Realizing that AAAS members would want to hear both the pros and the
cons, McDonald gave him a dozen names, a truly mixed bag, which included J.
Allen Hynek; Bill Powers; Joachim Kuettner; Robert M. L. Baker; Philip Klass;(fe)
Carl Sagan; Donald Menzel; Robert M. Wood; Hector Quintanilla and William
Hartmann. Hartmann, who was on the faculty of the University of Arizona, was
also serving as a photogrammetric expert on the Condon Committee. Joach
Kuettner, who was prominent in the AAAS, had already established a UFO study
committee within that prestigious organization. McDonald also indicated his
^ T V i i s lo & cl^ur K j h , " f H J d s ^ ^ y
27. Author's communication with Jacques Vallee. L^K + W t-

i 4 ^ Vk\ O ^ r r k ^ t.ppfoadi -f
..x - V — i IIU > Vno^Y'
232 FIRESTORM
f (V* o e y e s ' W < c ^
own availability as a speaker and suggested that Richard Hall of NICAP, though
not a scientist, might be a valuable addition as a "discussant." 28

Dr. Robert M. Wood, whom McDonald had met shortly before his trip to
Australia, was a physicist and a highly placed executive at McDonnell-Douglas.
He was very active in UFO research in the southern California area. McDonald
was eager to have Wood on the Hearing panel and began to use the full force of
his will to persuade him to participate. Due to Wood's sensitive position, he
worked mostly behind the scenes; he was mainly interested in the mechanics of
UFO propulsion. McDonald had met Don Goedeke, Wood's chief team scientist,
before meeting Wood. As early as December 1966, McDonald had discussed
ball lightning and other aspects of UFO with him, and Goedeke had told Wood
about the scientist with impeccable credentials who had publicly entered the
UFO research field. In fact, McDonald's boldness had encouraged Wood and
Goedeke to go ahead with an idea they'd been toying with—a project aimed at
obtaining clues to UFO propulsion.
Goedeke had a Navy contract to study ball lightning, and Wood had sug-
gested to him that they could use that contract as a kind of cover story if they
wanted to go out with a instrumented van, looking for ball lightning. "We
could say, instead of looking for UFOs, we were looking for 'lightning',"
states Wood. "So that was in our minds, for somewhere along the line."
In May 1967 McDonald had stopped off for a couple of days in Los Angeles
to speak at RAND Corporation and meet with members of the Los Angeles
NICAP Subcommittee. The McDonnell-Douglas Missiles and Space Systems,
where Wood was Deputy Director of R & D, was nearby, and McDonald met
with Wood and his colleague, Dr. Darrell B. Harmon. The three physicists spent
two hours discussing UFO propulsion theory.
"Probably the best idea brought forward was a multi-mode system in-
volving electrostatic & magnetostatic reactions against atmospheric E & H 30

fields," wrote McDonald in his journal. He followed this statement with

31

mathematical formulae concerned with the propulsion theory Wood and Har-
mon proposed. "The 'Q-mode' is not really bothered by the corona-discharge
burst, since the operating area lies to the left of the voltage limit," McDonald
wrote. Then, in his meticulous manner, he added, "I realize I did not get it
perfectly clear Bob spoke of charges of 100 coulombs. He also definitely

28. McDonald, 4th journal, p. 9.

29. Author's interview with Dr. Robert M. Wood, 21 August 1993.
30. electrostatic and magnetic
31. McDonald, James E., second journal, small two-page appendix, "Wood notes," p. 1. Also
see note 32 below.
 BATTERING THE GATEWAY. 233

spoke of fields of the order 106 Gauss...500,000 Gauss to stop a car.... 32

Whereas Wood has recently been leaning to anti-gravity Harmon still feels
can do with a combination of conventional modes, including some depen-
dence on momentum-reaction, i.e., jet effects," McDonald's journal contin-
ues. "We discussed the soundlessness problem. Harmon felt that the multi-
mode propulsion idea could go up to 200 f.p.s. over a broad area, yet be qui-
et." 33 (Because of its possible interest to technical readers, this page from
McDonald's second journal is included as Appendix Item 10-C, page 555.)
In discussing this with Wood, McDonald mentioned the fact that many
witnesses had reportedly viewed UFOs very closely, in situations where the
objects were completely silent while hovering directly overhead. Wood con-
ceded that in such cases the propulsion unit would have to be on another mode,
which his and Harmon's theoretical ideas did not include. McDonald and
Wood quickly became friends after their 1967 meeting, corresponding over the
years and meeting together whenever opportunity presented itself. The "light-
ning van" became a reality, and for several months it monitored isolated re-
gions in the Mohave Desert east of Los Angeles, looking for ball lightning—
and UFOs. "There wasn't really that much that we learned," relates Wood.
"Nothing was ever published, even internally, within the company."34
Bob Wood was McDonald's first choice to discuss theories of UFO pro-
RJ pulsion at the Congressional hearing. Wood was not alone in his experience of
sW w e a v i n g to investigate UFOs under another more "acceptable" label. McDonald
had already met this problem in spades. Not one scientific lab, not one promi-
nent scientist that he knew of, was able to openly investigate UFOs with ade-
quate funding.
In late June, Phyllis O'Callaghan called McDonald. The hearing had been
set for July 29, a date squarely between the Democratic and Republican conven-
tions. She explained that Roush felt that the hearing should be held at an oppor-
tune time for members of his party to be informed, should the UFO question
emerge as a political issue during the campaign! She then asked McDonald out-
right if he would select the six panelists from his own list and Roush would fol-
low up with formal invitations. McDonald approved, writing "Good" in his
journal.35 In addition, he was requested to choose five or six other scientists to

32. Wood, Robert M., "A Little Physics...A Little Friction: A Close Encounter with the Condon
Committee," International UFO Reporter, July/August 1993, Chicago, IL, J. Allen Hynek
for UFO Studies.
33. McDonald, second journal, Appendix, op cit. "Anti-gravity" propulsion has been a hypo-
thetical idea since the 1950s. It seemed to fit many of the anomalies of UFO flight which
cannot be explained by more conventional methods.
34. Author's interview with Bob Wood. 21 August 1993.
234 FIRESTORM

contribute papers for the printed Proceedings, but these scientists would not ap-
pear personally on the panel.
McDonald chose six panelists and sent the list to O'Callaghan. She point-
ed out that his list contained mostly scientists who were "pro-UFO study," but
that she and Bill Stanton talked it over and decided that it was okay. McDonald
was relieved to hear this. "There are plenty of anti-UFO scientists," he pointed
out. "The point of the hearing is that here is a group of scientists who do feel
the UFO problem needs much more scientific attention."
Typically, McDonald was working on more than one project at a time. Dur-
ing the period of time he was helping plan the hearing, NICAP was publishing a
special edition of the old Project Grudge/Project Blue Book monthly reports,
which had been extricated from Air Force files with the help of Rep. John Moss
of California. Don Keyhoe had asked McDonald to write the preface.
Rep. Moss was head of a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations, which had effectively brought about the release of some
classified UFO documents. McDonald was excited about the Grudge/Blue
Book monthly reports, because they were from a period in 1951-53 when the
Air Force seemed to be studying the UFO question in a truly scientific manner.
They were originally classified secret or confidential. McDonald called the
Grudge Project "an heroic period" of Air Force investigations, placed as it was
between "the dark age" of Project Sign/Project Grudge before October 1951
and the "dark age" after 1953 when the CIA-sponsored Robertson Panel had
slapped debunking and ridicule lids over the entire subject. In the midst of pre-
paring for the Congressional hearing, McDonald found the time to write a four-
page preface for this important NICAP publication, which became readily
available to scientists and lay people alike. 36

On July 8, Phyllis O'Callaghan called again. "It's going to go," she in-
formed McDonald, referring to the House hearing. "I want you to phone the peo-
ple on your list and invite them to participate." McDonald hesitated, realizing he
lacked funding to pay for the telephone costs involved.
"You can use our Congressional credit card," continued O'Callaghan. "If
you call them, they'll be more likely to respond. When they accept, tell them
they'll get personal invitation letters from Congressman Roush. Let me know
who accepted or declined...use your own judgment about alternates."

35. McDonald, second journal, p. 10.

36. McDonald, James E., "Preface," in United States Air Force Projects Grudge & Blue Book
Reports 1-12 (1951-1953), Washington, D. C., NICAP, June 1966.
LP- 1 QU ' a
BATTERING THE G A T E W A Y . . . 235

McDonald set about the task, after first jotting down the general content
the seminar should encompass, so he could explain it efficiently.
General approach: How scientists interested in subject feel about
UFO's.... Diversified views. Can make recommendations to Congress if
care to.... [EJach should confine time to 30-40 minutes, to allow questions
from Congress. Need papers if possible. Can be presented later. Tell them
stenotypist will get all remarks & that will help on final paper.37
McDonald had barely picked up his phone to call the first invitee when
O'Callaghan called him back. Congressman Roush had told her to go upstairs
and check with General Counsel Ducander regarding the July 29 date, since all
of the CSA staff hadn't heard of the hearing plans yet.
"Hold off phoning till I check with Ducander," requested O'Callaghan.
"Give me 15 minutes." She phoned back almost an hour later.
"Jim, I called Ducander at his home," she said, a little anxiously. "He
brought up the problem that some people are claiming that discussing UFOs in
the Congress is a jurisdictional problem."
"It's not," asserted McDonald. "I've discussed this point several times
with various people in the government and the military and been assured over
and over that just because the Air Force was assigned the duty of checking on
UFO reports, there's no hard-and-fast rule that other agencies can't study
them. Just tell Ducander that we'll make clear to all the invitees that we want
to cover the scientific aspects of the UFO question at the hearing, not to criti-
cize the Air Force." O'Callaghan agreed that would solve that problem, but it
wasn't the only one.
"Ducander was also wondering about whether or not lots of people would
want to come and testify," said O'Callaghan. "He's afraid of the nuts."
"We'll tell the invitees to keep it quiet," advised McDonald. "That will
keep the nuts from asking to come." 38
"It's a good thing Roush was in town," said O'Callaghan, "because Ducan-
der could have stopped the whole hearing right there!" However, Ducander had
okayed the use of a stenotypist at the hearing and had given a commitment that
the Committee would cover the panelists' expenses.
McDonald immediately started calling the six panelists. The first one was
Dr. Robert L. Hall, Head of the Department of Sociology, at the University of

37. McDonald, J. E., fourth journal, reverse p. 10.

38. McDonald, J. E., second journal, p. 11.
236 FIRESTORM

Illinois in Chicago, who had been actively researching the subject from a so-
ciological point of view. Dr. Hall accepted the invitation enthusiastically. He
was already familiar with some UFO literature, but McDonald encouraged him
to read When Prophecy Fails. This book was an account of a small cult, the
members of which had believed a channeler's prediction that they would be
saved from a coming worldwide devastation; UFOs would pick them up and
whisk them away. When the world failed to end, as predicted, most of the
group continued to believe, merely setting a new date for the fulfillment of the
prophecy. The fact that McDonald, an atmospheric physicist, was recom-
39

mending a sociological study to Dr. Hall demonstrated his own familiarity with
all aspects of the UFO subject.
He called Dr. Bob Wood next, who was more than willing to participate
but needed to ask his superiors if he could state his affiliation with McDonnell-
Douglas. If not, he would speak as an independent scientist. Wood thought
there was a 50% to 75% chance that the company would okay it. He also told
McDonald about an intriguing report he'd heard from a source he considered
very reliable. It concerned Gene May, a Douglas test pilot, who had been in-
volved with the X-15 experimental aircraft for several years. According to the
story Wood heard, May had taken the experimental craft for a flight five to
eight years ago with 15 minutes' fuel in the X-15's tank. Yet May didn't land
back at the airfield until three hours later. May allegedly reported he'd been
taken aboard a UFO, X-15 and all! As a consequence, he was examined by psy-
chologists at Edwards AFB. Wood's reliable source was a colleague who
worked at Vandenberg AFB who knew Gene May well. McDonald tucked the
story in his journal, to be checked out later. 40

Wood's prime interest in the UFO phenomenon was the possibility that it
held clues to alternative energies which could improve our own space-flight ca-
pabilities. In turn, McDonald felt that the panel should include a scientist actively
involved in alternative energy research and he regarded Wood as a reliable, high-
profile scientist in this pioneering field. Wood told him that he could find out
within a week as to whether or not his company would permit him to testify.
McDonald called Carl Sagan next, who expressed a willingness to partic-
ipate, provided he would be free to say what he felt about UFOs and their pos-
sible relation to life in the universe. McDonald assured him on this point.
Sagan kidded McDonald, saying, "Some people are going to say you picked all
the participants for this hearing!"

39. Festinger, Leo, Riecken, Henry W„ & Schachter, Stanley, When Prophecy Fails, Minneapo-
lis, University of Minnesota, The Lund Press, Inc., 1956.
40. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse side p. 11.
 BATTERING THE GATEWAY. 237

"If Congress has a hearing on poor people's problems, you don't invite all
Rockefellers!" McDonald replied. ^ ^ QxUQ'"*
He also obtained a "yes" from Dr. Robert M.L. Baker, highly placed in
space sciences at General Dynamics. Baker was well known in the UFO field for
his analysis of the Newhouse photo case. He had concluded that the objects in
the classic UFO film were numerous, round unidentified flying objects, with
some of the objects appearing to circle around each other at times. The film was
well focused; the edges of the objects were sharp and clear. Some of the objects
held formations in groups for as long as 17 seconds (See Chapters 8 & 18).
Dr. Baker had been involved with ADC planning for the 1970s. He had ad-
vised officials that the UFO problem must be handled very sensitively and that
military sources should react as if to an attack if a UFO were spotted. He was
one of the rare high-profile scientists who seemed free to discuss UFOs openly.
His boss approved his plans to testify and even offered to chip in, if the CSA
didn't cover all his expenses! 42
With Baker confirmed, McDonald phoned J. Allen Hynek, with whom he
had previously discussed the hearing plans. Hynek wanted to be sure that the
(vw \ Condon Committee and the Air Force wouldn't be criticized. 43 McDonald said
^ m he'd already given his word to Roush on both of these sensitive issues. Hynek
[(It seemed enthusiastic and accepted the invitation.
tfy^lt
,/j.>r McDonald then called Phyllis O'Callaghan to let her know what progress
Cfk'"f> he'd made. O'Callaghan had run into other problems: certain people on the
A
CSA "hated" the idea of the UFO hearing, especially Dan Boone, the technical
consultant for the Committee, and Ducander, who'd also been negative about
the 1961 hearings which had been canceled. 44 They thought it was set up just
to help Roush win in the coming election. The two counsels had warned Roush
that "all the kooks would be writing in." McDonald reminded her that George
Miller had received hundreds of letters from constituents in his district calling
for the hearing and that this probably had prompted him to give his "okay."
"Well, it's going this time," said O'Callaghan. "And Congressman Roush
will probably make a press release on it."
"Will there be any press there?" asked McDonald, logically leery after his
Australian experience.

41. Ibid., reverse p. 12.

42. Ibid.
41. Ibid., p. 13.
44.Ibid., reverse p. 13.
238 FIRESTORM

"The press will be there, but TV is barred," she replied. "The participants
can hand out statements if they want."
"That will help," replied McDonald. "At least the press will have some
copy, so they won't screw it up too badly."
That same day, O'Callaghan sent out the formal letters of invitation.
James McDonald felt good; it would be the first time a Congressional body
would publicly receive documented UFO data from scientists who were
openly active in the field. Dr. Robert Wood, however, had trouble getting the
permission of his superiors and called to discuss his quandary. He'd gone all
the way up the ladder to Vice President Dorrenbacher and there met imme-
diate negative reaction. "I was told, 'it never does any good for McDonnell-
Douglas to get involved in any way with any Congressional Committees',"
Wood said. "He didn't give me an absolute 'no,' but that Mr. McDonnell, the
Chairman of the Board, will have to approve it." 45

"The testimony isn't under oath," McDonald indicated. "And we're not up
against Congressmen with already entrenched positions, fighting for pork-bar-
rel items. Ed Roush will chair the seminar, and he'll be friendly to all of us.
The letter from the Committee could specify that your comments are non-offi-
cial."
"I like that, but I'll still have to clear it with Mr. McDonnell," said Wood.
46

McDonald told O'Callaghan about Wood's problem. She assured him

they'd be happy to write McDonnell personally, that Roush could be charming
and would emphasize that Wood was there speaking for himself. McDonald
was eager to have him on the panel. The other five speakers, including himself,
would be talking on UFO theory and various hypotheses; by contrast, Wood
would represent the "hardware" aspect. Wood already had planned a six-point
outline, which included his personal research into clues to UFO propulsion and
recommendations on data-collection. He'd also cite the present state of tech-
nology and astronautical science as it related to the UFO phenomenon.
But it didn't happen. "I went to my management and sought their opinion,"
says Wood. "They said, 'You can do what you want to do, but our experience
is that nothing good ever comes from testifying before the House.' I read be-
tween the lines. I think they really didn't want me to do it. They gave me some
good reasons...[but] it was made clear to me, though indirectly, that it
wouldn't do any good for me or my career to throw my voice in."

45 .Ibid.
46. Ibid., p. 13.
 r»r ••• -

BATTERING THE GATEWAY . . . 239

It wasn't just exposure to Congressional questioning that was bothering

McDonnell-Douglas personnel. The disrepute in which UFOs were widely
held among scientists who hadn't studied the data might have been involved.
That didn't bother McDonald, and it didn't bother Wood, but McDonald real-
ized what he meant: persons in Wood's position would have to go beyond the
question of proof and try to duplicate the apparent propulsive capacities of
UFOs, using the cutting edge of Earth technologies.
"What I would have had to say would have been all speculation anyway,"
Wood says. "Now that I'm thirty years wiser, I think my perception of what we
had yet to learn in science was that it was just a little step forward, that we were
almost there. Since then, I've concluded that we were a long way from under-
standing the physics necessary to build the craft. I'm not sure whether the se-
cret program of the government has or has not achieved this understanding."
Consequently, McDonald was left without an aerospace scientist to dis-
cuss the "hardware" aspect. He wasn't really sure this aspect was needed, but
felt it could take the seminar out of the realm of hypothetical science and give
butek-i the Congressmen a practical aspect to consider. After thinking the problem
' over, he contacted Dr. James A. Harder, an associate professor of civil engi-
fly K'iV^ neering at the University of California in Berkeley. Harder worked mainly
frS^" with Coral and Jim Lorenzen, directors of the Aerial Phenomena Research
^ ^ Organization (APRO) in Tucson, and had been active in the UFO field for
I some time.
UF0V
He told McDonald that he was working on hypothetical UFO propulsion
mechanisms. He'd studied the May 5, 1953, sighting of Wells Alan Webb, a
scientist who had observed what seemed to be "concentric fields of force"
coming from a UFO in flight. Harder had become convinced that the "interfer-
ence rings" could be rationalized in terms of "spin-fields." His explanation
wasn't clear to McDonald; he asked Harder many questions about it.47
Webb's sighting occurred on a clear, spring morning in Yuma, Arizona.
When he noticed the "concentric rings" he was wearing Polaroid" glasses; the
rings were not visible when he took his glasses off. Wells's sighting was in-
cluded in a book he wrote in 1956.48 In 1966 McDonald had had a long con-
versation with him and later made a terse note in his second journal:
Sunday 6/5/66 Wells Alan Webb. See small notebook. Get his book UA
library. Cflast chapter, re his being dissuaded by Menzel.49

47. Ibid., p. 15 reverse.

48. Webb, Wells Alan, Mars, The New Frontier: Lowell's Hypothesis, San Francisco, Fearon
Publishers, 1956, pp. 127-28.
240 FIRESTORM

That phrase, "See small notebook," again. It gives no idea what the two
men discussed. Knowing McDonald, we can be sure he questioned Webb on
every aspect of his sighting, to obtain the best understanding possible of what
Webb meant by "concentric fields of force." Why did McDonald choose to put
the details in a private notebook?
However, Webb's sighting directly impacted on Harder's hypothesis. He
told McDonald he was trying to determine what kind of "spin field" was need-
ed to get gravitational dipoles, since he felt rotational spin fields could explain
some of the mysteries of UFO propulsion, as well as the "concentric rings" in
the Webb sighting. McDonald wrote this all down in his journal and expressed
guarded doubt. 50

Harder was also familiar with the 1961 case of Betty and Barney Hill, and
the "missing time" the couple experienced after a nighttime encounter with a
UFO, while traveling near the New Hampshire-Vermont border. As the object
came nearer, they had viewed it through binoculars and saw it had a double row
of windows. Eventually, the object hovered over trees less than 500 feet away.
Barney Hill got out of the car; in spite of being very frightened, he walked
within 50 feet of the strange craft and saw a group of "figures" inside. Terror-
ized, he ran back to the car. As Barney and Betty fled the scene, they heard a
series of "beeps," experienced a hazy sensation, then heard another series of
"beeps." Their car was then traveling along the highway, miles from where
they had encountered the UFO. They arrived home about two hours later than
they had expected.
The "missing time" element in 1961 was unique. Walter Webb, one of the
investigators who first researched the case, didn't know what to think of it, but
wrote a report on it and sent it to NICAP. Later, journalist John G. Fuller wrote
a popular book on the subject, The Interrupted Journey: Two Lost Hours
Aboard A Flying Saucer ; years later, this popular book was made into a TV
51

movie. Harder spent some time discussing the Hill case with McDonald, for
APRO had also investigated it in depth. He confided that there were "more cas-
es like the Hill case," i.e., reports involving "missing time." This remark
piqued McDonald's interest, for the Los Angeles NICAP Subcommittee
(LANS) was investigating a case in the mountains near China Lake, Calif.,
which also involved "missing time." (See Chapter 15). McDonald tucked
Harder's remarks in his mind, to be checked out later. In spite of his doubts
about Harder's "spin field" hypothesis, McDonald invited him to speak on the

49. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 10.

50. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 15.
51. Fuller, John G., op. cit., New York, The Dial Press, 1966.
BATTERING THE GATEWAY. 241

Congressional panel. Harder agreed to talk about UFO cases of general interest
that he and scientific associates had investigated and would include some of
his own ideas concerning propulsion hypotheses.
The long-awaited hearing took place in the Symposium Room at the Ray-
burn Building on July 29, 1968, before the CSA. About a dozen Congressmen
were in and out during the day, but only three stayed the entire time. McDonald
had the names of the entire Committee and knew who attended and who didn't!
A dozen newsmen, including Neal Stanford of the Christian Science Monitor
(CSM), and an interested audience were also present, including most of the
NICAP staff. Philip J. Klass was there, handing out copies of his "JEM White
Papers." Jim Hughes attended in the afternoon to hear McDonald speak. Appar-
ently no "nuts" showed up as feared; if they did, they kept quiet. The discussions
were confined to the panelists and the Committee members. This was deliberate-
ly arranged to prevent contactees, cultists and debunkers from interrupting. In
spite of the ban against criticizing the Air Force and Condon Committee one of
the Committee members, Rep. William F. Ryan (D.) from New York, who had
long been an advocate of scientific study of the UFO question, suggested that the
CSA should investigate the Condon Committee! Some of the scientists implied
their agreement with Ryan's suggestion.
The six-hour hearing cannot be even briefly summarized here, due to the
sheer volume of material brought out by the participants. Two sources of the
full testimony were printed and made widely available.5^
During his 15 pages of testimony, J. Allen Hynek stated that "reports of
aerial phenomena which continue to defy explanation in conventional scientif-
ic terms [have] potential scientific value." He stressed the exceptional value of
multiple-witness sightings and those from respected scientists. He gave veiled
reference to a "detailed report he received from the Associate Director of one
of the nation's most important scientific laboratories" but did not elaborate. He
stated that the lack of meaningful, "hard-core data" prevented proper scientific
study but nevertheless asked, "Can we afford to overlook a potential break-
through of great significance? And even apart from that, the public...does not
want another 20 years of UFO confusion." He suggested a serious, adequately
funded study in a receptive scientific climate.53 It was the first time he'd ever
spoken out so positively in public.

52. Symposium On Unidentified Flying Objects'. Hearings Before the Committee on Science
and Astronautics, U. S. House of Representatives, 90th Congress, Second Session, July 29,
1968, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 245 pp. A later version of the
document is "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects: Committee on Science and
Astronautics (U.S. House) 20 July 1968, PB 179 S41," Springfield, VA, Clearinghouse for
Federal Scientific & Technical Information, Government Printing Office, 1968.
 242 Q) WeyW -|U Offl* posA^ - FIRESTORM
« lo^U-Wt yifi^ /u> siypifKn^ (exHofJe , SoU^ ""' of 1 pe^Jc
CCiyiniw uiou'i prvv'Je irttrejti-^ J^V pv>"\
McDonald's testimony was more assertive and detailed and comprised 68
3 pages. "I wish to emphasize that my own study of the UFO problem has con-
v^- -i vinced me that we must rapidly escalate serious scientific attention to this ex-
1

4 traordinarily intriguing puzzle," he said in part. "I believe that the scientific
wie community has been seriously misinformed for 20 years about the potential
twuoie importance of UFOs."
t^iiT-to He urged the Committee members to take steps to alter the situation
fUW without delay, emphasizing that the one-day seminar was only a first step.
~" Extensive hearings before the CSA, as well as before other Congressional
rt< !

committees, were needed. He gave examples of good Blue Book cases that
had been either totally ignored or explained away, and he also cited several
multi-witness civilian sightings, including the February 5-6, I960, Holly-
wood sightings that had been thoroughly investigated by LANS. He told the
committee members that he leaned strongly toward the extraterrestrial hy-
pothesis "by a process of elimination of other alternative hypotheses, not by
arguments based by which I could call 'irrefutable proof."
Carl Sagan's 14-page testimony emphasized the difficulty of accepting the
ET hypothesis, and the problem of estimating the possibilities that Earth had
been visited in the past or in the present. He concentrated on the "emotional
factors...which predispose some not to want to accept UFOs because that
would threaten our conception of being the 'pinnacle of creation,' and some to
want to believe UFOs are extraterrestrial for religious reasons, and the hope
that 'they' will save us from ourselves." He stressed the need to bring the sci-
entific method to the problem, to pursue whatever facts are at hand with as
many diverse hypotheses as possible. Like Hynek, he felt that "harder evi-
dence" was necessary before mounting a major scientific effort.
Dr. Robert L. Hall, in 13 pages of testimony, examined the UFO problem
from a sociological viewpoint. He stressed the psychological effects on the
public when the government refused to conduct forthright investigation and re-
lease infoijnation freely. For the few strong cases which defied explanation, he
put forward three possible hypotheses: mass hysteria and contagion; extrater-
restrial devices; and an unknown natural phenomenon. He emphasized the risk
of accidental nuclear war if UFOs were misinterpreted by military sources as
missiles from another country. He also suggested that, in order to clarify the
problem, a "formal adversary proceeding" modeled after our system of justice
be set up to build the strongest possible case for each of the three hypotheses.

53. UFOs: A New Look: A Special Report by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial
Phenomena. NICAP, Washington, D.C., 1969. This contains a 1969 summary of the 245-
page House document.
 cf m jj T"

BATTERING THE G A T E W A Y . . . 243

Dr. James A. Harder, in his 13-page testimony, discussed cases in which

apparent "physical evidence" had been left behind, including the Ubatuba case
in which a UFO allegedly had exploded over the coastline of Brazil. Small
pieces of magnesium were recovered, which were determined by at least one
laboratory to be "of an unusually high degree of purity." He speculated that
such pure magnesium might be used in a spacecraft because its crystalline
structure could have fantastic strength.
He also speculated on propulsion systems which might be involved in
UFO flight, in particular the anti-gravity hypothesis popular in UFO literature,
while admitting that gravitation itself remains an enigma of modern science.
"There are theoretical grounds, based on general relativity, for believing there
must exist a second gravitational field, corresponding to the magnetic field in
electromagnetic theory, and that the interaction between these two fields must
be similar to that between the electric and magnetic fields," he stated. "Some-
1 the same
Ss.... In the UFO phenom-
ena, we have demonstrations of scientific secrets.... It would be a mistake, it
seems, to ignore their existence."
Robert M.L. Baker's testimony also comprised 15 pages. He discussed
^ several of the UFO films he had analyzed, including the 1952 Newhouse film
Oc and a Montana film which showed the same type of round, whitish objects. He
pointed out that the chances for obtaining high-quality hard data on the reality
1
of UFOs were small unles^ special sensor systems were designed to obtain sci-

cussion among several ofthe participants. At times, also, various Committee

, .members interrupted the testimony of each scientist in order to clarify some
specific point they were making.
After the hearing ended, about a dozen participants, including Hynek,
Harder, McDonald, Roush, and Donald E. Keyhoe, celebrated with cocktails
at the DuPont Plaza. The group toasted Roush, who had pushed through the
hearings.54 But not all the conversation was amicable. Dan Boone, the Com-
mittee's technical consultant, challenged James Harder on his gravitational
ideas and his polarization and "spin field" hypothesis as a clue to UFO propul-
sion; he had also asked hard questions of Harder during the hearings.
Rep. John W. Wydler, a Republican from New York, also confronted Hard-
er. Unabashed, Harder asked McDonald if he could take a copy of McDonald's
paper to Colorado, where he planned to meet with some of Condon's staff mem-
bers with whom both were working closely, though unofficially. McDonald was

54. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 20.

244 FIRESTORM

taken aback but gave a copy to Harder nevertheless. Then some of the group had
dinner at the Plaza and trooped off to Dick and Marty Hall's for further discus-
sion of the day's proceedings.
Late that evening, Hynek confided to McDonald that he had actually seen
the mysterious document called "Top Secret Estimate of the Situation" which
had been prepared by Project Sign in 1947 but had never been available to re-
searchers. Keyhoe and NICAP had tried for many years to procure a copy of
it. Its existence had been confirmed to Keyhoe by Maj. Dewey Fournet, a
NICAP Board member, and it was described in The UFO Evidence. Its impor-
tance lay in the fact that it purportedly contained statements that the Air Force
had come to a firm conclusion that the UFO phenomena were real and possibly
extraterrestrial.
McDonald pursued this issue with Hynek. Why hadn't he come out publicly
and admitted that the "Estimate of the Situation" actually existed? Hynek
squirmed, speculating that the USAF never officialized the document because
when it found its way up the ladder to Gen. Vandenberg, the general refused to
accept its conclusions and handed it back down the ladder. Therefore, it never
existed as an accepted Air Force report. "However," repeated Hynek, "I've seen
it somewhere along the line." Hynek's vagueness didn't help McDonald's
55

mood; any pleasure the hearings had given him rapidly vanished.
"How could you have kept quiet all these years!" challenged McDonald.
"I don't feel anyone in the Air Force ever looked at the whole picture,"
Hynek replied calmly. "It was always one case at a time. I tried to get the Air
Force to change their policies, Jim. It didn't do any good, of course, and I felt
awfully alone about it." 56

Despite this new confrontation with Hynek, McDonald expected that the
printed Proceedings of the CSA hearing would act as a boost to spur the NAS
Panel that was slated to review the upcoming Condon Report. Roush had as-
sured him the Proceedings would be available within days from the Govern-
ment Printing Office. McDonald expected it to be widely disseminated among
the scientific community, as well as Congress, and that it would lead to extend-
ed UFO hearings by the CSA, as well as other House and Senate Committees.
Sometime during that day, McDonald and the other panelists signed
vouchers for their expenses. McDonald's amounted to $319.00 for air fare plus
$9.00 per diem for one day. He still had no funds to pay for his continuing UFO
research. In fact, in the midst of the seminar planning, McDonald had written
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
 (JJ-^j ' »VT' >1 tf n | ^

BATTERING THE GATEWAY . . . 245

a letter to Jim Hughes, updating him on UFO events, and expressing his hope
that contract 2173 might be renewed. That contract, of course, was never re-
newed, but McDonald forged ahead, hoping for funding from other sources.
The morning after the Congressional hearing, McDonald stopped in at
Roush's office to re-hash it over coffee. Roush told him that Donald Menzel had
been thoroughly galled at not having been invited to participate as a panelist, and
had sent him a complaining telegram. McDonald treated this with good humor;
it was decided that Menzel would be invited to send a paper which would be in-
cluded in the back of the Proceedings, along with five other papers ^hich had
been requested from scientists active in UFO research. McDonald then went up
to the stenotypist's office to edit his own hearings transcript.
trw*)0^ He found his own statements loaded with errors. "Horrible," he wrote in
' ' his journal. 57 Although his plane was taking off that morning, he worked about
an hour and a half with CSA technical consultant Dan Boone, trying to correct
the draft. But time ran out before he could finish. He asked if he could take the
draft home to work on it, but Boone wouldn't permit it. He called O'Callaghan
from the airport and asked her to try to get a Xerox of the unfinished pages and
send them to him.
While waiting for their flights, Dr. Robert Hall told McDonald about the
concept of "pluralistic ignorance," i.e., "everyone is under the misimpression^
that he is the only one who knows something." From a sociological viewpoint,
Hall felt this concept might impact on the UFO question.
When McDonald arrived home, Dan Boone called to tell him that August
2 was the deadline for the edited papers—only two days away. Luckily,
O'Callaghan had sent the Xeroxes so he could complete his corrections. Mc-
Donald called Roush to appeal for more time, and learned to his relief that
the participant's submitted statements (in which they would expand on their
spoken testimony) had a longer deadline of August 12, and that these would
be printed verbatim.
In the meantime, other scientists who were quietly involved in UFO research
were being approached to submit papers for the Proceedings,58 Dr. Robert

SI. Ibid.
58. Those scientists were the following: Stanton T. Friedman, M.S., a nuclear physicist
assigned to the NERVA nuclear rocket program at Westinghouse Astronuclear Lab in Pitts-
burgh; Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle, Professor of Psychology at the U. of Wyoming; Dr. Garry C.
Henderson, Senior Research Scientist at Space Sciences, Fort Worth, TX; Dr. Roger N.
Shepard, Professor of Psychology at Stanford; and Dr. Donald H. Menzel, Professor of
Astronomy, former Director of Harvard College Observatory. All but M e n z e l accepted the
reality of the UFO question. All but Menzel urged the implementation of a plan to acquire
hard data which could be scientifically analyzed.
(&) TF\i. bexw 4
uc
4 bngV^sl nr^Jj <*W-
v rvcjy Jik.^x/ u rl's i^'c^Au Q ec^fi1 r*. Tjor^ rj ifce«r>
pf-t-v a, shr, ,-hiql ^ Cttkw-ii <••* cJtt<-,J, ^-tep* cu -jv^t?
246 FIRESTORM

Nathan, a computer-enhancement scientist at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, whom

McDonald knew to have an interest in UFO research, was asked by Roush to
send a paper. Nathan asked his boss, Dr. Pickering, who became very excited and
worried. Pickering had heard gossip that the hearings were simply a campaign
effort by Roush. Pickering's secretary, checking further, came up with the "in-
formation" that "the Committee had invited a lot of kooks to submit statements."
McDonald personally urged Nathan to ignore these deceptive rumors, but
Nathan decided not to submit a paper. What was the source of these rumors?f '
59

McDonald would learn, within a couple of years, more than he would care to
know about disinformation that was preventing the free, scientific investigation j
of UFOs. But this was 1968, and McDonald was still hopeful, tireless and "head t
4,

of the band."
In all fairness to scientists who quietly worked in the UFO field but never
publicly, they faced problems which McDonald didn't have. Some worked for
government, or for corporations dependent on government funding. They
rightly feared loss of their professional reputations, for they were not shielded
by an atmosphere of academic freedom such as protected McDonald. Others
worked in environments which were intimately connected with aerospace
work; cutoff of government grants was a real threat. Others, although not
threatened directly, simply did not have his fearless nature. Although they
shared his curiosity about UFOs, they did not want to be publicly associated
with what was regarded by other scientists as "a fringe subject."
The historic Congressional UFO hearing was quickly published by the
Government Printing Office and made available to the public (see footnote 50).
The 245-page document was widely disseminated throughout the UFO field,
and McDonald and other interested scientists did all they could to distribute it
to their colleagues. He also continued to "work" his Congressional contacts, as
revealed by detailed entries in his journal:
8/30/68 Called Mo Udall, TUS office 12:10 noon. Proposed very
quick UFO study, probably within NASC. Said he d explore it next
week in D. C. Said it 'd probably require support from Roush, Miller
& others in CSA.... I p. o. it 'd have to be done fast & with high-level
support. I suggested recent UFO Symp. offers a point of departure,
since several [of the participating scientists] spoke for E.T.H. He
said he doubted one could change minds fast enough back in D. C. to
do this by October, might sound too "gimmicky. " 1 mentioned I'd
spoken several times to NASC personnel & they answer directly to
[Vice President] Humphrey, & tatbfhis fast enough would probably

59. McDonald, op. cit., 4th journal, p. 21.

BATTERING THE G A T E W A Y . . . 247

require doing it within executive M . . . . Time

too short, too m a n y f :
minds would have to be changed quickly.... Good to stress the atmo-
spheric physics in it. Cite need to reduce to an absolute minimum the oA L* •<-
chance of atmospheric explanations....60
In spite of McDonald's expectations that the one-day seminar would lead to
extended Congressional hearings, he would never again see the subject discussed^'^
openly in the halls of Congress. It was as if a door had slammed shut, after open--4v«
ing a crack. Jacques Vallee suggests a possible answer. "I think they were a l l ^ * ^ ^
naive," he says. "The Symposium was an opportunity to have potential opponents An*
to the Condon Report 'let off steam,' to give them a harmless day in Court. It
couldn't accomplish anything, and was a classic tactic to disarm adversaries!"61 Utrfe
Back in Tucson, McDonald was long overdue for a sabbatical, and his wife
Betsy was again pressuring him to rest. He wanted to take time off to write a
comprehensive book on the UFO problem. He was slowly coming to the con-
clusion that talks before scientific groups and media appearances were fine, but
a major book by a reputable scientist giving credence to the problem would do
much more to prod the scientific community into action. He also needed time
to polish and publish dozens of atmospheric physics papers which were piling
up in his files. But these involved time he didn't have.
Instead of resting, he began the new semester with a full teaching sched-
ule, continuing to guide graduate students toward advanced degrees. The Con-
gressional hearing had heightened public interest in UFOs and in this
adventurous scientist who'd spoken out so boldly. He felt obliged to seize the
opportunity, and squeezed in a full schedule of carefully selected media ap-
pearances, plus another round of talks before scientific groups. Something else
was pressing on his mind, however—the growing problem of atmospheric pol-
lution. His colleague, Dr. A1 Mead, who was head of the Zoology Department
from 1956 to 1966 remembers:
"I knew him well. Morally and personally he was a tremendously fine
man.... I respected him so much, and I enjoyed just sharing in what he was
thinking. I was working in the field of Biology and he was working in Physics,
but we had great appreciation for our mutual dedication to what we were doing.
He and I had talked every so often about his concern in regard to contaminants
going up into the upper atmosphere. His integrity, the depth with which he was
exploring things, and, well, the genius! There was genius there. He literally
was anticipating the problem we're having now with the ozone.. .the chemistry
of the upper atmosphere, and what it was doing to the radiation that we get

6 0 . I b i d . , reverse p. 21.
61. A u t h o r ' s communication with Jacques Vallee.
248 FIRESTORM

from the sun. His fear was that we were upsetting the upper atmosphere to such
an extent that it would endanger human life." 62

The growing air pollution in Tucson was more subtle and more extensive
than even McDonald realized. The desert city was deeply involved with the
military-industrial complex, with its aircraft factories and Air Force base to the
south. It would be many years after McDonald's death before the true condi-
tion of Tucson was fully realized. The present serious problem of trichloroet-
hylene (TCE) pollution in South Tucson's well water, for instance, has been
traced to the haphazard dumping of solvents and other chemicals into the
ground since the 1950s.
McDonald's early concern in the 1960s about pollution in the delicately
balanced upper atmosphere had impelled him into research on the problem.
He was reading insatiably on the subject, and in the mid-sixties, he had en-
listed the aid of his colleagues for on-the-spot research. His university col-
league Dr. Ray Turner relates:
"We lived on the northern outskirts...and I'd come into town in the morn-
ing... look across the city and see the atmospheric pollution, especially in the
wintertime. And Jim got me and two or three other people, that lived elsewhere
in the city, to stop each morning on our way into town. Because we had a def-
inite schedule, we'd get to the same point each morning. He'd have us look in
several directions at different landscape features.
"He visited our sites and set this all up, and said, 'Okay, I know how much
air there is beneath that mountain top over there,' and he'd say, 'if you'd just
give me an idea of how well you see that mountain peak....' He had some sort
of an index, a rough scale, and we would write down what our observations
were, how clearly we could see these landmarks.... We were looking from dif-
ferent vantage points all around town and we'd give him this information."
Side by side with his professional life, McDonald's children were becom-
ing involved in various academic and civil-rights activities, and Betsy was be-
coming more and more active out of the home, as slim and attractive as ever.
Their oldest son, Kirk, was at Caltech, earning his Ph.D. in Physics. Ronilyn
was at Harvard on a scholarship, working toward a Ph.D. in Psychology. Lee
was studying at the University, as were Nancy and Gail. Jan was still in high
school, but planned to attend the university, too.
Nancy and Gail worked as lifeguards in the summer, to earn extra money.
Gail gave her mother the money to buy a Selectric typewriter for the Peace and
Freedom Center and helped out the Center financially in other ways. Jan did art-
62. Author's interview with Dr. Al Mead, 18 July 1994.
BATTERING THE GATEWAY. 249

work for the Center in her spare time. McDonald was not a member of the Peace
and Freedom Center, but he backed up Betsy openly. Many people in Tucson
were involved actively with the Center, and the world was changing in other
ways. The hippie movement had begun, and it did not bypass the McDonald
family. Out at Caltech, Kirk wore his hair long, and Ronilyn wore "flower-chil-
dren" clothes. Gail got into rock climbing, and she would later climb mountains
around the world.
"The other girls thought of Nancy as being kind of 'straight'," Betsy
laughs. "I remember them teasing her." Lee, the second son, was more low-key
and planned to become an astronomer.
In spite of all his responsibilities, UFOs still preoccupied McDonald a
great deal of the time. The fact that he'd been instrumental in bringing about a
Congressional UFO hearing made not a whit of difference to his university col-
leagues. He was generally regarded as a sort of campus legend on campus, and,
in spite of his low-keyed appearance, he was capable of unpremeditated drama
of the most astonishing kind. His university friends and colleagues were used
to this; they were accustomed to unorthodox research by McDonald.
His colleague, Dr. Dean Staley sums up the situation picturesquely: "Ev-
erybody in the Meteorology Department liked him. Some of the people in the
administration hated his guts and wished he'd go away. [University President]
Harvill, deep down in his heart, may have wished that McDonald would just
disappear in a UFO." Staley laughs, then softens the statement. "But Harvill
was sensible enough to realize that he had to give people freedom of action.
There may have been some concern...that the tail was wagging the dog, that
the UFO business was passing for science. But everybody with any maturity
had to recognize that McDonald was a first-rate scientist, and this is one reason
you have tenure, so people can pursue unpopular lines. And considering what
he was doing, it was better McDonald than someone else!"

Campus controversies were raging at the time. Throughout the sixties, Mc-
Donald was a source of annoyance to President Harvill; he was working with a
small but vocal faculty group which pressed Harvill hard on certain matters. Dr.
Paul S. Martin describes one donnybrook. "I remember a faculty meeting, which
always followed an agenda that was controlled by the President and the Secretary
of the Faculty and was pretty much a rubber stamp operation for whatever busi-
ness at hand supposedly should be 'considered' by the faculty," relates Martin.
"At this point I don't remember exactly what the issue was, but...Jim was com-
municating hotly with the university president, and they were both furious. Mc-
Donald told Harvill, 'You, sir, are what is wrong with this university!'" Dr.
Martin laughs fondly, remembering his friend's passion for justice. Dr. Dean
Staley also recalls McDonald making this statement to Harvill.
 250 FIRESTORM

His IAP colleague's reactions to McDonald's intense interest in UFOs were

varied, if not always vocal. Many felt he was wasting his time. Dean Staley de-
fends him: "McDonald was a physicist, and there is no better preparation for in-
vestigating UFOs," he states. "He was trained to be a scientist, not necessarily to
stay in a narrow line of research. Although his work on the UFO problem may
not have yielded significant results, from the vantage point of hindsight, he
should not be faulted for deviating from what he was 'trained' to do." 63

p i of his defense of McDonald's UFO studies, Staley's opinion is that

s te

investigating UFOs isn't the way to go about finding extraterrestrial life. "I
p \» would dearly love to have them discover some kind of signals that would have
4k to represent some kind of extraterrestrial intelligence," states Staley. "If they
j) want to learn about such things, there are scientific ways with the radio tele-
scopes, and just the general advance of science, where this may turn up....
[M]y own personal view is that some study like the surface of the moon in de-
tail, that turned up tracks that could not possibly have been made by a human,
that kind of a discovery...might be a way in which extraterrestrial activity
would manifest itself." 64

McDonald's close friend, Dr. Dick Kassander, felt that the UFO question
must hold something of serious scientific interest if it could manage to grip the
attention of such a talented researcher. Consequently, most of his university
colleagues left McDonald alone to pursue the UFO question, although many of
them felt he was wasting his time. Only a few of his university friends were
more accepting, including Dr. Paul Martin, who at the time was doing fossil
pollen analysis at the university's Desert Lab, and who, at the time of this writ-
ing, was involved in a scientific controversy regarding the sudden extinction
of the mammoth and other large Ice Age mammals. "I can't help but value sci-
entists who are willing to take calculated risk, a high-stakes gamble, like Jim
seemed to do," he says. "You can turn this thing upside down. Some experts
timidly hole up in their special field, forever. We need both kinds—ever-so-
cautious and high-risk-takers."
Dr. Gerard Kuiper of the Lunar and Planetary Lab on Kitt Peak, however,
openly ridiculed McDonald on occasion, publicly telling him that UFO re-
search was the worse kind of pseudo-science. He especially seemed to object
to the fact that McDonald favored the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) as the
"least unsatisfactory" one he could think of (See Chapter 6). As pointed out in
63. Author's interview with Dr. Dean Staley, 28 February 1994.
64. Ibid. Staley states in a 15 June 1995 letter that UFOs might be possible in the "big picture of
science." This author (AD) feels that it is likely that McDonald's mind had the capacity to
study both the "big picture of science" as well as its minute ramifications, had the opportu-
nity been presented to him.
S
BATTERING THE GATEWAY. 251

prior chapters, however, McDonald was not convinced that UFOs were extra-
terrestrial, because there was not enough empirical data to draw this conclu-
sion. The ETH, however, seemed to him a logical place to start. George Earley,
a high-profile engineer with United Aircraft Corporation, who headed the
NICAP affiliate in Bloomfield, Conn., understood his position:
"I don't think Jim was 100% sold on the UFOs being extraterrestrial
spacecraft with beings in them," states Earley. "His essential thrust was that
here was a topic worthy of scientific study which has not been studied scien-
tifically, and we should find out what the answer is. He had a definite com-
mitment to the truth, and if the truth turned out to be something else, he
wouldn't have backed away from it."
McDonald's need to discover the truth of this unsolved problem was too
overwhelming to let go. He knew that controversies and unorthodoxies in sci-
ence had existed before and had been solved by pioneers who weren't afraid to
research the fringes of science. About three weeks after the July hearings, he
started a special file which he labeled "Controversies and Unorthodoxies" and
kept adding to it. It begins:
8/25/68 At 1/29 Symposium Hynek cited aurora as good example of
a phenomenon science could not possibly have explained 100 years
ago.... I've used cosmic ray phenomenon to illustrate same. When
Milliken & Compton began studies in 1920s...they couldn'tpossibly
have given an intelligent explanation of some of the salient charac-
teristics of C.R. 's.65 Have to creep before you crawl. Nature of ra-
dioactivity couldn't have been rationalized in 1897, & still is not
satisfactorily fitted into physics.66
There were so many contributions he could make, so many good UFO re-
ports which held forth promise of empirical data. McDonald was impelled for-
ward, not only through the force of his own will, but by the nature of the field
itself. Yet the basic philosophy by which he had lived all his scientific life was
"Truth leads on to truth." If he could begin the process of discovering the truth
about UFOs, others would follow, clarifying, adding on, even perhaps correct-
ing mistakes he might make. In his seemingly tireless schedule, he gave no
sign to anyone that, deep inside, he realized he might have to creep before he
could crawl.
^ ^ A

ik
(J » c
65. cosmic rays
66. McDonald, James E. "Controversies and Unorthodoxies," file in McDonald's Personal Col-
lection. University of Arizona Library at Tucson.
CHAPTER 11

The Judas Kiss: Condon s Betrayal

The rolling ofthe sea, it's beckoning to me, singin',

"Come, my son, I'll show you things you've never seen before.
"They '11 set your spiritfree, on the wings ofhistory,
' So hoistyour sails and chart your course and go out and explore...."
—From "The Rollin' of the Sea"
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something
is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that
something is impossible he is very probably wrong.
—Arthur Clarke
wo days after the Congressional hearings, in the early morning,
T incessant calls from the media began. On July 31,1968, McDonald
appeared on eight TV and radio shows by phone interview—CBS
radio in Hollywood, KHJ-TV in Los Angeles, and the New York office of
the Australian Broadcasting Commission. At 2:30 that afternoon, he was in
the middle of a CBS-TV interview when the show was interrupted by a spe-
cial announcement by President Johnson. He was threatening escalation of
the Vietnam conflict if North Vietnam didn't come to terms at the Paris
talks, which were ongoing at that time. The CBS host was dismayed at the
1

interruption, but McDonald courteously continued after the bulletin.

That same day, Lynn Pierce of CBS Chicago called. McDonald de-
clined; by this time he had developed a keen sense about which media per-
sonnel were serious-minded about the UFO question and who just wanted
to use it as "fluff." Many other media offers were accepted, and some were
put off until he had more time.

1. McDonald, James E., fourth journal, reverse side, p. 20.

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

THE JUDAS KISS: CONDON'S BETRAYAL 253

Adding these media interviews to his already crowded schedule necessi-

tated even more after-hours work at his IAP office. His secretary, Margaret
Sanderson-Rae, relates:
He would come in late at night and use the dictating machine. It was
a little, inexpensive one, but it worked pretty well. He 'd get numerous
tapes filled, and then he'd dump them on my desk for transcription.
Sanderson-Rae, however, was not his secretary exclusively. She was the
manager of the secretarial pool and had to divide her time between several IAP
professors. At one point, she had to help at a water resources conference on
campus by being the hostess, and at that time, she couldn't help McDonald
with his work.
I had this older lady, Georgia, come in and work on some of Dr.
McDonald's tapes. She did the best she could with them, but when
she came to a word she couldn 7 understand, she would type a
blank. Dr. McDonald was not accustomed to getting back material
loaded with blanks! He said to me, 7'm sorry, but Georgia's audi-
tory acuity is not what it used to be.'Only Dr. McDonald would say
'auditory acuity'!
McDonald showed her a sheaf of Georgia's transcriptions, with all the
blanks. "Look what I have to deal with," he said.
"OK," she said. "I would like you to listen to this tape and tell me what goes
into those blanks. When you're alone in your office at night, you have the tape
recorder sitting on your desk. "You lean back in your chair and swivel away from
the recorder, and it doesn't pick it all up. It isn't high tech, you know."
"Then how do you transcribe it?," McDonald asked,
"With great difficulty," she replied, and McDonald laughed with her.
"You know," she told me, "you could do this with Dr. McDonald, this
back-and-forth and give-and-take.... He could understand, 'Hey, the joke's on
me.' So Georgia's job was not in jeopardy at that point."2
McDonald kept squeezing in as much time as he could on UFO research.
When he talked before scientific groups, his travel expenses were paid by the
sponsoring organizations and scheduled for weekends or days when his aca-
demic responsibilities were light. He put his modest honoraria into what he
called his "private UFO funds" to pay for telephone calls and other research
expenses. He had intense interest from the very beginning in the forthcoming
government study. This well-funded program had been okayed by Congress

2. Interview with Margaret Sanderson-Rae, 23 May 1993.

254 FIRESTORM

only one day after the NAS had agreed to fund McDonald in a quiet, one-man
UFO study. The abrupt withdrawal of the NAS offer was not generally known
to researchers in the UFO field, but McDonald had hand-typed a letter about it
in early 1966 to Jim Hughes at ONR. It read in part:
About a month back I decided to try to get NAS to look into the UFO
problem. I wrote Tom Malone a long letter asking that something be
undertaken within the Committee of the Atmospheric Sciences....
Things were shaping up to permit me to do some kind of a low-keyed
study with NAS support when Rep. [Gerald] Ford's Congressional
noises led to some changes.... DoD has gone to NAS to get suggested
names and universities to participate in some kind of a UFO study. At
least that's one version I 've heard. I understand I 'm at the head of the
list of those who might tilt with the little green men, but to date I've
heard nothing from DoD or USAF.... 3

McDonald had been led to believe first by the NAS and later by other high-
ly placed contacts in the DoD and the USAF that he would:
1. be funded in a one-man study of UFOs; and
2. that he was on the "head of the list" to be chosen for the new half-million-dollar
Air Force study.
Early in the formation stages of the government study, having heard noth-
ing directly, McDonald called Jacques Vallee. J. Allen Hynek and Gerard
Kuiper of the U. of A.'s Planetary and Lunar Lab also had expressed interest
in participating.
As much as he approved of Vallee's approach, McDonald still had grave
doubts about J. Allen Hynek's Blue Book record. The two spent the next half-
hour hashing over Hynek's past record. Vallee was understandably loyal to his
friend and mentor.
"Allen couldn't possibly have spoken out," he said. "He has paved the
way for the present scientific interest in the subject."
"I don't concur," said McDonald flatly. "I feel Hynek contributed to ob-
structing progress. Anyway, I know Kuiper has tried to call Hynek, but hasn't
reached him."
Vallee, by this time, had recognized McDonald's "rushing personality."
"He was trying to change things too fast," says Vallee. "A lot of difficulty that
Jim ran into was caused by this. He did not understand that scientific opinion
would be very difficult to change." But McDonald simply did not want to be
4

3. Letter from JEM to Jim Hughes, 30 April 1966. (See Appendix Item 11-A,)
THE JUDAS KISS: CONDON'S BETRAYAL 255

hampered by time constraints, or by officials connected with the new Air Force
study who couldn't make up their minds! He continued to tap his high-level
contacts. As early as July 1966, he called his friend Dr. Finn J. Larsen, then
Deputy Director of Defense Research and Engineering in the Office of the Sec-
retary of Defense. He'd been told that Larsen didn't know of McDonald's ac-
tivities regarding UFOs, but chance remarks by Larsen suggested that he did.
In fact, Secretary of the Army Harold Brown had discussed McDonald's ef-
forts in the UFO field with Larsen ten days earlier, in connection with the Air
Forces's "difficulty" in locating people for the Air Force UFO funding
project.5 It was apparent that McDonald's UFO interest was being discussed
in high places behind his back, otao t
fe ic//vV«
An Air Force ad hoc committee had met in February 1966, chaired by Dr.
Brian O'Brien, and was the first to suggest the "university team" approach, spec-
ifying that each "team" should have one physical scientist and one clinical psy-
chologist plus field investigators, and an average of ten man-days per
investigation. By these means, the committee thought, the teams could deal with
the "roughly 100 sightings per year" that fell in the "unexplained" category.6
O'Brien's committee also advised that the public be kept better informed on the
results of UFO investigations.
"How do you feel about the idea of teams headed by a clinical psycholo-
gist and a physical scientist?" McDonald asked one of his colleagues, Arthur
Lowery. "It wouldn't bother me," Lowery replied. "Some people might wel-
come the opportunity to 'clear themselves'."
"Why should they feel the need to 'clear themselves' if they're just report-
ing something strange they actually saw?" asked McDonald.
"Well, maybe you're right," the colleague agreed. "It could dissuade cer-
tain others from reporting in the first place."7
Intrigued by Lowery's reaction, McDonald conducted a private survey on
the question. He asked Lou Battan, several other IAP colleagues, as well as
Betsy, and reported the results in his journal:

4. Author's communication with Jacques Vallee, 13 August 1995.

5. McDonald, James E., second journal, reverse p. 25.
6. O'Brien's ad hoc committee must have had classified material available which Blue Book
did not share with McDonald. Blue Book's "unexplained" cases did not total up to any-
where near "100 cases per year."
7. McDonald, James E., second journal, reverse side p. 1.
 256 FIRESTORM

Most agreed it 'd give a wrong slant to it. Lou felt ifhe was sure he did
see something, a psychologist wouldn't bother him, but I think laymen
wouldn 't react that way. 8

One week after the Air Force first announced they were seeking "university
teams" to research UFOs, McDonald developed a concept of various "manuals"
that he thought should be developed for the teams' use, and included a brief de-
scription of what each manual should contain:
Need collection of cases where reasonably experienced observers
were fooled temporarily, (Leon's gnats, Kuiper's spiders, my Mars,
kite & balloon incidents.) Another manual needs to cover known char-
acteristics ofprincipal phenomena like meteors, meteorological opti-
cal effects, ball lightning, contrails, aircraft lights, etc. Another might
review past hoaxes. Another on radar anomalies, inversion effects on
light & radar, mirages. 9

NICAP's Dick Hall told him there seemed to be confusion as to just what
the "university teams" would do—whether they would review past sightings
or begin field team work on new reports. McDonald shared a newsclip with
Hall that stated that Rep. Gerald Ford was under the impression the university
T ^''^X'" teams would study 600 older sightings. However, McDonald had heard from
10

gW NAS sources that the teams would also study new UFO cases. Hall shared
v* some privileged information with McDonald that indicated the government
"X wanted to get the UFO subject away from the Air Force entirely. Another ru-
o^ mor going around was that the Air Force might put one university in charge of
; f ; k l < h e whole thing.
111

^ J f , V V*
AWT 1 H It took a full year for the Air Force to choose, as rumors in the field con-
J

m / ^ v tinued to surface. Various institutions had been approached to find "university

teams," but none wished to tar their halls with the UFO brush. Finally, the Uni-
vciany of Colorado agreed to accept the assignment—and the $500,000—and
versity

8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Rep. Gerald Ford, who later became President of the United States, was very vocal on the
need to study the UFO question openly. His interest might have been politically motivated,
however, since his district was in Michigan, where the "swamp gas" cases had occurred.
After becoming President, he made no further announcements on the question even though
hundreds of letters from NICAP members urged him to do so. (The same situation occurred
when James Carter became President. He had seen and reported a UFO himself and made a
campaign promise to declassify all UFO documents if he was elected. Upon his election,
nothing more was heard from Carter on this subject, either, in spite of numerous inquiries
from civilian UFO researchers.)
11. McDonald, op. cit. reverse side, p. 1, p. 2.
THE JUDAS KISS: C O N D O N ' S BETRAYAL 257

one scientist, Dr. Edward U. Condon, was selected to head it. A staff, including
scientists, behavioral psychologists and other experts, was selected.
McDonald, Hynek, Jacques Vallee and others who were eminently more
qualified to assess the UFO question than Condon and his staff, were not cho-
sen. The Air Force claimed they had selected scientists they felt would be "ob-
jective." ("Objective" meant that they had little or no knowledge of the UFO
subject!) The study became known as "the Colorado Project" or "the Condon
Committee" and consumed the interest of UFO researchers for three full years.
McDonald held no bitterness; his basic concern was that competent scientists,
whoever might be chosen, would address the question of UFOs scientifically.
Betsy felt otherwise, and expressed her displeasure.

FIGURE 14. Some of the members of the Los Angeles NICAP Subcommittee,
1967. Top, from left, Idabel Epperson, visiting guests Richard and
Marty Hall from Washington, D.C., NICAP headquarters, LANS
chairman Dr. Leslie Kaeburn. Bottom, from left, Marilyn
Epperson and Ann DrufTel (author).

"You do the work and somebody else gets the money," she told him. "It's
just like what happened with the civil defense research for the Titan missiles.
Why shouldn't it be you? You're taking a lot of time with absolutely no remu-
neration from the Institute, to study UFOs, and somebody else gets the money
and the credit."
"Condon's a good scientist. He's contributed a lot to physics," replied
McDonald.
258 FIRESTORM

"But he gets chosen because he doesn't know anything about UFOs!,"

maintained Betsy. "It's like not choosing a scientist to study the moon because
he knows too much about the moon!"
The Condon Committee set up an "early warning network" through
which NICAP, APRO and other knowledgeable sources could inform Con-
don's investigators immediately when promising new sightings surfaced. It
was the stated intention of the Condon Committee to send out a scientific
team to thoroughly investigate such reports within 24 hours; as it turned out,
this was never done. Everyone expected that the best cases would be includ-
ed in the Committee's Final Report. UFO researchers cooperated fully with
the Committee; a promising relationship developed between them and Con-
don's staff. With the help of scientists like McDonald, Hynek and Vallee, ob-
jective members of Condon's staff, which included Drs. Dave Saunders,
Norman Levine and Franklin Roach, learned quickly that the UFO question
was a puzzling scientific enigma.
McDonald participated eagerly in the effort to send data to the Condon
Committee. On March 13, 1967, he sent Condon a list of "100 best sightings,"
advising that they be studied by the project's investigators, (see Appendix Item
B). His list included many widely known cases which had been documented by
competent researchers and which McDonald had also re-investigated personally.
These 100 cases had characteristics of special interest, such as (1) Multiple, reli-
able witnesses; (2) UFO photos which had been analyzed by professionals and
considered most probably genuine; (3) radar-visual (R-V) cases where the UFO
had been caught on ground and airborne radar at the same time they were seen
by witnesses on the ground or in airborne planes.
In sending his "100 best" list, McDonald hoped that the Condon staff
would investigate, judge, and include the most puzzling in their Final Report.
In 1967, he also invited the Condon staff to his home for a general discussion
of the UFO question and one of Betsy's prize dinners. Condon declined to at-
tend, but so many others accepted that the party was held in the large, enclosed
flagstoned patio, instead of the family's dining room.
He also continued close contact with NICAP headquarters and its affiliates
and subcommittees around the nation. Whenever he was in the vicinity where
a NICAP group was located, they met and freely exchanged information. From
1967 through 1969, one of the chief topics of discussion was the Condon Com-
mittee. Early on, however, Condon gave objective researchers cause for con-
cern, for he amused himself "investigating" the contactees and ignoring
promising cases. Within a few months, objective researchers on his staff ex-
pressed their concern to McDonald and others in the field. It began to be feared
that Condon's Final Report would be essentially negative.
THE JUDAS Kiss: CONDON'S BETRAYAL 259

At this point, Hynek and Vallee found themselves in the position of trying
to "play the diplomat." They had the largest number of UFO files outside of
NICAP and were the first scientists to brief Condon and his committee on the
UFO question. They had proposed to their own university, Northwestern in Il-
linois, a method of computer-processing UFO data, but Northwestern officials IT kjo, I J
refused to submit it to the Air Force. Vallee had processed his and Hynek's1 loue-fe
files, however, and eventually Dave Saunders of Condon's staff used Vallee's
computerized files.12 CKW
w .
In spite of Condon's personal negativity toward the subject, McDonald re-
solved to be as much help to Condon's staff as possible, and consulted with them
on many aspects of the study during the next three years. He continued to net-
work with NICAP members all over the country, for they not only were referring
cases from their areas to Condon's staff, but continued to investigate all UFO re-
ports that came to their attention. Whenever McDonald had a talk scheduled be-
fore a scientific group in the Southern California area, Mrs. Idabel Epperson and
her daughter Marilyn would host meetings of LANS, the acronym for the Los
Angeles NICAP Subcommittee (see Figure 14).
From 25-30 local scientists, engineers and other experienced UFO re-
searchers would be invited to LANS meetings, which took place whenever any
prominent individual in the UFO field came into town. McDonald eagerly par-
ticipated in these meetings. He invariably sat on a large ottoman in the Epper-
sons' comfortable living room, opened his large briefcase and spread out piles
of material in a half-circle on the floor, the better to organize his thoughts. To
everyone present, it was apparent that he was unique. Though a top scientist,
he spoke at the level of the least scientifically literate person in the room. Most
LANS members had college degrees and beyond, but not all were scientists or
engineers. Idabel Epperson was a public relations expert, Marilyn Epperson
was an accountant, and the author's background was in sociology and social
case work. When McDonald discussed promising UFO cases which LANS
was investigating, he spoke in lay language. Yet with technically trained per-
sons, he eagerly discussed the most complicated scientific concepts. His wife
and daughter Jan confirm:
"He took time to explain," states Betsy McDonald. "He didn't believe in ob-
scuring issues," states his daughter Jan. "That wasn't his thing."
"Some people make it sound so difficult to show how smart they are," adds
Betsy McDonald. "Mac never did that."

12. Author's communication with Jacques Vallee, 13 August 1995. Also, see Vallee's book.
Forbidden Science: Journals 1957-1969, Berkeley, CA, North Atlantic Books, 1992, for
enlightening glimpses into this same time period.
260 FIRESTORM

McDonald's immutable sociability made all NICAP personnel nationwide

look forward to his visits. His confident air and endless curiosity convinced all
who interacted with him that here was a rare ally. His persistence and energy
led them to hope that a solution to the UFO question might soon be found.
However, as late as October 1968, entries in his journals indicated that he won-
dered whether the Air Force still held his part in the Titan controversy against
him. Although he never expressed any bitterness, he must have wondered, for
his knowledge of the UFO field was second to none.
In late October 1968 he wrote Jim Hughes, at the latter's request, listing
ten items bearing on the origin and final outcome of the controversy over mis-
sile-siting hazards in which he was involved in 1960-61. The most revealing
remarks in this letter were as follows:
Mistakes the Air Force made on the missile sites are minor ones com-
pared to the blunders they...made with respect to UFOs. [I]n each
case, they've had less than the best advice.... I've told Air Force gen-
erals they 're in deep trouble; there's no sign yet that I've made much
of a dent. 13

In the UFO field, however, he was "making a dent." He continued on, en-
ergy unabated. His wife Betsy continued to worry about him.
"It was just the last two or three years that he got so busy," she relates. "He
was gone so much of the time." She worried in vain, for no amount of urging
or logic could change him. The UFO question was all-consuming. He contin-
ually received confidential reports of sightings from military personnel and
other government sources. He was in a position to receive these reports be-
cause of his accessibility to various military bases, U.S. Weather Bureaus and
other government facilities around the country. Many scientists who had wit-
nessed UFOs, who had never spoken openly about them, shared their experi-
ences with him, knowing that he would keep their reports confidential. This
private knowledge of startling UFO activity, including radar-visual sightings
from the Vietnam war zone, preyed on his mind and increased his concern
about the serious nature of the UFO question.
One of the most fascinating sightings he received came by way of his col-
league, Dr. William R. Wilson, of the University of Washington Psychology De-
partment. A prominent scientist had seen a large UFO in the Cascade Mountains,
and Wilson repeatedly encouraged him to speak candidly to McDonald about it.
Wilson could not get permission to reveal the scientist's name, so Wilson and
McDonald referred to him as "Dr. X." McDonald's colleague Dr. Dean Staley

13. Letter from JEM to Jim Hughes, 29 October 1968.

THE JUDAS KISS: CONDON'S BETRAYAL 261

also knew "Dr. X," having taken a course from him as a student at the University
of Washington. McDonald asked Staley's opinion of "Dr. X's" reliability as an
observer and scientist.
"I had [Dr. X] as a professor in one course in physics, and he was a hard-
nosed guy," Staley remarks with a little chuckle. "I guess I always thought that
it was significant that he saw something he didn't recognize. But it could have
been a radiosonde balloon losing gas, or—who knows?"
McDonald birddogged this case for three years, for it had potential value
in "making a dent" in the scientific community's acceptance of UFOs. Finally,
through sheer persistence, he learned "Dr. X's" identity in a way totally unre-
lated to Wilson and Staley. "Dr. X" turned out to be Dr. Edwin A. Uehllhg, and
McDonald promptly obtained a telephone interview with him.
Dr. Uehling was hiking in the Cascades in August or September of 1952 or
1953, with his cousin, Aletha Malone. They were near Lake Tipsoo, at Chinook
Pass, 15 miles east of Mt. Rainier. While walking on a ridge, Malone saw an im-
mense object in the west, low in the sky and headed toward the mountain. Ue-
hling saw it for three to four seconds before it disappeared behind Mount Rainier.
The huge object was intensely bright; its metallic glint had a bluish glow. Its
shape was elongated and symmetrical with well-defined edges, "like a dirigible
without a tail or gondola." Both witnesses got the impression of "apertures" but
were not certain enough of this to give any details. The huge object subtended an
angle of at least 1°, about two lunar diameters; this is an unusually large angular
size for UFOs which are viewed airborne.
The object moved about five lengths after Uehling first spotted it. He made
a rough estimate of its speed after the sighting but, by the time he was inter-
viewed by McDonald, he remembered only that it was "a very high velocity."
Yet there was no sound or visible trail. When first seen, it appeared quite near,
because of its large size and clarity. However, when it disappeared behind Mt.
Rainier, Uehling and his cousin realized it had been a great distance away and
was much larger than they'd first guessed. He later computed the actual size of
the object to be about 1600 ft. "It was incredibly long," he told McDonald.
Mrs. Uehling, whom McDonald also interviewed, stated that, when her hus-
band and his cousin returned to their campsite, they were both very excited about
what they had seen, even though, as Mrs. Uehling stated, "they are both fairly
unimaginative people." 14 Uehling noted the event in his diary, but a concerted
effort to find the entry, in order to establish the exact date, was unsuccessful.

14. McDonald, "Summary of Sighting by Dr. Edwin A. Uehling (U. Wash.) near Mt. Rainier."
Five-page typed report on N o v e m b e r 11, 1969, interviews.
262 FIRESTORM

Uehling was extremely well regarded as a scientist, a solid, trustworthy man.

From reliable sources, McDonald learned that he had been advised by his supe-
riors not to talk openly about his sighting, lest it cast aspersions on the University
of Washington! McDonald made several attempts, through Dr. Wilson, to per-
suade Edwin Uehling to report his sighting to the Condon Committee, but this
was before McDonald learned "X's" identity. By the time he interviewed Ue-
hling, the Condon Report was out; subsequently, Condon's staff never knew
about the sighting.
NICAP was also deeply involved with the Condon Committee's study. In
November 1966 Donald Keyhoe and Dick Hall were invited to Boulder to brief
the Committee's staff. "Major Keyhoe and I drank a toast to the Air Force
when we were flying out to Colorado," relates Hall, jesting. '"Here's a toast to
the enemy!' we said, as we drank it." Dick Hall made other trips to Boulder to
brief the Committee; all UFO researchers who worked informally with the
Condon Committee were impressed with many members of Condon's staff. "I
interacted with lots of people on the Project and got to know a lot of them,"
relates Dick Hall, "They were very nice, down-to-earth, direct people. Lots of
them were very sympathetic and supportive.... It's too bad that they had no
leadership from the top."
McDonald also got on extremely well with many members of the staff,
but Condon's lack of interest irritated him. He expressed inordinate interest
only in "contactees," claiming it was an interesting "study in psychology."
From time to time Condon would "investigate" one who claimed to have rid-
den in a UFO or obtained the "Space People's" wisdom through "mental
channeling." Condon did not even keep himself informed about the investi-
gations his staff were conducting around the country.
Soon after the Condon's staff went into full swing, a curious document
surfaced in the Committee's files, a memo written by Robert Low, Condon's
Assistant Project Director, to James Archer, the Dean of the University of Col-
orado. The memo indicated that the Condon Committee was to pretend to re-
search the UFO question, with an anticipated negative outcome. It read in part,
"The trick would be, I think, to describe 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 an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer." Just who first
15

found the memo in the files is still unclear. As early as August 1966, however,
Dr. Roy Craig of Condon's staff saw it. Dr. Dave Saunders later described it in
his book, UFOs Yes!:

15. Memo from Robert Low to Dean James Archer, dated August 9, 1966.
THE JUDAS Kiss: C O N D O N ' S BETRAYAL 263

When Roy read Low's August 1966 memo, he couldn't think of any-
thing to do but take it to Norm [Levine] with the comment, "See if this
doesn't give you a funny feeling in the stomach. " Norm read it and
agreed that it did.16
Dr. Saunders had been on Condon's staff almost from the beginning. He
was a psychologist and computer expert, an extremely ethical and dedicated
scientist, who early on realized that the Project was not likely to be the objec-
tive, far-reaching study everyone assumed it would be. He allowed Donald
Keyhoe to copy the memo in November 1967 and encouraged him to share it
with the NICAP Board of Directors.
"I wanted Keyhoe and NICAP to be aware that I was under no illusions as
to the one-sided nature of the Colorado University Study," wrote Saunders. "I
felt that this might facilitate NICAP's continued support of our efforts to sal-
vage something from it."17
Even before the existence of the "trick" memo became general knowl-
edge, civilian researchers had become concerned by Robert Low's negative at-
titude; Condon's frivolous attitude served to strengthen their suspicions. The
memo was so puzzling that one of Condon's staff members showed it to Dick
Hall in January 1967, during one of his visits to Boulder. Hall did not, at the
time, realize its significance.
"Jim Wadsworth, one of the junior members, pulled me aside and showed
it to me," says Hall. "I read it in the context of everybody happy, talking, and
drinking in a motel room. And I said, 'Well, he [Robert Low] sounds pretty
skeptical. We'll have to change his mind,' or something like that and brushed
it off. I underestimated it, obviously.... Keyhoe didn't learn about it until later,
because I don't think I even mentioned it."
Marty Hall remembers seeing the memo with Dick Hall. "Dick and I went
to Denver at the invitation of the Condon Committee," she says. "Someone on
the Committee staff brought us a memo.. .saying that the point of the Commit-
tee was to 'investigate' and show that there was nothing there."
Jim Wadsworth, who first showed it to Hall, was discouraged that Robert
Low should take on his part of the project with such a biased attitude. Wad-
sworth's attitude was understandable. Like most of Condon's staff, he was ob-
jective, and looked forward to the opportunity to research UFOs with what he
assumed would be proper protocol. Hall's initial reaction toward the memo

16. Saunders, David R. and R. Roger Harkins, UFOs? Yes!, New York, A Signet Book, New
American Library, p. 134.
17. Ibid., p. 179
264 FIRESTORM

was understandable, also. In 1966 and early 1967 the entire UFO field hoped
that the Condon Committee would study the UFO question impartially; there
was no reason to believe that a half-million dollars of government money
would be wasted.
When Donald Keyhoe saw the memo, he realized its implications but was
forced to remain silent because he'd promised Saunders to keep it confidential.
He shared it privately with McDonald some time later but felt ethically forced
to exact a promise of confidentiality and did not give McDonald a copy be-
cause of his own promise of confidentiality.
Robert Low's lack of objectivity, exposed by the memo, outraged McDonald,
but he said nothing publicly because he'd promised Keyhoe. He continued to
work with Condon's staff and aided them in their field investigations every
way he could. The memo, however, preyed on his mind. Gradually, among
NICAP's top echelon, its existence became known but was not revealed to the
general membership. The main reason for keeping it quiet was the quandary
faced by the Committee's staff person who had found the memo in the files—
they feared that Condon or Low would accuse them of having "stolen" it.
McDonald finally obtained his own complete copy without going against
Keyhoe's trust.
"Jim got it on a trip to Boulder," relates Dick Hall. "The issue came up, is
this open information or is this a restricted file? Did they have any right to show
it to him?' He was told, 'This is the open file.... We're not showing it to you....'
They just arranged for him to look in the right place."
Saunders expands on what happened. In December 1967 he, Levine,
Hynek, McDonald, and Mary Lou Armstrong, who was Robert Low's admin-
istrative assistant, met in Denver. The staff had decided to bring McDonald and
Hynek together in hopes they could start working effectively together in the
common cause. They got along better than they had during their first meeting
at Northwestern, but Hynek was not feeling well and went home early. Then
McDonald bluntly brought up the memo. The staff members were surprised he
knew about it, because the copy Saunders had given to Keyhoe was to be
shared with the NICAP board, but McDonald was not a member of the board.
"However, since McDonald did know of the memo, the three of us agreed
it was better for him to have an accurate version of it," wrote Saunders in
UFOs Yes!. * 1

By October 1968, McDonald learned how the Low memo had first surfaced
and how it had been made available to Roger Harkins for use in UFOs Yes!,

18.Ibid, pp. 179-80.

THE JUDAS KiSS: CONDON'S BETRAYAL 265

which he co-authored with Saunders. This book, a masterly expose of the Con-
don Committee, detailed how another UFO research fraud had been perpetrated
upon the public. Their book was published just before Condon's Final Report
was released. It revealed how Saunders and Norman Levine had been charged
with "incompetence" by Condon and summarily fired. Harkins was a reporter on
the Boulder, Colo., publication, Camera, who was also fired in the course of the
general blowup; Mary Lou Armstrong was also dismissed. McDonald had great
interest in Saunders' book and talked frequently with him while it was being
written. UFOs? Yes! essentially was the "pro" side of a difficult time in the UFO
field, with the Condon Report providing the "con." 19
McDonald was thoroughly irritated. He now had a copy of the memo burn-
ing a hole in his briefcase. He discussed it privately with a few trusted colleagues
who had knowledge of the memo, but everyone was uncertain what to do. Plain-
ly, it constituted evidence that the Condon Committee's top personnel did not in-
tend to come to any objective conclusions. The situation was intolerable for
McDonald. To him, scientific inquiry must be open, objective, and unrelenting.
In January 1968, he was invited to speak on UFOs at the Research Lab of
United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) in East Hartford, Conn.20 UAC was a mega-
corporation where NICAP's George Earley was employed. In spite of his sensi-
tive position, Earley spoke out openly about NICAP and UFOs on radio, TV and
public appearances (See Figure 15). He also was head of the Bloomfield Affili- r*y
ate, NICAP*CONN, whose members included more than 30 scientists and engi-^.v
neers who were not afraid of being publicly involved. McDonald had become . A
acquainted with Earley soon after he entered the field in the spring of 1966. Ri-
chard Hall had highly recommended Earley, assuring McDonald that
NICAP*CONN was a "good batch of engineers and scientists because of Ear-
91
ley's leadership.
UAC was a major aerospace corporation, and at the time Earley was most
active in UFO research, about 90% of its business was from government de-
fense contracts. "They didn't say much when I started it, but when the 'profile'
started to get a little higher I got called in twice," says Earley. "A newspaper
reporter used my name and our local Congressman Emilio Daddario's name,
the Air Force and UFOs all in the same paragraph.22 They got a little upset
about this."

19. McDonald, third journal, reverse side p. 27.

20. Now United Technologies Corporation.
21. McDonald's second journal, page 17.
22. A u t h o r ' s interview with George Earley, 21 April 1994.
 266 FIRESTORM

His superiors called the reporter up and confirmed that Earley had been
misquoted. Earley gave them a copy of his "stock speech," wherein he didn't
even mention that he worked for UAC, but simply stated that he was an aero-
space administrative engineer. The second time Earley was called "on the car-
pet" was when he was asked to speak on UFOs at the Design Engineering
-' Conference of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), in
New York. "The Corporation wanted to look at my speech," relates Earley.
"And when they saw that my speech said nothing about the Corporation, they
said, OK.... I never was threatened with loss of a job, or had any indications
that I had a smaller pay raise because of this. A number of people over the years
have claimed that their companies discriminated against them, but I was never
subject, as far as I know, to any of that."

T i t STKI UFOs *

FIGURE 15.
00 0 ' Scientit
L
George W. Earley, head of NICAP*CONN Affiliate in Bloomfield,
Conn. Although an aerospace administrative engineer with United
Aircraft Corporation, Earley was also a high-profile UFO
researcher with NICAP.

A bonus to McDonald's invitation to present a UFO seminar at UAC was

that Earley invited a small group of scientists who would attend his talk and
then have dinner at Earley's house afterwards. One of the guests was Dr.
T H E JUDAS KISS: C O N D O N ' S BETRAYAL 267

Thornton Page, head of the Astronomy Department at Wesleyan University in

Middletown, Conn. Dr. Page had been one of the five scientists who participat-
ed in the infamous "Robertson Panel" (See Chapter 3). McDonald had a lot of
questions he wanted to ask Page about that CIA-Air Force debacle.
Some days prior to McDonald's seminar at UAC Research Lab, Earley
was informed that McDonald had asked that he introduce him and act as an of-
ficial chaperone. Earley was flattered by this request. Before McDonald con-
ducted the seminar, he was given a tour of the Lab. Earley had a secret
clearance because of his job, but McDonald, so far as is known, did not have
any clearance at that time because his professional work did not require it.
"The UAC security people were sufficiently happy with Jim McDonald that
they let him go wherever the Research Lab people wanted to take him," relates
Earley. "He got to see a variety of experiments...different technologies they
were working on. I assumed that he was cleared somehow, or they wouldn't have
let him into some of the rooms where we were.... We saw some programs that
were not public knowledge at the time. There was some laser work going on— I
don't recall the details now, because this was scientific stuff above my level of
competence. But he talked to a number of scientists.. .and they showed him this
and they showed him that. I just sort of tagged along and nodded."
Although Earley had corresponded with McDonald and talked with him
on the phone, this was the first time they'd met personally. "I liked him, he was
a real nice guy," Earley states. "He was intense, but I was intense in those days,
too. A lot of us involved in UFOs were intense!"
McDonald entitled his seminar "Science, Technology, and UFOs." The
large room was filled, and people were standing anywhere there was space.
The overflow went into the Lab's cafeteria, where the talk was piped in
through the intercom. "There would have been several hundred scientists, en-
gineers, and technicians, plus anybody else that might have weaseled their way
in," Earley says.
Typically, James McDonald's talks were a combination of pure science
and humor. He often lightened his scientific presentations with a few humor-
ous slides, depicting the government's neglect of the UFO problem, and he'd
add a quote or two revealing his penchant for philosophy and poetry. On this
occasion McDonald stated: "A truism about science that has strong bearing
on what I shall be saying to you concerning the UFO problem is this: 'Proud
as we can be of today's cumulative record of scientific exploration of the
world about us, we certainly do not yet know all that deserves the name of
fundamental scientific knowledge.' Indeed, do we not all subscribe to the
spirit of the closing lines of Alfred Noyes's moving trilogy about science,
 268 FIRESTORM

The Torchbearers, 'Who that has once seen how truth leads on to truth, shall
ever dare to set a bound to knowledge?"'
He gave a general talk about the importance of the UFO question and ex-
plained the eight hypotheses, adding: "My list of eight hypotheses is not exhaus-
tive because other hypotheses still more bizarre.. .can be proposed—time travel,
hidden terrestrial societies, mad millionaires with secret laboratories." 23

^ ^ He also told the audience about a recently published book by NICAP's

^ ^Ted Bloecher that outlined 800 UFO sightings in a two-week period in the
summer of 1947, when "flying saucers" were first receiving public attention. 24

"To assert that some secret technology was, right after World War II, produc-
ing superlative vehicles still far beyond the known state of propulsion technol-
ogy should sound particularly unbelievable here at United Aircraft," he
stressed.
He also outlined several classic cases, explained in detail why Blue Book's
and Menzel's explanations did not wash and addressed the "grand foul-up vs.
cover-up" question. He then took on the Condon Committee, telling of his ear-
ly hopes that it would work vigorously and open-mindedly to unravel the UFO
problem, but that those expectations had dimmed as time went by.
"We had a nice time together when he came to my house for dinner," re-
lates Earley. "I even got a present from him. United Aircraft had paperweights
made up, depicting the solar system in a little globe like ball bearings. And it
had 'United Aircraft Corporation Research Labs' on it. Jim got one of those
when he spoke." Earley looked at the little globe. "Hey, that's kinda neat," he
told McDonald. "I'm going to have to see my buddy in the PR office and see
if I can squeeze one out of him." McDonald handed it to him and said, "You
take it. I have so many souvenirs."
"That was my little souvenir, my little gesture from Jim," Earley relates.
"I really appreciated that."
The dinner guests that evening were what Earley calls "the supergroup."
They included McDonald, Page and David L. Morgan, Ph.D., who was doing
post-doctoral research at Yale in an obscure branch of physics. A couple of
years later, Morgan transferred to Livermore Labs in California and, as far as
Earley knows, was never seen again in the UFO community.

23. McDonald, James E., "Science, Technology and UFOs," printed version of talk presented
before United Aircraft Corporation Research Laboratories, Hartford, Conn., 29 January,
1968.
24. Bloecher, Ted, Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, Washington, D.C., NICAP.
THE JUDAS KISS: CONDON'S BETRAYAL 269

Richard Hoagland, who at the time was assistant curator in a Hartford

planetarium, was the fourth member of the "supergroup." He had great interest
in UFOs and space research but was not officially a NICAP*CONN mem-
ber.25 The fifth member was John Fuller, the prominent journalist who had
written several articles in top newsstand magazines on the subject of UFOs and
two books, Incident at Exeter and Interrupted Journey.

FIGURE 16. The "supergroup" which met at the home of George and Margo
Earley on January 26,1968. From left: Dr. Thornton Page, Dr.
David L. Morgan, John C. Fuller, Richard Hoagland, and Dr.
James E. McDonald.

Earley didn't have a complete NICAP*CONN meeting that night. The su-
pergroup, himself, his wife Margo, and their two growing sons were the only
ones present. "My boys sat there kind of goggle-eyed, because they knew
'Dad' was involved in UFOs, and we had all these big names," he says.
During the next few hours, the UFO problem was discussed energetically.
At one point, Earley snapped a picture of the super-group, and McDonald was
caught for posterity, deep in thought, perhaps even unaware of the camera (see
Figure 16).

25. Richard Hoagland is one of several prominent researchers and scientists currently studying
"the face on Mars," a mile-long rock formation. Research of three scientific teams who have
studied the "face" and other anomalous features on Mars are detailed in The McDaniel
Report, by Stanley V. McDaniel, Berkeley, CA, North Atlantic Books, 1993.
270 FIRESTORM

"It was basically a bull session," says Earley. "Page talked a little about
his experiences with the Robertson Panel, and Jim quizzed him on that."
McDonald had been waiting all day to quiz Page. He respected his contri-
butions to science and wanted him as an ally in the UFO battle. Although he
did not actively pursue the UFO question, he at least seemed more interested
than most scientists. McDonald appreciated this, but he also wanted to try to
figure out why a scientist who'd had a superb chance to protest the Air Force's
handling of the problem back in 1953 had held back the way he did. He turned
toward Page. "There evidently weren't any believers at the Robertson Panel.
What were you doing there, Thornton?"
Page laughed. "That panel never had any real interest in the subject, Jim,"
he confided. "We only met for four days, eight sessions. How much research
can you do in that amount of time?"
"What about your CIA 'hosts'?" McDonald pursued. "Didn't they object
to your just skimming over the surface?"
"Object?" grinned Page. "Nobody objected. Not the Air Force, not the
CIA, and as far as the other four on the panel were concerned, what did they
care?"
"And what about you, Thornton," asked McDonald. "Didn't you
care?"
"To tell the truth, Jim," said Page, "until you entered the field publicly, I
thought it was a fringe subject, misidentifications, mass hysteria, whatever.
You've changed all that."
"I'm trying to do my part," said McDonald, looking grim. "But one man,
one group, can't do it alone. It's an interdisciplinary problem. It's going to take
a number of good scientists, working from slightly different viewpoints, to get
any kind of handle on it."
Page starting joking about his Astronomy 101 class at Wesleyan, which
he'd set up for business majors who couldn't be easily trapped into taking sci-
ence courses. The name of the course was "Observing UFOs." He'd invited
George Earley down to Wesleyan a few times, to talk about NICAP and UFOs.
"It's basically a science course on how to learn to observe, how to derive data
by interviewing, that sort of thing. But it sucks students in by using the UFO
title."
"So it really isn't about UFOs?" queried McDonald.
"It is when George here comes down to speak to the class," said Page. "I'm
willing to give him a chance to have his say."
 T H E JUDAS Kiss: C O N D O N ' S BETRAYAL 271

"Is he using you to see how well the class would ask hard questions of a
UFO 'believer'?" asked McDonald, turning to Earley.
"I don't mind," replied Earley. "We get the word out wherever we can."
McDonald continued to ask Page piercing questions about the Robertson
Panel. "In my opinion, that panel set back UFO research 20 years," he said.
"Five of the finest scientific minds in the country, each one a specialist who
could have attacked the problem from the most puzzling aspects UFOs present
us! Dr. Robertson, a mathematical physicist, a veteran of wartime intelligence
missions, specializing in relativity and cosmology? Luis Alvarez, a nuclear
physicist who co-invented the GCA system for tracking aircraft in fog and
rain? Sam Goudsmit, discoverer of the theory of electron-spin? Lloyd Berkner,
an expert on the ionosphere and terrestrial magnetism? And you, Thornton, an
astronomer and an underwater weapons specialist.
"Do you have any idea how many 'underwater anomalies' are listed in
Blue Book files?" he asked Page. "Aren't you curious about UFOs that are re-
ported by groups of witnesses—including men on Navy ships—emerging
from, and diving into, lakes and oceans? And Lloyd Berkner, right there on the
panel with you, and an expert on ionization. Would he be interested in knowing
that a top scientist at JPL is hypothesizing that the Heflin photos possibly show
that the UFO was surrounded by ionized air?" (See Chapter 12)
u The others looked at each other, intrigued. "Maybe Phil Klass isn't that far
,lv5
off, after all," said McDonald. "A JPL computer-enhancement scientist talking
^ ^ i p ^ a b o u t ionization surrounding the UFO in the Heflin photo, and Klass claiming
. ^hat some UFOs are just big, long-lasting 'plasmas'? Maybe Phil needs to re-
fct^^x^ alize that there's something 'unidentified' inside his 'plasmas'!"

f McDonald was not satisfied with Page's answers to his questions, but he
*x>" realized he couldn't do anything more that night to straighten out the mystery
of the Robertson Panel. There were plenty of other topics of conversation, such
as Menzel's second book, co-authored with Lyle Boyd, in which the prominent
astrophysicist had tried to convince his readers that UFOs were nothing more
than a "modern myth." 26 Then the discussion turned to the Condon Committee
and the reality that Condon's approach was, to say the least, not scientifically
vigorous. The subject of the "trick memo" came up rather casually, although
most of the "supergroup" previously hadn't known about it. McDonald seized
the chance and pulled his copy from his briefcase.

26. Menzel, Donald H. & Boyd, Lyle G., The World of Flying Saucers: A Scientific Examina-
tion of a Major Myth of the Space Age, Garden City, NY, Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1963.
272 FIRESTORM

"Jim showed it to Fuller and the others," relates Earley. "Fuller leaped on
it with great eagerness. 'I'm supposed to do another article on UFOs for Look
Magazine,' he told McDonald. 'This would be just great!' The two of them put
their heads together right there in my living room. And that was the genesis of
Fuller's article on the Low memorandum, which appeared around May of
1968." It was now quite late, but for McDonald the evening had barely begun.
"Page and Hoagland and Morgan went home, and John and Jim sat and
talked, well after midnight," relates Earley. "It finally boiled down to the fact
that Jim had to go home early in the morning, so it was time for everybody to
hit the sack." Earley said to John Fuller, "Why drive back down to the Coast?
Westport is a good two hours away. We've got room, we can put you up."
"No, no," replied Fuller. "Just let me sit down in your contour chair and
relax a little bit. I've got to meet with my agent in New York tomorrow morn-
ing." He settled himself in a big contour chair in front of the fireplace, where
Earley found him the next morning, sound asleep in his clothes.
John Fuller, with McDonald's help, took upon himself the responsibility
of exposing Condon's fraud. When his article appeared in the May 14, 1968,
issue of Look, it pulled no punches. Its title was "The Flying Saucer Fiasco,"
and the subtitle told the story: "The extraordinary story of the half-million-dol-
lar 'trick' to make Americans believe the Condon Committee was conducting
an objective investigation." 27

It took four and one-half months to hit the stands, however. In the mean-
time, four days after the meeting at Earley's Connecticut home, McDonald
wrote a lengthy letter to Robert Low, outlining his charges that the project was
being mishandled and giving a list of suggestions on how the project could,
even at that late date, turn itself around. He included a long quote from Low's
August 6, 1966, memo, including the damning phrase, "The trick would
be... ," McDonald's letter enraged Condon, who phoned Dr. Dick Kassander,
28

IAP's Director, to protest that McDonald had encouraged one of his [Con-
don's] employees to "steal" a privileged document from the Committee's files
for highly objectionable purposes. He insisted that McDonald be fired. Kas-
sander suggested that Condon deal with McDonald directly. ' 6c<J Cordon
McDonald had also contacted John Coleman of the NAS suggesting that the
Academy set up an independent review panel of the Condon Committee, in order
that scientists could be informed about Condon's negative actions, Low's memo,
and the Committee's general neglect of many promising cases. He enclosed a

27. Fuller, John G„ Look Magazine 14 May, 1968, pp. 58-63.

28. McDonald's letter to Robert Low, 31 January, 1968.
 T H E JUDAS KISS: C O N D O N ' S BETRAYAL 273

copy of his letter to Low and, with some trepidation, a copy of the "trick memo"
itself so that Coleman and the NAS could fully realize its implications. When
Condon heard about the letter to Coleman, he shot back a letter to McDonald
with a copy to Dr. Frederick Seitz, NAS President. The letter mentioned "theft"
several times and accused McDonald of "gravely unethical" conduct. Condon's
letter to McDonald read in part:
Two men confessed their part in giving the memorandum to you.... I
telephoned Dr. Kassander to ask whether he could persuade you that
the stolen memorandum should be returned to us.... He suggested that
I ought to deal with you directly, but I was so astonished by your atti-
tude... that Ifelt this would be useless.29
Dick Kassander was used to seeing his friend embroiled in controversy,
but this state of affairs was a bit extreme, even for McDonald. Kassander set
about trying to defuse the situation. He quickly wrote Condon, outlined his un-
derstanding of the situation and added, "...although Dr. McDonald and I have
wide areas of disagreement, after 20 years of close association, I categorically
reject any question of his tampering with the truth."30
Condon never spoke personally to McDonald about all this, probably be-
cause he knew that any argument he might try to make would be ripped to shreds.
McDonald never intended to cause such controversy. He was acting strictly out
of his own love of science and was taking an honest approach to what he per-
ceived as solvable problems. It took him a few days to realize he had uninten-
i^^e tionally set off a firestorm. On February 11th, he hand-typed a confidential letter
to
r, ^oo^ his friend, Jim Hughes at ONR:
Dear Jim :
The fat's in the fire. My letter to Low... led not to deep scientific concern
and response to the scientific implications and criticism, but to raging
concern for the image of CU and the principal investigator. Condon had
every member of the staff in for a grilling... to try to determine who was
the treacherous, disloyal person or persons.... Now the Colorado project
has lost the two persons most concerned to really dig into the problem ....
Instead of hanging the horse thief[Condon] has hung the two who saw the
horses being stolen.... There's more dynamite in all this than you can
imagine— and probably more than I imagine, myself.31

29. Letter from Condon to McDonald, dated 15 February 1968.

30. Letter from Kassander to Condon, 23 February, 1968.
31. Letter from McDonald to James Hughes, dated 11 February 1968.
274 FIRESTORM

McDonald had always attempted to steer clear of the politics of science;

he considered it a waste of time. His comment about "dynamite" indicates
that he was beginning to realize that political entanglements might be part
and parcel of openly studying an "unacceptable" scientific question.
"Hynek had tried to warn him about this, that this wasn't the way to get
results," states Jacques Vallee. "He overestimated the way that scientific opin-
ion could change. It must have dawned on him that something other than sci-
entific skepticism was at work here!"
Typically, McDonald forged ahead. He made notes^abdut Various aspects
of the Colorado study as they occurred to him. He jotted down one list late at
night on February 15, which included the following:
[1] One goal re NAS confrontation might be more projects, with new
& independent people on it. ?
[2] Request my Statement be entered as part of record to be reviewed
by [NAS] Review Panel - if Project not terminated.

[4] Condon, instead of checking crackpot cases should have dug into
contact [occupant] cases. No guts needed to study nuts...chance to
study contact & paranormal cases. 33

This list, found in McDonald's "Condon" files, addressed a number of

things that were very much on his mind. The NAS was slated to review the Final
Report of the Condon Committee before releasing it to the public. McDonald ful-
ly expected that members of the scientific community would be allowed to give
input to the NAS review panel, and he was planning to submit data to them.
His comment about Condon's obligation to study contact cases, that is, cases
like that of Betty and Barney Hill (See Chapter 10), as well as reports which in-
cluded "paranormal" aspects is even more interesting. It shows that he had not
abandoned the paranormal/psychic phenomena hypothesis entirely (See Chapter
8). In his notes of February 15 he was suggesting that Condon should have ex-
plored as objectively as possible those promising cases where credible witnesses
had reported contact with "occupants" of landed UFOs and/or had experienced
some type of paranormal phenomenon in the course of their sightings.

32. A reference to the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Ad Hoc Committee chaired by Dr.
Brian O'Brien, which had suggested a university team study. This recommendation was
later disregarded, probably because most universities approached showed no interest in
studying this "fringe subject."
33. "Miscellaneous Notes" found in McDonald's "Condon" File.
THE JUDAS KiSS: CONDON'S BETRAYAL 275

FIGURE 17. The Yorba Linda photograph, taken January 24,1967, through
the window of the 14-year-old photographer's home. Developed by a 14-
year-old friend, the picture is stained and also shows scratches caused by a
faulty winding mechanism in the inexpensive "Imperial Mark XII"
camera. What seems to be a "string" holding up the UFO was proven by
four photographic analysts to be one of these scratches, and the U F O was
verified as "free-flying" and at least 100 feet from the camera.

UFO researchers were investigating promising cases of all sorts, from

"hard data" cases to ones tinged with psychic aspects. As an example of a "hard
data" case, NICAP had sent Condon information about "UFO-chase planes,"
particularly one credible case from Pease AFB, which strongly intimated that
Air Force bases kept planes ready to chase UFOs, with the intention of gather-
ing photographic, radar, and other forms of data. Condon and Low never both-
ered to follow up on this fascinating lead.34
Another case that was baldly ignored by the Condon Committee occurred
in Yorba Linda, Calif., on January 24, 1967. A 14-year-old boy had photo-
graphed a black UFO with antennae or "legs" dangling down from its under-
side (see Figure 17). In the same time period, a similar-type UFO was reported
independently to the Air Force, by another 14-year-old in Iowa. The two wit-
nesses did not know each other. Though young, they were judged reliable and

34. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse side p. 19.

276 FIRESTORM

trustworthy; the case was thoroughly documented by the Los Angeles NICAP
Subcommittee over a four-year period.
The Yorba Linda family experienced other UFO close encounters during the
same time period and were plagued for months by psychic phenomena, including
poltergeist manifestations, a glowing apparition, and psychokinetic effects. The
Yorba Linda photo was analyzed by three photographic experts, including a geo-
detic survey company which performed photogrammetry for the military in Viet-
nam. In spite of the fact that the photo was badly stained and scratched, no
evidence of fraud or hoax could be determined. The photo, according to the best
photo analysis, showed a free-flying unidentified object, about three feet in di-
ameter, at a distance of about 100 ft. from the camera. At the urging of LANS,
35

one of Condon's scientific investigators journeyed to Los Angeles to investigate

the Yorba Linda case, but their intended plans to interview the young witness
were abruptly broken off without explanation.
The Yorba Linda photo and the Pease AFB "UFO chase" were not the only
promising cases the Condon Committee ignored. One of the most startling oc-
curred in Redlands, Calif., on February 4,1968. A team of scientists from Red-
lands University researched the case in minute detail: the team included Dr.
Philip Seff, a geologist; Dr. Judson Sanderson, mathematics; and John Brown-
field, an art instructor, The team personally interviewed more than 100 wit-
nesses. They appeared with McDonald on a Redlands TV station where minute
details of the case were presented.
The strange object passed over Redlands in early evening. Its passage took
three to five minutes, and it was viewed by more than 200 witnesses. Through
triangulation, accurate estimates of its size and height were obtained—it was
about 50 ft. in diameter and 300 ft. above the ground. The witnesses were gen-
erally terrified by the strange machine, and dogs barked ferociously as the ob-
ject traveled leisurely over the city. The object gave off a high-pitched whine,
which was caught on a tape recorder in a nearby church.
The nearest radar base was at Norton AFB, several miles away. Military
personnel there claimed that it had not been detected on their sets. After pass-
ing over Redlands, the object shot into the sky; minutes later it appeared over
Victorville, to the east. The Condon Committee sent Frederick Ayer to inves-
tigate the sighting. Dr. Reinhold Krantz, director of the university's Science
Division, was asked to assist the original research team from Redlands.

35. Druffel, Ann, "The Yorba Linda Photograph," FSR Special Issue NO. 5, FSR Publications
Ltd., P.O. Box 162, High Wycombe. Bucks, HP 14 5DZ, England. Nov. 1973. FSR is con-
sidered a premier journal in the field and contains articles on many aspects of the UFO phe-
nomenon by respected researchers worldwide.
THE JUDAS KISS: CONDON'S BETRAYAL 277

"We were very skeptical, and we tried hard to prove that the sighting over
Redlands was a natural phenomenon," Seff was quoted by the San Bernardino
Sun-Telegram. "But what we did was prove beyond any doubt that it was not nat-
ural." John Brownfield, working from the descriptions of dozens of witnesses,
produced a composite sketch of "the thing" which showed seven "exhausts" and
a row of brightly lit windows. The windows were strikingly similar to those on
the huge UFO encountered by Betty and Barney Hill (see Chapter 10). At one
point, the object hovered briefly and the seven "exhausts" sent huge flames
downward. Seff hypothesized that this could have been "some sort of energy dis-
charge...a tremendous amount of energy, unlike anything known today."
McDonald was greatly impressed by the Redlands University scientific
team's investigation. He was also encouraged by the scientists' lack of fear.
Seff had stated, "We can't be worried about ridicule. We're scientists, and
there just isn't a reasonable doubt any more that this happened." The Com-
mittee made an audiogram of the sound made by the object, and concluded that
the sound was the same as that of a city emergency vehicle which was in the
area at the same time. Yet the high-pitched sound associated with the UFO was
much louder than that of the emergency vehicle. The door of the church was
shut, yet the UFO recorded louder than the comparison tape. Seff and his asso-
ciates were stumped by the discrepancy.
Months later, J. Allen Hynek expressed an interest in having the Redlands
recording analyzed by an independent source. "Hynek wants the tapes real
bad," McDonald wrote, yet all of Hynek's efforts to get the tapes back from the
Condon Committee were unsuccessful. 38 Jim Lorenzen of APRO, which par-
ticipated in Condon's "early warning network" called Condon directly asking
for the tapes, and Condon promised to send them. Three weeks passed—and
nothing. McDonald tried to get the tapes also, but met only stalling tactics. He
surmised in his "Redlands" file notes that the Condon Committee would end
up saying that the tape which Hynek, APRO and other researchers were at-
tempting to retrieve was "thrown out." It would not be the first time. Did the
sound-tape associated with the Redlands UFO disappear into the same dark
hole into which the Drury film, the original Newhouse film, three of the Heflin
photos, and many other bits of particularly interesting UFO evidence had al-
ready vanished? In July 1968 McDonald listed 13 reasons why he considered
the case "almost a classic:"

36. "Redlands UFO Sighting May Spark Investigation," by Karl R. Edgerton, Sun-Telegram,
San Bernardino, CA, December 1968.
37. Ibid.
38. McDonald, handwritten notes in "Redlands" file, University of Arizona McDonald Per-
sonal Collection.
278 FIRESTORM

(1) Close-range, low altitude sightings;

(2) Multiple witnesses (estimated 200);
(3) Machine-like, structured object;
(4) Unconventional motion (jerked, hovered, shot up);
(5) Animal reactions—dogs;
(6) Physiological effects—hair stood up, chills, tingling, nausea;
(7) Anomalous sounds— even taped;
8) Ridicule lid—police switchboard swamped;
(9) Press response— local only;
(10) Well documented & reported by three university persons;
(11) Artist's documentation unusual & convincing;
(12) Moderate panic response on streets;
(13) No USAF interest, despite Norton Air Force Base proximity. 39

The Condon Committee had investigated the Redlands sighting at length,

and it was assumed by UFO researchers that it would be included in the Final
Report. The Condon Project was winding down and the entire UFO research
field held its breath, wondering just how negative the Report would be. As the
time drew near for the Committee's investigations to cease, McDonald made
his plans, writing in his journal:
Idea would be to prepare for 3 possibilities re Condon report: (1) Very
negative; (2) Equivocal; (3) Positive, UFOs demand much more work. 40

If the Report proved to be equivocal or positive in tone, McDonald rea-

soned, the way was paved for extended hearings before the House Committee
on Space and Astronautics, with further assistance from any panel which might
be formed within the NAS. But if the Report should be negative, he would need
all available ammunition even to get it before Rep. George Miller's Commit-
tee! McDonald felt that what he called his "bill of particulars" would be part
of that ammunition. The bill of particulars was a scholarly statement detailing
all aspects of the UFO problem, which McDonald had written at Roush's re-
quest and which Roush had passed on to the NAS.
In the very next paragraph in McDonald's journal, after mentioning the
bill of particulars, he mentions "the final revised drafts that went out from
ONR to Udall and to Roush." It isn't clear whether these "drafts from ONR"

39. Ibid.
40. McDonald, James E., fourth journal, p. 6.
THE JUDAS KISS: CONDON'S BETRAYAL 279

were the same document as his "bill of particulars," which was sent to Roush
and NAS. If they were, this would be a most interesting development. It
would mean that the Navy had taken an official interest in McDonald's study ' ^ ^
of "anomalous airborne objects" and that this ONR document might still beo. o.oa4
somewhere in ONR files. McDonald's journal specifies, however, that the*^ ^ f
revised drafts made no mention of UFOs, because "Capt. Van Ness does not X -V\
wish to give any indication that the Navy recognizes UFOs exist." 41 For t h e ^ i . V
sake of clarification, the pages of McDonald's journal describing the "bill of
particulars" and the "final, revised drafts" from ONR are reproduced as Ap-
pendix Item C.

McDonald fully expected that he could get the names of the scientists on
the NAS panel which would review the Condon Report. To his surprise, NAS
officials informed him that the panelists' names would be kept secret until the
review was finished! McDonald could not understand this need for secrecy. He
felt sure that his bill of particulars, presented to the NAS by a concerned Con-
gressman, could be crucial, a document to cite, and a yardstick to aid the panel
in its reviewing process 4 2 At this point, however, Fuller's article appeared in
Look Magazine, blowing the whistle on Low's "trick memo" and documenting
Condon's neglect 4 3 McDonald was quoted by Fuller, regarding the sorry sit-
uation at Blue Book and the fact that the Condon Committee seemed headed
for the same dereliction of duty. Donald Keyhoe was also quoted at length,
stating that NICAP was withdrawing its support from the Condon study.
The Look article caused waves throughout the scientific community and
brought to McDonald both kudos and criticism. When the magazine hit the
stands he was in Albany, participating in a panel on weather and climate mod-
ification for a joint meeting of the AMS and the NAS. "Unanimous surprise re
Look among Conference participants," wrote McDonald in his journal. 44
While there, he received a telephone call from the Huntsville, Ala., AIAA and
was asked to speak on the subject of UFOs at a conference there. Joach Kuett-
ner, who was at the conference with McDonald and who was head of the
AIAA's UFO Subcommittee, assured him that the Alabama section was a
"good, big group." McDonald accepted.
While flying to Alabama, McDonald discussed the forthcoming NAS re-
view of the Condon Report with his colleague Gordon MacDonald, who confid-
ed that he doubted the anonymous NAS panel would "act voluntarily" in its

41. Ibid., p. 6, reverse p. 6. (Appendix - Item C)

42. Ibid.
43. Fuller, John G., op. cit.
44. M c D o n a l d , op. cit., p. 1.
280 FIRESTORM

forthcoming review, and that its chief concern would be its own image. Anoth-
45

er colleague, whom McDonald identifies only by the initials "JFM" told him that
he would "nudge Daniel Greenbert" regarding coverage about the Condon Com-
mittee in the refereed journal, Science. "JFM" had been surprised at the Look ar-
ticle and felt that something should be done to get the facts of Condon's neglect
out to the scientific community. Science was a most prestigious journal, and
46

McDonald knew it would be a rare coup to have it print the real situation regard-
ing Condon's lack of responsibility and misuse of a government grant. In spite
of "JFM's" efforts, however, Science refused to accept an article on the UFO
subject from McDonald, just as it had refused UFO articles from other scientists
active in the field.
The next day, after speaking to the AIAA, McDonald stopped at Washing-
ton, D.C., where he met with some loyal NICAP staff members at a favorite Chi-
nese restaurant. They told him about a press conference which Don Keyhoe had
held, immediately after the Look article appeared on the newsstands. It had been
well attended, with 27 reporters eager for the complete story. Keyhoe passed out
about 30 copies of the Low "trick" memo to the media. Phil Klass was also there,
in his role as an Aviation Week editor, but was not neglecting his UFO skeptic
role. "Phil taped the conference, and harassed Don," McDonald wrote in his
journal. Klass also objected to Keyhoe's criticism of Condon for having only in-
vestigated a few contactee "cases" and asked Keyhoe how many cases he'd in-
vestigated during the last two years. Keyhoe, even though he was immersed in
data on contactee cases, declined to answer. Back in Tucson, McDonald re-
47

ceived a phone call from Jim Hughes.

McDonald asked him if there had been any repercussions about his part
in the Look expose. Hughes informed him that there had been "no great re-
action" to the article at the Office of Naval Research. There was continued
48

reaction from the media, however, who were still eager for more details.
Keyhoe phoned McDonald on May 5, 1968, to ask for his participation in a
St. Louis television show. McDonald obliged, and host Bill Field of KPR-TV
called him for a phone interview. Phil Klass had also been invited to appear
on the show for "balance," which displeased McDonald. 49

McDonald shared with John Fuller the encouraging reaction he'd gathered
from a few scientific colleagues. In the meantime, however, Condon called Bill

45 .Ibid.
46. Ibid.
AT. Ibid.
48. Ibid., reverse p. 1.
49. Ibid.
THE JUDAS Kiss: C O N D O N ' S BETRAYAL 281

Arther, Look's editor-in-chief, to complain bitterly about the article and inti-
mating that Fuller should be fired. 50 Fuller also told McDonald that the Air
Force's Dr. Thomas Ratchford, who'd been in charge of choosing Condon as
the "lead investigator," was not particularly upset by the Look piece and at first
was inclined to let Condon "fight it out." However, when Keyhoe handed out
copies of the "trick memo" to the press at his news conference, Ratchford was
angered.51 From that point on, the Air Force defended the Condon study with
no holds barred.
The battle continued into June, 1968. Seven weeks after the Look article
appeared, McDonald received a phone call from A.J. Cote, Jr., editor of Indus-
trial Research, based in Silver Spring, Md. Condon was on the editorial board
of this publication.
"Cote tried to draw me out on the Colorado mess," McDonald wrote in his
journal. "I made some off-record statements and a few on record." He also sent
copies of all pertinent materials to Cote, including NICAP publications and
Rep. Roush's statement about the urgency of scientifically studying the UFO
question.52 Cote also interviewed Condon, sharing with him the materials he'd
collected from McDonald. Condon violently objected to including Roush's
statement in the article and asked Cote to cut some of the references to
NICAP's work, Cote wouldn't bend; he published an article in Industrial Re-
search in the June 1968 issue from McDonald's point of view. Condon, an-
gered, resigned from the editorial board.
Cote was surprised at Condon's response. He phoned McDonald again to
ask more questions, and McDonald told him that Condon had suggested to Bill
Arthur at Look that Fuller should be fired. He also told him that the AAAS, a
prestigious scientific organization, was planning a UFO symposium in Decem-
ber. McDonald suggested he call Carl Sagan, who was the symposium's co-
organizer.54
McDonald's logic was hurting Condon in ways he hadn't expected, and he
began to hit back any way he could. He informed Cote that as a result of the
Look article he was receiving phone threats and that he'd had to ask the police
for protection.55 Condon also contacted Science, and asked for space to reply
to the charges in Fuller's article but was unsuccessful. Discussing the situation

50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., p. 4.
52. Ibid., p. 9.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., reverse p. 9.
 282 FIRESTORM

with Phil Boffey of Science, Condon told him that his Committee had had to
fire Mary Lou Armstrong, Robert Low's Assistant, but gave an entirely fraud-
ulent reason. In reality, she'd been fired during the hullabaloo that ensued
56

over the release of the "trick" memo. Although Boffey was not very interested
in the UFO subject, he had previously spent several days at Boulder discussing
the Committee's work with Dave Saunders and Mary Lou Armstrong, had
come to know them as responsible people, and he knew that Condon's charge
against Armstrong was completely unfounded! 57

In the meantime, Thornton Page and Carl Sagan were busy planning the
p v AAAS UFO Symposium, but Condon interfered, violently expressing his op-
0

X position. He argued that his Final Report would not yet be reviewed by the
%St NAS panel, and it wouldn't be fair to have McDonald and other speakers crit-
icizing him publicly before they knew what was in it. Page and Sagan bowed
x to Condon's wishes, and called off the symposium. They planned to postpone
it for a year, but Condon took their action to mean that they intended to drop
the whole idea. 58

The repercussions of Fuller's Look article continued into the autumn of

1968. James McDonald tried repeatedly to contact his friend Tom Malone to
discuss various aspects with him; he finally succeeded in reaching him in
mid-November. The time for release of Condon's Final Report was immi-
nent, and McDonald had heard a rumor that the Air Force and Condon would
try to keep the Report secret. Malone agreed with McDonald that Look had
made the situation so public there was no way the Report could be withheld.
McDonald told him that he wanted a chance to lay his criticisms before the
NAS panel before they decided as to its validity, rather than after. Malone
agreed to check at NAS for him. He talked to John Coleman, a high NAS of-
ficial but Coleman didn't mention the review panel so Malone didn't bring it
up either! He told McDonald he didn't have any information to share regard-
ing whether or not the NAS would allow McDonald to voice his criticisms
before the review panel -met. Malone then, in confidence, told McDonald
that, as early as August, Fred Seitz, the Chairman of NAS, told him he
planned to discuss the review panel with Malone himself!
Malone agreed that McDonald should send Seitz a letter "as a person much
concerned," and point out that he felt the review panel might find it helpful to
have his comments during the review, rather than hear them later. Malone, it
seems, did not try to use his influence with NAS and had thrown the problem

56./6;</.,p. 19.
57.Ibid., reverse p. 18. ^S^V V
58. Ibid., reverse p. 44. ^ v/
T H T JUDAS KISS. CONDON'S BETRAYAL 283

back in McDonald's lap. Or perhaps Malone was simply entrapped in the politics
of science! He said he would call "if he heard anything open," but McDonald
heard nothing back. 59 <
On January 7, 1969, J. R. Siever of NAS abruptly informed McDonald that
the Academy had finished its review, and that the Air Force planned to release
the finding within 48 hours! McDonald immediately phoned Dick Hall, so that
he and NICAP could coordinate plans to comment on the Report's findings in
the media. CBS had gotten its hands on a copy of the three-volume Condon Re-
port and lrad promised to get it to NICAP by Wednesday evening so that
Donald Keyhoe could tape a commentary on it. McDonald had airline tickets
for a professional trip a few days later, but immediately replaced them, putting
a "leg on his trip" so he could study the Condon Report in D.C. He wired Seitz,
asking for a chance to see the NAS review, and informed Congressman Mo
Udall about it "for backup." Seitz made no response. 60
All available NICAP personnel gathered together to prepare a thorough es-
timation of the Condon Report. CBS's copy did not arrive as promised, but
NICAP procured a copy from a friendly reporter at ABC, who warned them that
the DoD had "chewed ABC out" for planning to break the story prematurely at
noon the next day. How DoD knew that ABC had a copy is a mystery! Dick and
Marty Hall drove McDonald to NICAP, where he sat up most of the night study-
ing the immense three-volume Report. It was quickly discovered that Condon
had come up with extremely negative "Conclusions," which were placed at the
front of the Report—which most people in the UFO field, including McDonald,
considered a strange place to put "Conclusions."61
It was logically suspected by McDonald and NICAP that Condon had put
his conclusions in the front to discourage any potential readers, especially sci-
entists, from reading the rest of the immense report! Condon's "Conclusions"
stated flatly that UFOs were not worthy of further scientific study. Most of the
900 pages was "fill," discussions of how radar anomalies could be caused by
weather and other natural causes; psychological implications; sections on op-
tics, plasmas and the like. No specific UFO cases were even discussed in these
long, "fill" sections!

59. Ibid., reverse p. 29.

60. Ibid., reverse p. 33.
61. According to Jacques Valine, every scientific report he has submitted had an "executive
summary" in the front section containing his conclusions. Vallee does not consider the fact
that C o n d o n put his "Conclusions" at the beginning of his "Report" particularly significant,
in contrast to the opinions of other researchers in the field.
 284 FIRESTORM

The UFO cases which the Report did address were tucked in the middle of
the book, together with samples of hoaxes and familiar meteorological and as-
tronomical phenomena often reported as UFOs. The few promising cases which
Condon's staff had investigated competently were given coded numbers. The
Redlands case and some others the staff had investigated thoroughly were not
even included. No names of witnesses were given and the dates and locations
were obscured. By arranging his Final Report in this manner, Condon effectively
stymied most scientists who might wish to investigate the "meat" themselves!
January 8, 1969, was a hectic day, even by McDonald's standards. He
stopped by Rep. Udall's office to pick up a second copy of the Report and also
stopped at Rep. Ryan's office to pick up copies of a floor statement Ryan had
made about the UFO problem. He did a 15-minute interview with Bill Downs
at ABC-TV, and then spent the rest of the day getting ready for the press con-
ference, which was held at the National Press Club Building. Dave Saunders,
whose own book, UFOs? Yes! had just been released, came in from New York
to participate. Phil Klass was there, taping the proceedings.
62

3 I X>*<3?r ort -Vk* OvvRKM afeV

There was plenty of TV coverage that night, all based on the press con-
ference. However, all of the TV footage used seemed to be on Keyhoe, while
McDonald and Saunders were omitted. While McDonald watched the broad-
casts, he also studied the "Thayer section" of the Condon Report. This was
the radar section, and McDonald realized with inner dismay that that partic-
ular section was much poorer than he'd first "guesstimated." 63

The next day, McDonald, Dick Hall, and Isabel Davis spent several
hours assembling data for NICAP's official rebuttal of the Condon report.
They finally had to stop when McDonald's plane was due to leave in late af-
ternoon for Chicago. An Arizona Star editorial had mentioned "borderline
dingalings" in conjunction with UFO research, so the trio drank a toast to
"borderline dingalings" as McDonald prepared to board. At Chicago's
64

O'Hare Airport, he phoned J. Allen Hynek to touch bases and was surprised
at Hynek's reaction. Hynek seemed almost pleased at the negativity of the
Condon Report. "Now the 'big boys' won't take the problem away from you
Y y ' t^>and me!" he told McDonald. This wasn't what McDonald was concerned
u

*H\bout! In fact, he'd written a colleague just a few weeks before, stating an
^ ^ inclination that he wished that somehow the UFO question could be solved
t

62. McDonald, op. cit., p. 34.

63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
 T H E JUDAS Kiss: C O N D O N ' S BETRAYAL 285

as a conventional natural phenomenon, so that he could be free of it and re-

turn full-time to atmospheric physics.
The whole situation galled McDonald. Returning from Chicago, it took
him only three days to put together a scientific colloquium at the IAP, where
he proceeded to educate his colleagues, and everyone else at the university
who wished to attend. The colloquium's title was "Condon Report." No other
explanation was necessary; the subject was spread all over the media. Practi-
cally everyone in the country was aware that a "scientific, government-funded
panel" had come to the conclusions that UFOs were a bunch of nonsense.

V As if to nail the coffin lid shut on the pesky objects, the Air Force's Project
lue Book was officially closed in mid-December, 1969. Air Force Secretary
Robert C. Seaman, Jr. assured the public that 'none of the 12,618 reports of
• sightings of flying saucers investigated had ever indicated a threat to national
security. Furthermore, there has been no evidence that any of the 701 UFO
if sightings classified as 'unidentified' represented advanced technology or
usp^T might be vehicles from another world."66 One cannot help but wonder if Blue
c j ^ a * 's^Book was phased out because it no longer served the purpose of assuring the
public that the UFO question was "in good hands." McDonald had proved that
V it was inefficient, incompetent, and dishonest.
Whatever forced this ultimate Air Force action, the final "Judas kiss" had
C / c ^ ' already been given the subject by the Condon Committee Report. This fact was
"\V\oi t h o r o u g h l y covered in McDonald's IAP colloquium. He pointed out that the
d j 5ecfN*main question about UFOs was not: (1) Did they present a threat to national
, colfiY security? or (2) Was there any evidence that they might be extraterrestrial
craft? The main scientific question UFOs presented was that there was evi-
dence of some type of unknown, solid aeroforms traversing earth's atmosphere
and overflying national borders. They had been photographed by reliable peo-
ple and tracked on ground and airborne radar. Many of these radar-visual cas-
es, stressed McDonald, involved aerial maneuvers and speeds which defied
currently understood laws of physics.
He emphasized that the ET hypothesis was a working hypothesis only, and
it meant nothing for the Air Force and Condon to reassure the public that UFOs
represented no extraterrestrial threat! What UFOs were and why they were
here were peripheral problems which should be set aside until the scientific
community accepted the fact of their existence and began to adequately study
them. A quandary still surrounded McDonald, however. Scientists with little
or no knowledge of the subject, and other detractors, persisted in stating that

66. "Air Force Investigation of Flying Saucers Ends," Los Angeles Times. 18 Dec.. 1969, Part
I, p. 26. " |
GqcM.
286 FIRESTORM

he was convinced UFOs were extraterrestrial. Gordon Lore clarifies his posi-
tion, as other researchers have also done throughout this book (See Chapter 8).
"He left it open," explains Lore. "He didn't think that the ETH was the only
hypothesis. He thought that, based upon all of the evidence that he had seen, that
was the best working hypothesis, but he was certainly open to others."
Dr. William Hartmann, who had been on Condon's staff and who had in
the Condon Report summarily dismissed the Heflin photos as a crude hoax,
was present at the colloquium (see Chapter 12). McDonald asked him pointed
questions about his role on the Committee, and Hartmann conceded that Dr.
Condon and Robert Low were biased from the start, and that the Committee
should have "done more on the old Classics." 67

After the colloquium, McDonald set about studying the entire 965-page
Report line-by-line, and arrived at a surprising conclusion. Fully one-third of
the cases which were included, tucked among the voluminous pages, were sol-
id cases, labeled "Unidentified"! Condon's "Conclusions" did not match what
was hidden inside the 965 pages of text. McDonald wondered if Condon had
even bothered to read his own report! He set about tracking down the coded
reference assigned each case, so that he and other researchers might know the
"when, where, who and how" of each "Unidentified." His intention was to re-
but Condon's Report case by case and line by line.

67. McDonald, op. cit., p. 34.

 CHAPTER 12

The Pictures That Almost Proved It

I gave Uncle Walter a new coat to wear.

When he came home it was covered with hairs.
Lately I've noticed several new tears,
I'm afraid Uncle Walter is waltzing with bears....
—from "Waltzing With Bears"

Show me a man who is not confused and I will show you a man
who has not asked enough questions.... It takes courage to
engage confusion deeply.
—John Ciardi
Quoted by Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle in FSR June 1969

spite of McDonald's interest in numerous types of UFO

Wl reports, he realized that only those reports where documented
proof could be obtained would convince the scientific commu-
nity that UFOs were real. Two types which seemed to hold out hope of
proof were: 1. Photo cases which held up under the most careful scrutiny;
and 2. Radar-visual cases, where the objects were seen visually and mon-
^ r e d on radar at the same time.
JfrP, There are, unfortunately, very few UFO photos that survive scientific
analysis. Many that surfaced during the McDonald years proved to be Fris-
bees, hubcaps or even "disc-shaped" lamps reflected in windows. There
was even a strange-looking picture of an antennaed "craft" which the pho-
tographer claimed had been taken aboard a ship at sea (see Figure 18).
NICAP accepted this photo for years as "possibly genuine" and included
it among a ten-photo packet that was distributed to researchers. Although
the other nine pictures have retained credibility through the years, the pho-
to of the antennaed "craft" was eventually proven to be a model carved
from a potato!
There was one set of photos, however, which engaged McDonald's in-
terest intensely. These were the famed Heflin photos, a set of four Polaroid

Firestorm -Ann Druffel

288 FIRESTORM

prints, taken in Santa Ana, Calif. By the time the case was considered "docu-
mented" by LANS, the photos had been examined by six photographic experts,
and the integrity of Rex E. Heflin had been established beyond doubt. The event
received media coverage all over the world; the full story of McDonald's part in
the investigation is told here for the first time from his point of view, gleaned
from 30 handwritten pages in his "Heflin" file.

FIGURE 18. A photo of a UFO which was accepted by the UFO field as
"possibly genuine" for years but was eventually proven to be a
model carved from a potato.

On August 3,1965, at about noon, Heflin, 38, stopped his work van by the
side of Myford Road, where some branches of a tree obscured a railroad cross-
ing sign. His van was facing north, and was about one-half mile outside the pe-
rimeter of El Toro Marine Base. Heflin was a highway maintenance engineer
for the Orange County Road Department, and part of his job involved keeping
all traffic signs clearly visible to motorists. He picked up his Model 101 Po-
laroid work camera, which was loaded with ASA 3000 film, to photograph the
traffic hazard. At the same time he also attempted to report the hazard to his
supervisor on his van radio so a road crew could come out to clear it, but there
was unexplained strong static on his radio.
THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 289

FIGURE 19. Rex E. Heflin's first photo, taken as the unidentified flying craft
crossed his line of vision, as seen through the windshield of his
work truck.

As he started to photograph the railroad sign, a flash of motion in the sky

caught his eye. A strange, disc-shaped craft which he judged to be about 20 ft.
in diameter flew from left to right across Myford Road. It appeared to be about
1/8 mile away. The strange craft had a shiny dome and rim which reflected the
sunlight; a broad black band circumvented its middle. Struck by its unfamiliar
shape, Heflin shot Photo #1 through his windshield as it crossed his line of vi-
sion (see Figure 19). As the object moved toward the east it tipped, revealing
its dark underside. He observed a light beam rotating clockwise around the bot-
tom, from the center out to the rim. The light was greenish-white and seemed
to be oscillating or blinking and took about two seconds for each rotation. (He
later hypothesized that it might have been light reflection from a slow-moving
"propeller" or other rotating blade.) Heflin took Photo #2 through the passen-
ger window of his van (see Figure 20).
As the craft moved farther to the east, Heflin snapped Photo #3 (see Figure
21). By this time, the object was smaller in size and the sunlit features were less
distinct, although the black band still showed clearly. The craft then seemed to
"stabilize" its flight, made a turning motion and headed toward the northeast,
290 FIRESTORM

out toward the 405 San Diego freeway, which cut across the landscape about
3/8 of a mile away. It gained in speed, and went out of sight leaving behind a
ring of bluish-black smoke. (See Appendix Item 12-A, page 559.)

FIGURE 20. Heflin's second photo, taken through the truck's passenger
window as the craft tipped, revealing a dark underside.

Heflin drove his van toward the smoke ring, which was slowly rising in al-
titude. He got out of the van and photographed it as it slowly traveled toward the
northeast, at an elevation of about 50°. The only reference points in Photo #4, be-
sides clouds, were a telephone wire and a limb of a tree. By this time, the ring
was three to four times larger than the diameter of the craft from which it was
apparently emitted and was bent out of shape by the winds (see Figure 22). He-
flin was surprised at the smoke ring's "solid" appearance; it did not dissipate like
ordinary smoke. Little did he realize that Photo #4 would become the source of
vigorous controversy in the UFO field, deeply frustrating McDonald and causing
an unexpected rumpus between the scientist and his UFO colleagues.
After the craft flew out of sight, Heflin noted that the interference on his
radio had ceased, and it worked well again. Since he assumed the unusual ob-
ject was an experimental aircraft from El Toro, he didn't get very excited about
the pictures. He showed them to a few co-workers when he arrived back at his
office, but some of these work mates seemed agitated by the smoke-ring pic-
THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 291

ture. It was something that one wouldn't expect to see associated with any kind
of experimental craft or, for that matter, any kind of UFO! Heflin agreed that
"three pictures were enough for one day!" He thought little more about them,
but some of his relatives and friends, however, took great interest in them.
They borrowed the three photos of the craft, had them copied and eventually
his sister took Photos # 1, #2 and #3 to the Santa Ana Register.

FICURE 21. Heflin's third photo, taken as the UFO changed course and sped
north out of sight.

The Register checked at El Toro Marine Base and inquired if anyone else
had seen the craft, but El Toro insisted that no other reports had been received.
They told the Register that it was not an experimental aircraft from their base.
Copies were also made by the newspaper's chief photographer, Clay T. Miller,
and the three pictures were published for the first time in the newspaper on
September 20, six weeks after the event occurred. Heflin was never asked for
permission to print the photos, and even though they were subsequently pub-
lished widely in journals and magazines throughout the world, he never asked
for any remuneration.

Years of harassment from curiosity seekers and interminable investigation

by U F O researchers began. Through it all, Heflin consistently displayed lack
of interest in publicity, but when he was questioned by objective researchers
 292 FIRESTORM

he was always forthright. The complete details of what happened to the photos
after Heflin brought them to his office are complex and lengthy, but what is
most important here is that qualified NIC AP investigators including John Gray
and Ed Evers—two aviation engineers employed at North American—learned
of the sighting. Gray and Evers were methodical and objective members of
LANS, headed by Dr. Leslie K. Kaeburn, a noted biophysicist. By the time
1

LANS became involved in the case, Marine Corps Intelligence officers had
come by Heflin's house, interviewed him and borrowed the pictures to make
copies. Heflin didn't ask the Marines for a receipt, yet they carefully requested
him to sign a receipt when they returned the photos!
Cou'<3 4W W ^ V * -k-fc M - ^ s^ol-Jfl

FIGURE 22. Heflin's fourth photo, showing a bluish-black smoke ring which
the craft apparently left behind as it rapidly sped away.

The USAF also contacted Heflin and conducted an official inquiry. The in-
vestigating officer, Capt. Charles F. Reichmuth, also copied and returned the
photos. He checked with Heflin's supervisors and learned that he was a valu-
able employee—mature, alert and trustworthy. Reichmuth noted in his report
that he "could find no evidence to disagree with this estimate." However, a2

1. Dr. Leslie Kaeburn died in 1968, and Idabel Epperson succeeded him as LANS Subcom-
mittee Chairman.
T H E PICTURES T H A T ALMOST PROVED IT 293

Project Blue Book "Photo Analysis Report" describes a "comparison shot" the
Air Force made with a Polaroid 110 A, of a 9" vapor tray, or pan, tossed in air
at 15-20 ft. distance. In spite of Reichmuth's generally positive report on Hef-
lin, the results of the vapor-tray experiment evidently satisfied Blue Book. It
listed the Heflin photos officially as "a hoax," in spite of the fact that Capt. Re-
ichmuth's report stated, "From all appearances, he is not attempting to perpe-
trate a hoax."
A man representing himself as a NORAD Colonel phoned Heflin on Sep-
tember 20 and arranged to meet him two days later, warning him, meanwhile, not
to discuss the event with the press. On the evening of September 22, two men in
civilian clothes, claiming to be from NORAD, came to his door. One of them
flashed a salmon-and-green card which Heflin thought looked similar to those
carried by El Toro marines, but he did not remember the name on the card. The
second man did not participate in the conversation. The first man asked to bor-
row the photos and Heflin obligingly lent him Photos #1, #2 and #3, fully expect-
ing that they would be returned. Since the man did not discuss Photo #4, Heflin
said nothing about it.
The self-proclaimed NORAD men failed to return the three photos. He-
flin tried to track them down, assisted by NICAP investigators, but NORAD
disclaimed any knowledge of them. Heflin even contacted Congressman
James Utt, in whose Congressional District he resided. Utt inquired on behalf
of Heflin, and was "assured" that NORAD offices had been searched from
top to bottom with no results. As a consequence of this theft, Heflin and UFO
researchers were left with only copies of what would eventually prove to be
some of the best UFO photos which have even surfaced. The identity of the
two "NORAD" men remains unknown.3
Heflin was roundly criticized by some individuals in the UFO field for lend-
ing out his original photos in what they considered a "careless" fashion. Heflin

2. Young, Mort, UFO: Top Secret, New York, An Essandess Special Edition, 1967, contains a
copy of a report filed by Capt. Charles F. Reichmuth, USAF, who learned of the existence of
the Heflin photos on September 14th, borrowed them on the 18th and returned them on the
22nd. However, McDonald's "Heflin File" indicates that Idabel Epperson of LANS was
under the impression that El Toro learned of the existence of the photos from the September
20th Register.
3. A "NORAD Colonel" phoned Heflin on the 20th, asking to borrow the originals. The same
day the El Toro Marines returned the photos to Heflin, two "NORAD" men came to Heflin's
door and "borrowed" the originals. Is this timing coincidental? Or was there cooperation
among official sources of which Heflin and LANS investigators were unaware? It is not
uncommon for official sources to take furtive interest in UFO events while publicly dis-
missing them.
294 FIRESTORM

was used to working with officials in government and the military in the course
of his work, however, and was by nature a trusting and cordial man. The fact that
he was untroubled about lending the photos was due to indifference. He was ba-
sically a skeptic regarding UFOs, and for weeks after the event thought that the
object was an experimental aircraft. Not until scientists and engineers connected
with NICAP-LANS and other organizations took interest in the photos did he be-
gin to think he had photographed something highly unusual.
James McDonald learned about the Heflin photos from NICAP headquar-
ters. He promptly took an interest in them and established close relationships
with the members of LANS. Long letters regarding every aspect of the inci-
dent, answering all of his piercing questions, traveled between Los Angeles
and Tucson. He was impressed by NICAP's careful, objective investigation of
the case. He came to the conclusion that Heflin's photos were "outstanding"
and considered them among the very few which could be considered "genu-
ine." His acceptance was demonstrated by the fact that he included them in his
list of 100 best cases which he later sent to the Condon Committee staff. Ex-
tremely dubious of the Air Force "hoax" explanation, he wrote in his Heflin
file, "Wonder if anyone had taken Rex's camera, set it for 15 fit., shot a 9" pan,
then checked for blurring of the freeway power lines visible in Heflin's pho-
tos?" Photogrammetric analysis on the photos had already shown that the tele-
phone lines were remarkably sharp.
McDonald not only worked closely with LANS members but telephoned
Heflin personally and interviewed him at length. Heflin told him that Air Force
Investigator Reichmuth had asked him about his politics and religion. Heflin
had a keen sense of humor, and questions like these amazed and amused him.
Why should witnesses' politics or religion be part of a UFO investigation?
"The general public would scarcely believe it!" Heflin remarked to McDonald.
McDonald investigated the matter of the interference on Heflin's van ra-
dio, because this was a reported physical effect which could be checked out.
He interviewed Heflin's superiors and confirmed that the radio malfunction
had indeed occurred and that other radio systems in the area had been affected
at the same time. McDonald consulted Walt Evans, a U. of A. colleague, and
satisfied himself that it was quite conceivable that a strong field (for example,
on the order of 1 v/m) at the same frequency as Heflin was using could "blank"
the system. The type of amplifier generally used in the first stage of transmis-
sion would simply block or saturate at very high receiver signal-strength and
transmit nothing at all. McDonald wrote in his "Heflin" file that he didn't get
the full picture of how it "blocks," but Walt Evans assured him it could occur.
In a rare personal comment, McDonald also wrote, "I now wish I knew more
of just what happened to the radio, and in what order?" 4
THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 295

In early March 1967 McDonald phoned Idabel Epperson. Although Dr.

Kaeburn was LANS Chairman, Epperson handled the administrative duties of
the group, as well as investigating cases with exceptional skill. Judging from the
positive photo analyses and the LANS investigative reports, McDonald felt that
the Heflin photos were worth investigating on-site. Typically, he still had some
questions which he felt had not been answered. He was particularly worried
about the haphazard way in which Heflin had initially treated the photos. Epper-
son explained that Heflin felt he'd got pictures of experimental technology that
he perhaps shouldn't have photographed, not a rare set of UFO photographs. Voce/
"Rex had mixed feelings about his actions," McDonald noted in his jour-
nal after his phone call to Epperson. "County Roads people had various trou-
bles with El Toro Base, traffic regulations, drunks, and keeping weeds clean."
Heflin simply didn't wish to add to the troubles and for that reason made very
little personal use of the photos. However, he lent them out to whomever
asked. After El Toro borrowed his originals to copy, and returned them
promptly, Heflin's anxiety eased off, for El Toro gave no sign that the object
was an experimental craft.
In Tucson, it was McDonald's habit to discuss interesting cases with any
colleagues or family members who would listen! A member of his family saw
something in the Heflin photos that no one else had noticed. The first three pic-y ^ ' J
tures of the craft in flight, taken from inside Heflin's van, showed "flat," over-"3®7
cast skies, while the fourth, which Heflin stated was taken only about a minute^-u^,
later, showed what McDonald's meteorologist's eye identified as heavy cloud^
cover in the vicinity of the ring. McDonald checked with every available ^ ^
weather service within 50 miles of the Myford Road site. From their logs, and , -n.,' *
from scientific data concerning humidity and temperature in the locality for"
that date and time, he became convinced that the clouds in #4 Photo could not
possibly have formed in the sky at that location on the date in question. He also
began to wonder why the smoke-ring photo had not been printed in the Regis-
ter's original article. He began to suspect that Heflin, for some reason, had been
"holding out" on Photo #4. Heflin had not emphasized Photo #4 picture for rea-
sons explained above; it had not been copied by any source except LANS.
He'd never intended to hide its existence from anyone. Early on, he'd lent the
fourth photo to LANS investigator Ed Evers, so LANS members knew he
wasn't "covering it up."
Idabel Epperson had checked weather data, too. G.W. Kalstrom of the U.
S. Weather Bureau at LAX International Airport had assured her that thick
clouds could form in portions of the Los Angeles Basin when the rest of the

4. McDonald, James E„ "Heflin File."

296 FIRESTORM

sky was simply overcast. He told her, "The weather people simply looked out
the wrong window!" Epperson also noted that her copies of the photos
5

showed quite heavy clouds, especially in Photo #1, while McDonald's copies,
which were a different "generation," showed a flat, overcast sky. The reason
for the difference was that the two copies had been made under different de-
grees of exposure.
McDonald wasn't convinced. He was confident that the thick clouds in
Photo #4 couldn't possibly have formed under the temperature-dew point dif-
ference which prevailed in the area at the time of Heflin's sighting. Pursuing
the issue, he learned that Epperson's conversations with the National Weather
Records Center and local weather bureaus had produced the information that
an overcast sky could look essentially "flat" in pictures taken at a low angle
from inside Heflin's van, as the first three photos had been. However, there
could have been fairly thick clouds in the easterly sky where the ring was pho-
tographed, according to weather conditions Epperson obtained from the U.S.
Weather Bureau. At the 50° angle at which the Photo #4 had been taken out-
doors, these fairly thick clouds could have looked like a substantial cloud layer.
McDonald remained unconvinced.
As the investigation continued, Heflin was bothered incessantly by curios-
ity seekers as well as members of the media; the Road Department also was
swamped with calls. He realized by now that he had photographed an "un-
known," and he began to wish heartily that he'd never told anyone that he'd
taken the pictures. He vowed to LANS that he "wouldn't tell a living soul" if
he ever had an opportunity to photograph a "UFO" again.
LANS members assured Heflin that it was typical of McDonald to affirm
and re-affirm every possible aspect of UFO cases he worked on, and McDonald
had written personally to Heflin: "As you know, your 1965 photos remain the
outstanding photographic evidence yet submitted concerning UFOs." Because
6

of LANS's respect for McDonald's expertise, Heflin appreciated his interest and
looked forward to meeting him personally. By this time, LANS had done a two-
year check on Heflin's character and work record, and had been assured by his
superiors and co-workers that Rex Heflin was a straightforward individual, had
15 years of responsible duty in the County Road Department, and was not the
type to pull a hoax that could jeopardize his job. The fact that Heflin had an off-
beat sense of humor, and joked at times in a deadpan fashion, in no way detracted
from his truthful and responsible nature.

5. Personal communication from Epperson to author.

6. Letter from McDonald to Heflin, 27 December 27 1967.
THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 297

Early in November 1967, McDonald spoke to Dr. William Hartmann, a

young photographic expert who was on Condon's staff and was also a faculty
member at the U. of A. Hartmann had most of the documents concerning the He-
flin sighting, for he was in charge of photo cases for the Condon Committee.
He'd also confirmed the radio interference that had occurred at the time of the
sighting. He'd called Heflin's supervisor, Mr. Herm Kimmel, who had been in a
second county van, moving in freeway traffic 1/4 to 1/2 mile away, at the time
Heflin photographed the UFO.
Kimmel had heard the base station trying to call Heflin on the radio, but
the radio cut off in the middle of the transmission. Kimmel's opinion was that
the sudden interference on the radio was akin to "button release," except that
there was no blip of noise as occurs when the button is released. He felt the in-
cident was very odd and had encouraged Heflin to have the radio checked,
even though Heflin's radio worked perfectly after the UFO flew out of sight.
The radio was checked, and the technician found nothing wrong with it. Both
McDonald and Hartmann were satisfied that Heflin's description of the radio
failure—a common occurrence during UFO close encounters—was accurate.
McDonald and Hartmann decided to investigate the case on-site.
In January 1968, McDonald and Hartmann interviewed officials and radar
technicians at El Toro. Reviewing the official report, they noted that the inves-
tigating officer had also checked Heflin's character, work record, and reputa-
tion and had interviewed his relatives and friends. The photos were reported to
have been shown to the commander of the 11th Navy District.7 McDonald sur-
mised that the photos had also been copied there, although no one he knew
could confirm this. The most cogent question on his mind was: Had the uni-
dentified craft been viewed on radar from El Toro or adjacent military facili-
ties? If so, he would have a unique piece of empirical evidence, a UFO caught
on three observing channels at the same time—visual, camera and radar. How-
ever, the radar log at the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) had not noted any-
thing unusual at the time of the sighting.
Even though it was Hartmann's assessment that would appear in the Con- a*,
don Committee's final report, he knew little or nothing about radar systems',,.!/, **
and didn't know what questions to ask the radar technicians! McDonald
briefed him regarding ground clutter, MTI, 8 lobe effects, and the like and, for-^ucU"
tunately, was allowed into the radar room. "Bill didn't have to ask all the ques-t^ „
tions alone as we feared," he wrote. "The MCAS radar room was a t y p i c a l ^
RAPCON 9 facility." 10

7. Staff Sgt. H. P. Dolyak was the investigating officer from El Toro Marine Base.
8. Moving Target Indicator
 298 FIRESTORM

They were also taken to Electronics Communications Maintenance on the

base, where they met with a First Lt. Leahy and "a fellow in civvies." The latter
"seemed to have the dope, but refused comment till got clearance," McDonald
noted. The "fellow in civvies" introduced himself as Paul Schaen, and he went
to lunch with Hartmann and McDonald. We can only surmise that McDonald in-
quired of Schaen's interest in UFOs, but no notes exist to that effect. We only
know, from the next notation in McDonald's handwriting, that Schaen apparent-
ly "got clearance" and talked freely when the three men went on to the Radar Air
Traffic Control Center, a joint FAA-USMC facility. 11^ J

This facility's radars had three ranges, the first of which watched very care-
fully in the Myford Road area for helicopter traffic. Automobiles on the nearby
freeway, however, presented a big problem, since an additional blip from a low-
flying UFO, with an estimated diameter of about 20ft.,would be lost in the maze
of freeway traffic. McDonald obtained plentiful information about the nature and
capabilities of the facility's radar systems, all of which he carefully noted in his
handwritten notes.
That evening, there was a lively LANS meeting at the Epperson home to
welcome McDonald and Dr. Bill Hartmann, about whom LANS had heard
much but had never met. It started out as usual—friendly, lively and informa-
tive. Unfortunately, however, this particular meeting was packed with skepti-
cal newcomers who had never attended a LANS meeting, but who had been
invited to give them a chance to meet McDonald. Some of them simply did not
know how to interview a UFO witness with proper objectivity. McDonald
carefully made his own list of the 17 attendees, which read: "Hartmann, Idabel
Epperson and her daughter, Marilyn; Dr. Robert M. Wood; Maralyn Benton,
Y<p' Wood's secretary; Darryl Harmon; George and Mrs. Kocher; Dr. Robert
• Nathan of JPL; the Druffels, Charles and Ann; the Eugene Coltons; John
> Gray." Also present were Dr. Stephen Black and Philip Daly, two BBC per-
J 12

sonnel who were in the U.S. shooting a UFO d o c u m e n t a r y . ^ ^ )

The scientists took over the interviewing of Heflin on this occasion, and
^ -the questions flew hot and heavy. It soon became apparent to LANS members
that some of the questions were openly skeptical, but Heflin kept his cool.
Hartmann, for instance, doubted that anyone could take three Polaroid photos
in, roughly, 20 seconds, the conditions under which Heflin had taken Photos

9. Radar Approach Control

10. McDonald's handwritten "Heflin" file, in James E. McDonald Personal Collection, Univer-
sity of Arizona, Tucson Library.
11 .Ibid.
\2.Ibid.
 THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 299

#1, #2 and #3. Heflin calmly told Hartmann that he would do it right there if
Hartmann had a 101 Polaroid! In fact, LANS investigators had asked Heflin
the same question two years prior and he'd demonstrated it promptly for them
with his own work camera. Another visiting scientist asked: Did Heflin know
if the object was really coming from directly behind him? "No, I don't," Heflin
replied, wondering privately about the logic of the question! "I didn't see it un-
til it was on the periphery of my eye." And on and on.
Then it was John Gray's turn to answer questions. Gray was in the Systems
Measurement Division at North American Aircraft; he checked ground equip-
ment for the Apollo Project. His technical qualifications and methodical investi-
gative skills could not be questioned. That did not, however, stop James
fy<N J ^ T f McDonald from asking him a rather unusual question. The smoke ring had been
photographed over an orchard, and McDonald wanted to know why Gray wasn't
sure which branch of which tree had been photographed in Photo #4. For 40 min-
utes, this "problem" was discussed. Gray was taken aback at McDonald's inten-
sity but held his ground. He had identified the tree and the branch, but twigs on
branches change over the seasons, and over two years had passed! It was appar-
ent from McDonald's expression that Gray's answers didn't completely satisfy
him. In his detailed notes, written soon after the meeting, McDonald noted,
"John Gray did not seem to do twig-by-twig check on the tree in #4."' 3 John
Gray, in later correspondence, reiterated his stand that he and other LANS mem-
bers who investigated on-site were satisfied that the shape of the branch matched
the image in the picture, taking into account the time that had elapsed. (See Ap-
pendix Item 12-B, page 560).
Dr. Nathan had computer-enhanced the photos at JPL and had concluded
that the black band around the UFO was particulate matter—perhaps a band of
atmospheric pollutants picked up by the craft in flight. Other scientists present
speculated that perhaps the black band was held around the craft by some type
of electrostatic effect and was possibly an effect of the craft's propulsion sys-
tem. Dr. Nathan also had determined, with his advanced enhancement equip-
ment, that the smoke ring in Photo #4 was also particulate matter. He called it,
CeUlU * in scientific terms, a "vortex ring." He saw no reason why Photo #4 could not
tceUuJ be accepted as an essential part of a set, with the smoke ring in that picture be-
r V " ing essentially, the black band surrounding the craft, which was visible in Pho-
tos #1 through #3. 14
Heflin gave no outward sign that McDonald's doubts affected him, but a
little later in the evening he excused himself and went out into the Epperson's

13 .Ibid.
14. Ibid
300 FIRESTORM

back yard. The author noticed him there a few minutes later, standing by him-
self. Concerned, she asked him if there was anything she could do. He replied
that he'd be in later. In spite of his sturdy personality and remarkable good na-
ture, the constant hammering was getting to him. The "interviewing" methods
being used by some of the visiting scientists, regrettably including McDonald
himself, left much to be desired. Presently, Heflin recovered his sense of hu-
mor and returned to the meeting. McDonald was waiting with more questions.
The first question concerned a minor detail, but McDonald was curious
about it. He'd read virtually everything which had been printed about the
case, and two sources had reported that one NORAD man had interrogated
Heflin, while others reported there were two. The official USAF report by
Captain Charles Reichmuth recounted how one "NORAD" man had visited
Heflin. McDonald's penchant for exactitude was gnawing at him.
"I might have mentioned one person because only one of the two men
spoke to me, and only one showed his ID," stated Heflin, calmly. "I don't recall
exactly what I told Reichmuth, but I assumed I told him two men had come to
the door, since two men did come to the door."
McDonald looked doubtful. The atmosphere at the meeting grew more
tense. He again brought up the problem of Photo #4. (He had privately begun
to think that the smoke-ring photo had been taken at a iater date under different
weather conditions and was not part of a set of four photos taken in rapid suc-
cession.) Heflin told him that he had the impression the smoke ring was emit-
ted at about the same altitude the craft was in Photo #1, i.e., about 150 ft. high.
One could almost see wheels turning in McDonald's head. That very morning,
he had been told by Marine Corps personnel that the surface winds were from
the NNW at 4 knots. He drilled into Heflin.
"If the smoke ring was only 150 feet high," he asked, "why was it not
blown by the surface winds in a southerly direction instead of to the northeast
like you stated?" Heflin calmly answered, again, that the smoke ring was blow-
ing in a northeasterly direction. The winds in the El Toro location had been
checked at the beginning of the LANS investigation. LANS had learned that
surface winds at 10:00 A.M. PDT on August 3, 1965, were calm, but by 2:00
P.M. the winds were from the southwest at 4 knots. McDonald added the dis-
crepancy to his growing list of items to be re-checked.
The question of whether the manufacturer had put numbers on the back of the
Polaroid film on which Heflin's photos were taken was brought up next. Most of
the scientists at the LANS meeting insisted that all film packs bore numbers. He-
flin insisted that there had been no sequence numbers on the originals (which had
been taken by the "NORAD" men.)
THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 301

"What about Photo #4, the smoke ring," McDonald inquired. "Does it
have a number on the back?" "I don't know where it is right now," Heflin re-
plied, "but I'll look for it and let you know." ^ S ^ ^ C l ^
The Polaroid Special 3000 film packs used by the County Roads depart- . . ^ w
ment at the time of his sighting had no numbers, Heflin explained. This was awoJtA
serious issue in the department, because the Polaroid cameras were often e x - ^
changed among the employees, and lack of numbers was a departmental prob-
lem. These and other details of the Heflin investigation, as evidenced by the
January 15, 1968, meeting at the Epperson home, might seem irrelevant to
some. However, they show the importance of the Heflin photos to the UFO
field. Never before had so much technical and scientific expertise been direct-
ed toward a set of UFO pictures.
The meeting, on which McDonald later wrote detailed notes, took a more
dramatic turn, when McDonald asked Heflin to describe the recent visit of a
"USAF man" to his home. Not many people present at the LANS meeting had
heard about this. It had not been part of any media coverage but Heflin had
confided to LANS investigators about it. On the evening of October 11, 1967, ^cs
a man in the USAF uniform came to his door and identified himself as Capt. V^
C.H. Edmonds. His ID had no photo and was salmon and green, like the ID the
"NORAD" men had used two years earlier. Heflin talked with him on the
porch. He noted that his visitor stood to one side while speaking with him.
About 30 ft. away, directly in Heflin's line-of-sight, was a 1965 or 1966
Chevy, parked at the curb. The auto was dark blue, with dark lettering on the
door which blended into the surface so that Heflin could not read it.
He saw movement in the back seat of the vehicle, which he took to be a sec-
ond man. This individual was dimly lit by a purplish glow which emanated from
the back seat. Heflin's visitor asked if he planned to recover the photos he'd lent
the "NORAD" men. He also asked various personal questions, such as what
UFO groups Heflin was affiliated with. (Heflin had joined NICAP only.) The
"Air Force" man continued to chat, rather idly, stating he'd been involved in nu-
merous important UFO cases, including one in the Bermuda Triangle!^ ^
V
While this was going on, Heflin heard crackles and pops coming from his
hi-fi, which he had been listening to when the visitor knocked on his door.
He'd had never heard interference like this on the hi-fi before; he felt that the
interference was definitely odd and wondered if it was somehow linked to the
strange purplish glow in the back seat of the vehicle parked at the curb. Later,
he wondered if he had been secretly photographed or recorded. When the "Air
Force man" left a few minutes later, Heflin called John Gray and told him what
had happened, thoroughly angry at the unwarranted intrusion. Heflin had also
had trouble with his phone. His friends complained they were never able to
302 FIRESTORM

reach him at home, but Heflin was invariably home at the time they'd called
and the phone hadn't rung. He had his number changed more than once, ob-
taining unlisted numbers each time. Somehow, strangers managed to get his
new telephone numbers and the crank calls continued. Besides all this, a neigh-
bor woman told him that she saw Marine Corps and Air Force officers nosing
around his home while he was at work. |fW<W\ £ P ^ H^
The tense LANS meeting wore on until midnight, and then McDonald
dropped a final bombshell. He voiced objection to Photo #4 on the basis that he
had received positive information from the most reliable weather sources avail-
able that there could not possibly have been any substantial, dark clouds at the
time of sighting, like those visible in Photo #4. McDonald emphasized that he'd
cross-checked all possible cloud observation sources, concerning Los Angeles
area meso-meteorology and the role of mean inversion depth and dry supra-in-
version air. The scientific terms didn't impress Heflin.
"The meteorologists are going to have to find some clouds to go in these
photos!" he replied. He was not claiming there were dark clouds in the atmo-
sphere beyond the dark smoke ring because he hadn't noticed whether there were
any clouds or not. But he had photographed the smoke ring only about a minute
after taking his three photos of the UFO, and if the photo contained clouds, then
there had to be clouds! His defiant statement impressed McDonald. He later
wrote down Heflin's response in his "Heflin"file,and added that Heflin had said
to him earlier in the evening, "I'm on trial here!" He noted that Heflin made this
remark "in a manner expressing annoyance."
After the LANS meeting, Heflin traveled back to Santa Ana with James
McDonald in John Gray's car. Heflin was silent, and McDonald tried to
mend the situation. He spoke to him at length, pointing out aspects of the
case which were positive, as far as proving that Heflin's sighting and photos
of the craft itself were, to McDonald's mind, genuine: First, the Marine
Corps Air Station wind data, in his opinion, was not conclusive; and second,
LANS had located another Orange County multiple-witness sighting which
tended to corroborate Heflin's sighting—the Ralph Joseph case. McDonald
must have been his most engaging self, talking to Heflin during that ride. As
a scientist, he tried to interpret the need he had for strict objectivity in the in-
vestigation, for it was only by carefully weighing the pros and cons that the
true facts would emerge. Heflin listened carefully. The fact that McDonald
took the time to talk encouragingly to him shows that he was at heart a com-
passionate and sensitive man. He wrote, "Had been strained session at end,
when went over [the cloud problem], but sought counter to it." 15

15 .Ibid.
 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ y

THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 303

The Ralph Joseph case to which McDonald referred occurred the first week
of August, 1965; the exact date was unknown, but both LANS and McDonald
felt the Joseph case corroborated Heflin's sighting. It came to light when Mr. and
> Mrs. Joseph answered a LANS notice in a Santa Ana paper, asking independent
^ y ^ ^® witnesses to Heflin's sighting to come forward. This is commonly done in UFO
research when an important case occurs. About 9:00 P.M. on that early August
x
evening, the Josephs were driving on the Santa Ana Freeway near the Broadway
overpass in Anaheim, a city not far from the location of Heflin's sighting. As
\ they approached the overpass, they saw a large globing object that seemed to be
sitting on top of high-voltage lines ahead of them. It was disc-shaped with a
^vtS^'V rounded bottom; the top was rounded also in a domelike configuration. The UFO
r\ Vj^ A w a s brightly glowing, but the white light seemed self-contained; it did not light
^ ,«, up its surroundings.
git^k As the Josephs' car approached nearer the overpass, the UFO began to move
along the wires, began to cross high above the freeway, then went back again to-
(u ' ^ ward the embankment^ Many cars stopped on the shoulder of the freeway and the
motorists were staring at the object. Several groups of people got out of their cars
- and were moving toward it, trying to get a closer look. At their closest point, the
^utVv Josephs were about 40 ft. from it. The object was absolutely silent.
They couldn't judge its size, only that it was "much bigger than a car." Mr.
X ... Joseph estimated that it was about three times the width of the power-pole
lyardarms, and the width four times the height. They saw no features on the ob-
^ y ^ A j e c t , and no seams or protrusions. They expected that the occurrence would be
reported on the radio. They listened to the car radio as they drove on, but noth-
, ^ty ing was mentioned. They searched the papers the next few days, but nothing
v \ appeared in the press. Yet the object had been totally visible from a heavily
e ^ y ^ t r a v e l e d freeway. McDonald had called Mr. and Mrs. Joseph after hearing
^xr about the case from LANS, and had conducted a detailed phone interview
which left him satisfied that the witnesses were solid and reliable. LANS tried
to locate other witnesses to the Joseph sighting without success.16 »
OS Oo^ fPt^^Vl Jfirocoo^.
The next day after the fiery LANS meeting, McDonald interviewed Heflin's
supervisor, Mr. Herm Kimmel of Traffic & Planning, in his engineering building
office in Santa Ana. Kimmel confirmed that Heflin had been a traffic investiga-
tor in the road department for 15 years and was a very stable individual. Heflin
- showed him the photos when he returned to the office on August 3, 1965, but
Kimmel had been unimpressed with the photos except that they were "very

16. Due to continued interest in the Heflin photos, we urge any witnesses who can verify his or
the J o s e p h s ' sighting to contact the author through the publisher.
304 FIRESTORM

sharp." "Just another burden in an overloaded job; wasn't too excited about it,"
McDonald quoted him. 17

McDonald and Bill Hartmann then journeyed to the site where Heflin had
taken Photo #4. McDonald measured the telephone pole; it was about 30 ft.
high. They also found a tree which agreed reasonably well with the branch
shown in that fourth photo, but the branch pattern was "not perfect," he noted.
Two and one-half years had passed since the photos had been taken, but this
did not dissuade McDonald's exploration for "the facts."
By 11:30 a group of varied investigators had gathered at the Myford Road
site, among them McDonald, Hartmann, Heflin, and the two members of the
BBC film crew, Daly and Black. They hoped to have a chance to interview He-
flin on-camera for their British UFO documentary. Hartmann and Black made
test shots using a small model, as comparison photos for Heflin's pictures.
These test shots came out surprisingly sharp, even with the model 15'-20' from
the camera. Heflin watched while Hartmann hung a lens cap out the right
18

window of the vehicle. This picture also came out sharp, even though the lens
cap was only two feet from the surface of the window, but the string which sup-
ported it showed plainly. Hartmann and Black, of course, were testing the the-
ory that Heflin had hoaxed the photos with a model on a string. McDonald was
aware that Dr. Robert Nathan of JPL had stated at least two years before that,
using his advanced enhancement equipment, he could detect no strings or other
supporting mechanisms visible in the photos. This didn't matter to Dr. Bill
Hartmann, however. Later, writing in the Condon Report, he judged Heflin's
photos "inconclusive."
Watching all this, Heflin did not visibly show annoyance. However, Dr.
Black began to ask him questions, beginning with "was he religious?" Heflin
replied, with a straight face, that he was a Christian Scientist, adding that he
realized that his religion "didn't let him recognize laws of the state." This state-
ment puzzled Black, but he didn't follow it up. He then asked Heflin if he was
married. Heflin replied, "More than once, but I don't want you to refer to it on
camera lest my five wives find out where I am." Dr. Black was again taken
19

aback, but suggested that they film an interview. Heflin flatly refused, stating
that an American producer, John MacDonald, had already done a credible job
for 1TV. Why didn't they simply borrow his film? Dr. Black was bewildered
and stopped talking to him.

17. McDonald, op. tit., p. 4.

18 .Ibid.
19. McDonald, op. tit., reverse p. 4.
THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 305

Why did Rex Heflin act in this enigmatic manner? Only people who knew
him personally could possibly understand. For two and one-half years this hon-
est, affable man had been hounded and harassed because he'd photographed a
UFO at close quarters and presented to science a fine set of UFO photos! Not be-
ing a man who showed anger easily, his natural defense was backhanded, dead-
pan humor. It was not his fault that the photos contained more data than scientists
could absorb. The smoke ring, and the clouds in the sky, were not his fault!
The Myford Road team went on to more fruitful pursuits. James McDonald
asked Heflin to point out the area of the sky where the object had emitted the blu-
ish-black smoke ring; he indicated 20o-30o east of the road. McDonald figured
out the mathematics and came up with a rough estimation of 400 ft. altitude at
which the smoke ring had been photographed. Since Heflin had, just the evening
before, estimated the ring at 150 ft. altitude, another bone of contention was
thrown onto McDonald's plate, but this bone was in Heflin's favor. The MCAS
personnel had insisted the surface winds were blowing from the NNW, but the
position of the smoke ring convinced McDonald that the wind data gathered by
both himself and LANS were accurate, and that the MCAS data for some reason
was faulty. or\ s^Wncc- ^ vyc?
McDonald was determined to check out the "ID" presented by the mysteri-
ous "Air Force" man who had visited Heflin. Arriving back home in Tucson, he
learned from the local FBI and the OSI office at Davis-Monthan AFB that no of-
ficial investigating agency had ID cards without photos, and none were salmon-
colored. This satisfied McDonald that the "Air Force captain" who'd visited He-
flin was an imposter. The eerie purplish glow which had affected Heflin's hi-fi
so oddly remained a mystery. He also tackled the problem as to whether or not
packets of Polaroid ASA 3000 film had sequence numbers. He phoned seven
1
photo shops in Tucson, but the results were inconclusive.
Philip Daly and Dr. Black had accompanied McDonald back to Tucson.
They drove him into the picturesque desert outside town and filmed a segment
for the BBC documentary. Much of the private conversation between the three
men revolved around whether or not Heflin was serious about his religion and
his "wives." McDonald, because of his own sense of humor, understood that He-
flin had been pulling Dr. Black's leg, but he said nothing, curious to know what
the two Englishmen thought. Both Daly and Black thought Heflin was complete-
ly serious. Dr. Black, however, thought that Heflin had not had five wives, but
rather five relationships which were, in Rex's eyes, marriages in some odd legal
sense, possibly tied to his religion! Daly felt Heflin was serious about his religion
and his wives! Dr. Black commented that Heflin was well informed on Christian
Science beliefs, and he thought Heflin was being truthful about his "marriages"
and religious beliefs conflicting with state laws!
306 FIRESTORM

Daly and Black were unaware that McDonald had phoned Idabel Epperson
the day before to get her reaction on the "wives-religion" question. "She had al-
ready talked to John Gray on all this, and John had guffawed at the five-wife bit,"
wrote McDonald in his "Heflin" file. "They all felt rather sure Rex was pulling
the leg of the BBC because he was inwardly seething at being called out there to
witness the 'hoax' tests." Idabel Epperson stressed again how cooperative Heflin
had been with LANS over the past two and one-half years. "She was obviously
distressed," McDonald wrote, "and partly with me." 20

"Rex didn't deserve that," Epperson told him, referring to the "hoax" tests.
McDonald pointed out that no set-up had been intended. They were merely try-
ing to see whether the photos could be replicated, a technique commonly used
in UFO research. He admitted he might have had something to do with it, be-
cause he and Hartmann had discussed making replication tests on the airline
flight out to California.
Epperson reminded him that Bob Nathan of JPL had essentially replicated
Hartmann's experiments long before and that he'd told Hartmann about this
earlier! McDonald was surprised; his regard for the talents of the LANS inves-
tigative team rose even higher. He had begun to think that, if the 101 Polaroid
was capable of sharply focused photos at close range, Heflin could have pho-
tographed a small model but the LANS photogrammetrists, using the very fin-
est enhancement equipment, had found no evidence of any string or supporting
mechanism. She also confided that Dr. Nathan had found an unusual "blur-
ring" around the UFO, that was not, in his opinion, caused by motion of the
craft or the camera. Scientists whose input was available to LANS had specu-
lated that the blurring might possibly be suggestive of ionized air around the
craft! This fascinated McDonald, for researchers had hypothesized for years
that the propulsion systems of UFOs ionized air surrounding them.
McDonald brought up the problem of the clouds in Photo #4 again, and Ep-
person repeated what meteorologists at LAX had told her. McDonald stressed
that he'd checked widely, and that entries in multiple weather logs indicated a
rather thin overcast layer. He offered to phone Heflin and explain again why all
this detailed checking was being done, namely, because the photos warranted it.
Idabel urged McDonald not to phone Heflin for a few days, because Heflin was
too upset. When he did phone Heflin a few days later, Heflin informed him in no
uncertain terms that he was very disappointed in his attitude, particularly toward
Photo #4. Heflin bluntly told him that he felt McDonald had "let him down."
McDonald felt this criticism keenly, for he mentioned it to several persons con-
cerned in the Heflin investigation during the next few days.

20. Ibid., reverse p. 7.

THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 307

McDonald continued his own photographic analysis of the Heflin photos

with the help of a friend, Leon Sclampel, at the U. of A. While examining Pho-
tos #2 and #3, McDonald realized with a start that the sharp focus of the nut-
and-frame of the van's rear-view mirror in these two pictures revealed that
close-in photos were possible with Heflin's camera and, furthermore, that the
camera could be set at 8-10 ft. or less and still photograph distant objects in
good focus. He called Hartmann to discuss this.
McDonald worried about the Heflin case for three more weeks and
called Idabel Epperson again in mid-February. She told him that she'd had a
lengthy meeting with Heflin and had clarified many of the issues. Heflin was
a bachelor, had never had any wives, and was a Christian Scientist. He had
felt Dr. Black was getting too personal and had simply decided to pull his leg.
He had decided to hunt through the Road Department office for other 1965
photos that didn't have sequence numbers. He wanted to prove to McDonald
that his originals didn't have sequence numbers. Heflin had told Epperson
that he was willing to continue cooperating with NICAP-LANS, but that he
wouldn't cooperate with "everybody." McDonald had an uneasy feeling he
might be included among "everybody."
Heflin had located Photo #4 at his sister's, where he'd inadvertently left it;
he'd shown it to Idabel, and it had no sequence number on the back. She also
told McDonald that LANS had settled the question of sharp images in the van's
rear-view mirror two and one-half years ago at the very start of their investiga-
tion, when LANS investigator Zan Overall had borrowed Heflin's own Po-
laroid work camera shortly after the story broke, and found that, if set at
infinity the photos would be sharp down to three feet! At the end of the long
phone call, McDonald noted, "Net effect of phone call seemed to be to irritate
Idabel re. all this digging into Rex.""'
Some doubts had been answered, but others remained. McDonald contin-
ued to try to solve the puzzle of the missing sequence numbers. The importance
of these in UFO photo cases is as follows: Most types of photographic film
have sequence numbers on the back. When witnesses hoax a series of photos,
it's not likely they will succeed in getting a plausible photo every time they try.
Therefore, the sequence numbers on a "set" of hoaxed UFO photos will skip
and jump, as unsuccessful photos are discarded and only the plausible-looking
images kept for presentation to researchers. For this reason, McDonald needed
to confirm that sequence numbers were not on the back of Polaroid ASA 3000
film packs, as Heflin had stated. He wrote to the Polaroid company to get in-
formation. In the meantime, Heflin had written to Polaroid, too, and received

21.Ibid., p. 10.
308 FIRESTORM

verification that ASA 3000 Polaroid film was manufactured in August 1965
without sequence numbers.
Heflin also searched the official files of the Roads Department and came
up with three other 1965 photos of accidents and accident hazards which traffic
investigators had taken with the same type film. None of these original photos
bore any sequence numbers. This information was sent in a notarized state-
ment, signed by several LANS members, to McDonald. In a subsequent letter,
McDonald accepted the fact that Heflin's statement was fully substantiated.
There was another question he wondered about, and made an extended
phone call to Paul Cook, who had been a Planning Engineer for Orange County
at the time of Heflin's sighting. Cook knew Heflin well and regarded him as
reliable, definitely not a story teller.
"Do you happen to know whether or not Rex is a Christian Scientist?"
asked McDonald. "I don't know anything about his religion," replied Cook.
"He never talks about it."
"Does he do dead-pan humor?" asked McDonald. "When he does, it is
dead-pan type," responded Cook. "But usually he takes things calmly. He
could see a big accident and come into the office and barely mention it. He was
the same way with the photos."
Heflin had shown Cook the fourth photo, but seemed to be reluctant to
show it around too much. He told Cook, "Four are too many for one day!"
Cook also told McDonald about an acquaintance, the owner of Turk's Bar
in Pico Rivera, California, who on a summer night, possibly in 1965, saw an
object shaped like Heflin's UFO hovering soundlessly several hundred feet up.
McDonald took the witness's name, address and phone number and planned to
call him when he had time. LANS investigator Ed Evers had also located a wit-
ness who'd seen a similarly shaped craft, two or three nights after Heflin's in-
cident. It also had a rotating light on the base. These possible corroborating
events excited McDonald.
By this time, Dr. Nathan of JPL had produced an enlargement of the bot-
tom of the UFO in Photo #2, and had brought out a solid wedge-shaped portion
of light against the solid black of the UFO's underside; the wedge didn't show
in unenhanced copies. The position of the wedge-shape corresponded to Hef-
lin's description of the revolving/oscillating light.
In spite of his concern about the "smoke ring" photo, McDonald decided
that Heflin's photos #1, #2, and #3 were most probably authentic. He knew it
was impossible to declare a UFO photo as absolutely authentic, unless one had
the UFO nearby to compare with the photo! The best that the UFO field had
THE PICTURES T H A T ALMOST PROVED IT 309

been able to do was to decide whether or not a UFO photo was a hoax, because
hoax pictures can be replicated. Authentic UFO pictures cannot.
VW-i » no \orcjr

FIGURE 23. The second photo of Private George L. Stofko, Jr., showing a
cohesive black ring, low over a building at Ft. Belvoir, Va.

McDonald redoubled his efforts to solve the enigma of the smoke ring in
Photo #4. He searched through the UFO literature to see if there were any other
cases of dark smoke rings associated with UFOs. The APRO Bulletin of July
1966 described a "blue-black smoke ring in Ohio, [which] also had a ball of
fire swinging around the outside of it." But another smoke-ring photo case, oc-
curring at Ft. Belvoir,Va., was far more interesting. At 9:00 A.M. sometime in
September 1957, Pvt. George L. Stofko, Jr., had taken six photos of a strange
black ring, low over a building on the base. The first photo showed an ellipsoi-
dal black ring hovering against a cloudy sky, but this photo is dark, especially
on one side, and does not reproduce well. His second photo (see Figure 23)
shows the ring very clearly. The third shows the ring surrounded by what ap-
pears to be whitish vapor or smoke (see Figure 24). In the fourth photo (see
Figure 25) the "smoke" has almost obliterated the smoke ring, but a curious
"ribbed" effect is noticeable as if "projections" on the black ring are poking out
through the vapor. In the sixth photo, the black ring is completely hidden in a
"rosette-shape" cloud, which is much lower than other clouds in the sky ( s e e
Figure 26).
310 FIRESTORM

The Fort Belvoir photos came to the attention of NICAP through Z.J.
Halaut and Don Berliner. McDonald noted that similar "open-ring" reports
were also seen in Toronto in December 1955, and a double ring had been
sighted in Greenfield, Mass., in 1952. Ralph Rankow, a NICAP photograph-
ic adviser, followed up on the Ft. Belvoir case. He learned from Stofko that
the ring was viewed by other soldiers. The black ring seemed solid, and was
approximately 60 ft. in diameter.

FIGURE 24. The third Stofko photo shows the ring surrounded by what
appears to be whitish vapor or smoke.

Private Stofko and five or six other soldiers in the Post Engineer Section
viewed the object for one to two minutes. He grabbed a camera from his car
and shot six photos in rapid succession. The group of soldiers were on detail
and had to return to their jobs; they did not see what eventually happened to
the "rosette-shaped" cloud. Stofko had no idea what the "object" was. He told
Rankow that other witnesses in the Engineering Post had taken pictures of the
object at the same time, but he wasn't well acquainted with his work mates and
they hadn't kept track of each other. The soldiers discussed the strange event
among themselves and agreed that probably they had inadvertently witnessed
a secret military experiment. As a consequence they did not tell anybody on the
base that they'd taken pictures.
T H E PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 311

FIGURE 25. In Stofko's fourth photo the "smoke" has almost obliterated the
smoke ring, but a curious "ribbed" effect is noticeable as if
"projections" on the black ring are poking out through the vapor.

Several years passed before NICAP learned about Stofko's smoke-ring

photos. When contacted, he couldn't find the negatives: he had moved seven
times since the September 1957 occurrence and the negatives had been mis-
placed. He was still looking for them when Rankow contacted him in August
1966. He'd shown the photos to various friends over the years, but met with
ridicule and disbelief, and soon stopped talking about them. Several years
passed before he showed them to Mr. Z. J. Halaut, who sent them to NICAP
headquarters. Ralph Rankow shared the Ft. Belvoir photos with other research-
ers, including Prof. Charles A. Maney, a NICAP Board member. 22 Maney
knew of the 1952 Greenfield, MA, sightings, which involved a double ring.
The diameter of each of the rings had been estimated at 30 ft. They were bright,
like polished chrome, and moved together in tandem at varying speeds and an-
gles. However, this case had been included in a 1953 book by Desmond Leslie

22. Professor Maney co-authored a book with Richard Hall, NICAP's Secretary and later
Assistant and Acting Director, The Challenge Of Unidentified Flying Objects, by Maney
and Hall, Washington, D.C., NICAP, 1961.
312 FIRESTORM

and George Adamski. Since Adamski was a noted contactee, McDonald con-
23

cluded the Greenfield case was "tainted" and did not follow up on it.

FIGURE 26. In Stofko's sixth photo, the black ring is completely

hidden in a "rosette-shape" cloud, which is much lower
than other clouds in the sky.

He was struck by the similarity of Stofko's photos with the black ring in He-
flin Photo #4, and set about investigating the Ft. Belvoir case for himself. Stof-
ko's ring appeared more "solid," as Stofko had described it, whereas Heflin's,
though essentially cohesive, was blown out of shape by the wind. McDonald was
struck with the precise shape; it maintained an ovoid shape during the 1-2 min-
utes it was in sight. McDonald also wondered about the "vapor" which rapidly

23. Leslie, Desmond and Adamski, George, Flving Saucers Have Landed, New York.' The Brit-
ish Book Centre, Inc., 1953.
THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED I R ^ J 313

J ^ i 4W b b
24
enveloped it. McDonald felt that if he could solve the Ft. Belvoir incident it
might shed light on Heflin's Photo #4.
Charles A. Maney, a professor at Defiance College in Ohio, was a careful,
yet open-minded, researcher. He felt free to speculate openly about the Ft. Bel-
voir ring in a letter to Rankow. "As regards the ring's appearance, I refer to an
old expression—'There is more to it than meets the eye'," Maney wrote.
"There are laws of physics yet to be discovered.... I believe that the human eye
and the camera saw only a part of the aerial object.... I am inclined to think that
ionization of the air in the vicinity of the [Ft. Belvoir] aerial object produced
the vapor which was seen to form around and inside the ring." Maney also re-
ferred to a 1952 newspaper clipping, which described experiments by Noel W.
Scott, an army physicist at Ft. Belvoir. Scott had produced a partial vacuum in
a bell jar, then allowed a tiny stream of ionized air to enter from the bottom of
the jar. As the ionized air rushed in (cooling by expansion) a cloud of vapor
rose upward like a mushroom, later filling the jar. Scott, according to the news-
paper articre^ "was trying to simulate a flying saucer." 25 In fact, Scott's exper-
iments were cited Mw the^Air Force as possibly explaining some of the 1952
sightings which occurred during the unprecedented flap when groups of UFOs
overflew the Capitol and invaded White House air space, resulting in military
jets being sent up to investigate them (see Appendix Item 12-C, page 561).

Unlike Maney, McDonald was not convinced that the Ft. Belvoir photos
depicted a true UFO. He needed more information. The Stofko photos were of
cloud-physics interest, right down his alley of expertise. He reached out into
the field. He phoned Jacques Vallee and inquired if the French scientist knew
of similar sightings in European UFO literature. Vallee responded that "donut-
types" had been reported, in which the hole was about one-third of the entire
radius. They did not have the "hula-hoop" appearance of the Ft. Belvoir object.
Impatient for information, McDonald phoned Ralph Rankow, trying to track
down the other witnesses and the (reported) additional photos. Rankow
couldn't give him any clues to track down the other witnesses; Stofko did not
even remember their names. However, McDonald's personal reaction was that
there was no evident reason to doubt Stofko's story or to doubt the authenticity
of his photos.

24. Further analysis of the Heflin photos, from 1993 to 1999, indicates that the "smoke ring,"
although bent out of shape by the wind, is inexplicably cohesive. What was widely assumed
at first to be disintegration of the ring is actually clouds forming around it, as in the Ft. Bel-
voir photo.
25. This strange incident is included here in the event some reader may be able to provide addi-
t i o n a l information or deduce something logical from it.
314 FIRESTORM

In the meantime, the case was published in a newsstand publication, Dell

UFO Magazine #4. Stofko was referred to as "Mr. Stone." The article seemed
to knock information loose from several quarters. Jack Strong, an alleged ex-
soldier, wrote to Rankow stating that he'd seen the smoke ring while stationed
at Ft. Belvoir around the same time Stofko took his photos. In precise technical
terms, Strong stated that the black ring had been caused by something which
Strong called an "atomic bomb simulator," a device which allegedly consisted
of a charge of high explosives which produced a small black mushroom cloud.
Strong claimed that the morning Stofko photographed the black ring, the atmo-
sphere was "dead calm" and the air "cold and moist." He claimed that at a
height of about 40 ft., the "cap" of the mushroom developed into a perfect
smoke-ring vortex and detached itself from the main column of smoke. The
vortex, being stable, continued to rise into the cold, saturated air. Strong's let-
ter went on to explain how the vortex ring "swept moisture out of the air.. .and
the smoke particles on the periphery of the vortex provided condensation nu-
clei for the formation of a visible cloud, which formed the lens-shaped body
with the vortex still visible within it." Strong speculated that the "ribbing ef-
fect" in the Ft. Belvoir photos may have been due to slight variations in veloc-
ity at different points around the periphery of the ring (see Appendix Item 12-
D, page 562).
Even though Strong's letter was expressed in technical terms, he claimed
he didn't know enough about atmospheric physics to advance an explanation
of why the center of the ring clouded in so rapidly, but that he believed "the
presence of a stable ascending vortex containing particles suitable for conden-
sation nuclei must, in connection with such conditions, be very rare."
Jack Strong's explanation was out of Rankow's field, but squarely in
James McDonald's. "After reading [Strong's] letter," he wrote to McDonald,
"one of the thoughts which ran through my head was, is the government be-
hind this explanation? If you tell me that the explanation doesn't stand up
from a physical point of view, I would consider my thought more serious-
ly." McDonald tried to reach Jack Strong by phone, but he had no tele-
26

phone listed. He also wrote to him, suggesting that they discuss the technical
aspects of the case. He also wrote back to Rankow, expressing his feeling
that Strong's letter did not "ring true" to him, either, but asked Rankow to
keep those remarks "off the record for the time being." 27

"I find it almost ludicrous that the Army would be using anything like
what he describes as 'the atomic bomb simulator'," McDonald wrote. "Disney

26. Letter from Ralph Rankow to McDonald, 25 October 1967.

27. Letter from McDonald to Ralph Rankow, 6 January 1968.
T H E PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 315

might, the Army scarcely, in my opinion. Secondly, the suggestion that anyone
could find a means of generating a 'perfect smoke-ring vortex,' with the sharp
outlines and perfectly circular form that appears in [Stofko's] Photos No. 1 and
2, is not reasonable. Vortex rings are intrinsically quite unstable and maintain
circularity for only a very brief time.... Any vortex ring of such small dimen-
sions and low altitude would be most unlikely to produce condensation of at-
mospheric moisture, and, even if it did, would generate a much more
fragmentary mass of cloud than is exhibited by the Stofko photos.... All ordi-
nary clouds of any substantial size (restricting attention to cumuliform types)
develop essentially flat bases, whereas the base of the cloud-rosette in the Bel-
voir photos is distinctly rounded."28

"It...strikes me as having been formulated by somebody with rather more

than casual knowledge of vortex-ring dynamics." McDonald continued, refer-
ring to letter-writer Jack Strong. He "ought to know enough to realize that parts
of his argument are just not very sensible. That inference may be quite incor-
rect, and for that reason I repeat my request that you keep all of this confiden-
tial for the time being. I think that the suspicions that you hint in your letter are
by no means unreasonable. The letter has a peculiar ring." 29 For perhaps the
first time, McDonald seems to be saying that the government might be serious-
ly involved in the UFO problem, to a greater extent than his "grand foul-up"
theory allowed for.
Rankow was not the only one to whom he expressed doubt. Some time be-
fore Jack Strong's letter to Rankow identified the Stofko smoke ring as an
"atomic bomb simulator," Dr. William Hartmann, in his capacity as a Condon
staff member, attempted to seek an explanation from Ft. Belvoir officials. He
had been told that the black smoke ring had "resulted from a 'demonstration
device' for visiting firemen," and that the main function of this device was not
to simulate a mushroom cloud but rather, under favorable atmospheric condi-
tions, to blow smoke rings! Hartmann had spoken to Ft. Belvoir officials on-
site, who had told him that the device had been in use for many years, including
September 1957, but was presently not in operation.
In a long memo McDonald expressed doubt to Hartmann that either expla-
nation was convincing. Hartmann had been told by an unnamed sergeant at Ft.
Belvoir that "there were some days when it [the 'training device' for visiting
firemen] didn't work at all." McDonald couldn't help himself here. He play-
fully added "understandable" in parentheses at this point. Considering the

28 .Ibid.
29. Ibid.
316 FIRESTORM

physics involved, he wondered how it ever worked! (Because of the impor-

tance of McDonald's memo, it is included as Appendix Item 12-E, page 563.)
Dell UFO Magazine also sent Rankow a letter they'd received from An-
drew H. Taylor of Pittsburgh, Pa., who claimed he was one of a group of sol-
diers who set off an explosive device at Andrews AFB in May 1959 during an
Armed Forces Day show. They filled ten 55-gallon drums with #2 diesel fuel,
arranged them in a 60-70 foot circle and set them off by a small charge, to sim-
ulate an atom bomb explosion. After the explosion, Taylor wrote, a black ring
formed, ribbed effect and all, exactly like Stofko's photos. Taylor also claimed
that a "cloud" had also developed around the ring. Hartmann was ready to ac-
cept the Army's explanation for the puzzling Ft. Belvoir photos, but McDonald
was convinced more research was needed. He urged his younger colleague to
try to locate written reports describing the history of the device. Since Hart-
mann had been told it was used over a period of many years, surely it had been
the subject of some kind of official report. Yet no such documentation had
been given to Hartmann.
What disturbed McDonald most of all was the Ft. Belvoir officials' claim
that their device could, under the right conditions, produce a stable smoke ring
which remained perfectly circular, very tight, with no evidence of turbulent dis-
sipation, even when rising hundreds of feet into the air. McDonald could not buy
this. His own calculations on the Stofko photos indicated that the Ft. Belvoir
smoke ring retained its exact shape while rising to an altitude of a few thousand
feet. There was also the matter of the cloud which formed around and inside the
black ring. If there had been enough moisture in the surface layers of the air to
produce condensation of the vortex ring, as stated by Jack Strong, there should
have been clouds at roughly the same altitude as the ring itself. Instead, the ring-
cloud was distinctly lower than the background cloud deck.
McDonald continued to push. He outlined the problem to a colleague,
Clayton H. Reitan of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wis-
consin, asking him to try to locate Strong at his given address in Madison, Wis-
consin. He told Reitan that Jack Strong's explanation did not seem
meteorologically reasonable. He added a postscript on a separate sheet, point-
ing out that "some of the other information that has been recently obtained
from military sources on the background of these photos has a slightly phony
ring." He also alluded to the possibility that Jack Strong might "somehow be
involved in these maneuverings." (See Appendix Item 12-F, page 564.)
With Reitan's help, both Strong and Taylor were contacted, and McDonald
had long phone conversations with both of them. In a turnaround which greatly
surprised LANS and other UFO colleagues, he became convinced that the
T H E PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 317

"atomic bomb simulator" was a real device, even though neither Strong, Taylor,
nor Ft. Belvoir officials offered any further documentation of its existence.
"As I mentioned in my earlier letter," he wrote to Rankow in January
1968, "I found it very hard to credit the idea that the Army would 'play sol-
diers' to the extent of using a little detonation to simulate so awesome a weap-
on as the atomic bomb. However, the use of such a demonstration at an air
show (as outlined in detail by Taylor) puts it in a quite different light, in my
opinion. Also, to have these two independent confirmations from persons no
longer in military service is, to me, quite convincing."30
His long phone interviews with the two apparently independent witness-
es, Strong and Taylor, assured him of their intelligence, observational pow-
ers, and honesty. Strong's description of meteorological conditions on the
day he saw the smoke ring apparently convinced him that a stable smoke ring
could have resulted from an explosion of a device such as described by Tay-
lor. In addition, a written confirmation to Ralph Rankow from Col. J.H. Jack-
son at Ft. Belvoir led McDonald to accept that a stable vortex ring could form
and be enveloped in cloudlike vapor under the right circumstances. (See Ap-
pendix Item 12-G, page 565.)
"If I had only Taylor's comments alone, I would still be dubious," he
wrote to Rankow. But the combination of the two witnesses' written testimo-
ny, plus Col. Jackson's confirmation, cast aside his initial suspicions that UFO
investigators and he, himself, were being led astray by "government" forces.
To his mind, the puzzle presented by the Ft. Belvoir photos had been solved—
and the authenticity of Heflin's Photo #4 was still in doubt.
Many UFO investigators, however, doubted that an "atomic bomb simu-
lator" explained Photo #4. There was no adequate documentation available,
except letters from three sources. Col. Jackson no doubt was bona fide, but
Strong's and Taylor's military credentials were not checked out. However, lay
UFO investigators respected McDonald's scientific expertise. Their personal
regard for him kept the controversy from destroying the amicable cooperation
between them. This did not, however, keep them from adding their own exper-
tise to the controversy. In a March 1968 letter to McDonald, John Gray put
forth his argument regarding Heflin's Photo #4:
Two points lending credence to its authenticity should be emphasized:
1. The most logical theory pertaining to the origin of the black smoke
(or dust?) ring is that it is the same as that enveloping the object in
Photo 1 discovered by Dr. Nathan from an enlargement, more so than

30. Letter from McDonald to Rankow, January 16, 1968.

318 FIRESTORM

that of an atomic bomb 355 simulator. Where, it could reasonably be

asked, in Southern California does one find an atomic bomb simulator
or be permitted to approach so close (as Photo 4 seems to suggest) to
take the picture? 2. ...The cloudformations depicted in your enlarged
copy of Photo 4... [are] considerably darker than that in the Polaroid
original thereby presenting an ominous or exaggerated appearance.
This, of course, is achieved in the process of copying the original. 31

FIGURE 27. A series of 16 photos sent to McDonald by an Australian colleague,

Dr. E. G. Bowen, show a long-lasting, perfect black ring resulting,
according to Bowen's statement, from the explosion of some
hundredweights of over-age explosives in a pit at the Liverpool
Army base near Sydney.

If Photo 4 is not acceptable evidence to support the sighting, then, its

value having not been disproved, it should be set aside as questionable
evidence considered not relevant to the case.... With the human ele-
ment involved in an inexplicable event, science should not expect its
explanation to be more than the expression of an opinion. This is the
practice you have followed, and rightly so, in your public statements
concerning the reality of UFOs. With [Heflin's] reputation at

31. Letter from John Gray to McDonald, March 1,1968.

THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 319

stake...the explanation issued by science must be based on certainty.

If his sincerity cannot be disproved or his insincerity cannot be
proved, then it behooves science to shelve his case until disclosure of
further evidence (preferably proof) rather than run the risk of be-
smirching his character. This questionable practice should be left to
Project Blue Book who seem to be rather adept at it!

FIGURE 28. In a subsequent Bowen photo, clouds formed in and around this
ring, somewhat similar to the Ft. Belvoir photos, but blacker.

Letters like Gray's pushed McDonald to find further proof of stable vortex
rings. He found what he termed "stunning cases" from Vandenberg AFB missile
launches, including pictures of nicely formed white smoke rings forming above
the missiles as they began to rise from their silos. And in early December 1968
he hit pay dirt. An Australian scientific colleague, Dr. E.G. Bowen, Chief of the
Division of Radiophysics, Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Orga-
nization (CSIRO), sent him a series of 16 successive photos which showed a
long-lasting, perfect black ring resulting from the explosion of some hundred-
weights of over-age explosives in a pit at the Liverpool Army base near Syd-
ney.32 Three of the 16 photos are reproduced here (Figures 27, 28, and 29.)

32. Letter from Bowen to McDonald, 4 December 1968.

320 FIRESTORM

Clouds also formed in and around this ring, although the clouds were black, not
white as in the Ft. Belvoir photos. The whole effect was not nearly so neat as in
the Ft. Belvoir photos, but McDonald nevertheless sent back an appreciative let-
ter. "You're dead right," he wrote. "The ring-photos that I showed when I was in
Australia, and which were unidentified at that time, were rather positively iden-
tified as a detonation-effect." 33

FIGURE 29. In another subsequent Bowen photo the black clouds have
completely covered the Australian ring. Note, however, the ragged
cloud effect, completely different from the Ft. Belvoir "cloud
rosette."

As a result of the growing evidence that perfect, long-lasting black

smoke rings could be formed under favorable climatic conditions, McDonald
suspected that Heflin photographed a black ring produced by an "atomic
bomb simulator" at some air show and attempted to pass it off as part of a set
of four UFO photos. LANS violently disagreed with his conclusion, although
its members remained his fast friends. Strong's and Taylor's "evidence,"
Colonel J. H. Jackson's, and even McDonald's Australian colleague Dr. Bo-
wen's, was in large part anecdotal. Proof of stable vortex rings should have
been demonstrated in real-time before the "explanation" of the Ft. Belvoir

33. Letter from McDonald to Bowen, 9 December 1968.

 THE PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 321

object was accepted. 34 And even if stable vortex rings resulting from explo-
sions can eventually be proven, this still would not negate the authenticity of
Heflin's Photo #4 as an integral part of a UFO event.
Idabel Epperson, John Gray, and all the other LANS members, including
this author, remained convinced that Heflin's integrity was, and still is, impecca-
ble. His first three photos of the metallic craft survived as an example of an ap-
parently genuine unidentified flying object. McDonald's doubts about the fourth
photo, however, caused some lay researchers to question them.
McDonald's "solution" of what he called the "Photo #4 puzzler" led him
to research vortex rings in more depth than he had ever done before, however,
and he listed "vortex rings" in a proposal he planned to send to the NSF. He
was a scientist, first and foremost, and his chief reason for being involved with
UFOs was to bring the problem to the full attention of science. Anything he
learned along the way was absorbed into his mind like a sponge.
Information has surfaced during the past 15 years about "UFO" activities
T dtoJt at Ft. Belvoir, information that was not known to McDonald. Through re-
unW searcher William L. Moore, documents have surfaced that reveal the 1127th
^ ^ Field Activities Group (F.A.G.) at Ft. Belvoir, Va., was an Air Force special
" ' projects group connected with UFO investigation.35 Although heavily cen-
^ ^ sored, 1960-1961 "Histories" of the 1127th, downgraded from secret and priv-
ileged, together reveal it conducted UFO investigations out of Ft. Belvoir, at
least as far back as 1959 and possibly even earlier. Three sample pages from
these "Histories" are included as Appendix Item 12-H, page 566. Was the
1127th active there in September 1957, during the period that Private Stofko
took his "smoke ring" photos?
The fact that the 1127th was based at Ft. Belvoir, of course, does not prove
that it was definitely linked with the Ft. Belvoir "smoke ring" any more than
Noel Scott's "ionized air" experiments at Ft. Belvoir can be definitely linked
with 1127th "UFO" experiments. Many other activities were conducted out of
Ft. Belvoir besides the Air Force's 1127th. However, the possibilities remain.
The declassified documents constitute additional proof that Project Blue
Book was not "the only official group investigating UFOs," as McDonald
had been told. This fact was not surprising to UFO researchers in the 1990s,
but it would have been extremely enlightening to McDonald in the 1960s.
Even more important perhaps, the 1127th documents mention Projects

34. Any reader who has information about the "atomic bomb simulator" is invited to contact
the author through her publisher.
35. William L. Moore heads the Fair Witness Project, 4219 West Olive Street, Suite 247, Bur-
bank, C A 91505.
322 FIRESTORM

"Moon Dust" and "Blue Fly." Moon Dust is specifically identified as a

project that recovered "space vehicles." Both projects were initiated in 1953.
The 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron (AISS) was originally
charged with these responsibilities, as well as the investigation of UFO re-
ports, according to a 1961 document obtained by another researcher, retired
Army Sgt. Clifford E. Stone. This 1961 document specified that Moon Dust
was established to "locate, recover and deliver descended foreign space ve-
hicles" and Blue Fly "to facilitate expeditious delivery to the FTD of Moon
Dust or other items of great technical intelligence interest." 36

It is unclear just when the responsibility for Moon Dust, Blue Fly, and
UFO investigation switched from the 4602nd to the 1127th. Documents ob-
tained by McDonald in 1970 from Blue Book archives at Maxwell AFB in Al-
abama designated the 4602nd as one of the investigatory units for the August
13-14, 1956, Lakenheath-Bentwaters sightings in England (see Chapter 16.)
The only years uncertain, therefore, are 1957 and 1958. Blue Fly and Moon
Dust were both initiated around 1953, however, and this was four years before
earth's first artificial satellite, Sputnik, was blasted into orbit. As researcher
Clifford E. Stone asks in the respected publication, UFO Magazine, "What
were the missions of these projects in 1953?" 37

\
UFO researchers continue, 30 years later, to analyze Heflin's photos. The
originals of Photos #1, #2, and #3 were returned anonymously to Rex Heflin in
1993 by persons unknown. This unexplained event happened just a couple of
weeks after the television documentary series "Unsolved Mysteries" had con-
tacted him requesting his participation in a segment for the program. The plans
did not materialize, however. About two weeks later, Heflin received a phone
call from an unidentified woman who asked, "Have you looked in your mailbox
lately?" Heflin went to his mailbox, but it was empty. The woman called again a
half-hour later, asking the same question. She would not identify herself or the
reason why she was calling. Heflin's curiosity was aroused, however, and he
went again to his mailbox. This time, inside the mailbox, he found a plain manila
envelope which bore no markings whatsoever. Inside he found the three original
Polaroids of Photos #1, #2, and #3.
There was absolutely no explanation given, and to this day Heflin does not
know who returned the photos in such a mysterious manner. Were they the "NO-
RAD" men who first stole them from Heflin, persons whose consciences had fi-
nally driven them to make restitution? Or was there possibly some person

36. "Point Piece: Air Force Lied About Projects, Researcher Says," UFO Magazine, Vol. 10
No. 4, 1995, Sunland, CA, Vicki Cooper, Editor.
37. Ibid.
T H E PICTURES THAT ALMOST PROVED IT 323

connected with the "Unsolved Mysteries" program who brought about their re-
turn? Dr. Robert M. Wood was the first in the UFO field tobe informed of the ,
return of the originals, and Heflin entrusted them into my care, since his state of
health is uncertain, and he was acquainted with me from the original, prolonged ^ ^
LANS study of them. He requested that I preserve them and make them available uV^ no'
for study by scientists and other objective professionals in the UFO field.
tpf***-
In March 1994, a team was formed for the first scientific re-analysis of the
four photos. It included Dr. Robert M. Wood, Dr. Eric Kelson, a professor at a
major California university, and myself. While examining the photos with
state-of-the-art computer enhancement equipment, Dr. Kelson noticed what
appears to be a definite link between Photos #3 and #4—i. e., a trail of black
particulate matter in Photo #3 streaming from the unidentified craft. This
stream of black particles trails at considerable length behind the craft, but is
densest just behind the craft itself. This finding constitutes possible evidence
that the black ring around the object was beginning to separate just before the
object emitted the circular smoke ring. This stream of particulate matter in
Photo #3 had apparently never been noticed by any photogrammetrist who an-
alyzed the photos over the past three decades, or, if so, they had neither recog-
nized the significance nor published the finding.
In addition to this apparent link between the third and fourth photos, other
fresh data emerged. Dr. Kelson also independently detected an unusual "blur-
ring" effect of the craft, particularly in Photo #1, which did not seem to be due
to motion, camera focus, or to the Gaussian effect. Kelson's independent dis-
covery of the unexplained "blurring" effect correlates with Dr. Nathan's de-
tection of a "fiizziness" of the craft image which was not due to motion of
either camera or craft.
Also noticed was an apparent "vapor cap" on top of the smoke ring in Photo
#4, which seems very similar to the clouding effect which formed around the
"smoke ring" in the Ft. Belvoir photos. This may mean that the ring had re-
mained more cohesive than originally thought, just as the Ft. Belvoir "ring" had
done. In previous analyses done in the 1960s, the possible "vapor cap" feature
was assumed to be part of a general disintegration of the smoke ring, but instead
it might mean that somehow moisture in the air was being drawn into the vicinity
of the ring.
Study of the cloud backgrounds by Dr. Kelson, using state-of-the-art com-
puter enhancement techniques, revealed that the sky background in all four
photos had similar overcast conditions in all of them. The team's findings,
which answered all of McDonald's doubts, were published in a refereed scien-
tific journal. 38 Dr. Kelson plans a second more technical article, in which even
more sophisticated computer techniques will be employed. Following publica-
324 FIRESTORM

tion of the second article, first generation copies from the now-archived origi-
nals will become available to other scientists and researchers to conduct their
own analyses.39
The originals of Photos #1, #2, and #3, of course, were not available to
James McDonald. For the most part, he'd had to work from copies of copies—
an unsatisfactory process at best. He had engaged confusion deeply and had
come up with partial information that seemed to satisfy him. He had been led
by persons who were perhaps untrustworthy or had agendas of their own to
conclude that Heflin's fourth photo was not part of a set, but a vortex ring pro-
duced by a so-called "atomic bomb simulator." Yet, the puzzle of the "projec-
tions" on the Ft. Belvoir smoke ring (which Ft. Belvoir personnel had assured
him were also caused by an "atomic bomb simulator") were never clarified in
his mind, and he continued to wonder about them. As shown on Figure 25,
these projections are regularly spaced and solid enough to appear as if they are
projecting out of the vapor-cloud. Strong's easy "solution" had seemed so
weak to McDonald that he had written his colleague, Clay Reitan, to be wary
of possible "phony maneuverings."
If McDonald had also had our recently surfaced information about Ft. Bel-
voir's 1127th, he would not have trusted the assurances of Ft. Belvoir officials
so easily. He would have followed up on the 1127th, and the history of UFO
research might have been dramatically changed

38. Druffel, Ann, Dr. Robert M. Wood, and Dr. Eric Kelson. "Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin
UFO Photos," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, Winter 2000, pp. 583-622.
39. Publication of a follow-up article is expected in 2003.
C H A P T E R 13

Whats Out There?

The October winds lament around the Castle of Dromore,

Yet peace is in her lofty halls, my loving treasure store-
Though autumn leaves may droop and die, a bud of Spring are you...
A little rest and then the world is full of work to do.
—from "The Castle of Dromore"

It is certainly likely that our present knowledge of [elementary]

particles is incomplete. I remind you of the story of the fisher-
man who was fishing with a net of 6-inch mesh. He concluded
that all of the fish in the sea were larger than six inches.
—W. K. H. Panofsky

A few days before the Condon Report was released, McDonald was
invited to participate on a panel for the "Paul Harvey Show" in
Chicago. He accepted, for it would give him an opportunity to
present the UFO question to a network television audience. Harvey was a
logical, intelligent host whose curiosity about natural anomalies rivaled
McDonald's, and the show was being filmed for a potential series. On
December 13, 1968, Harvey greeted his guests before the cameras.
The participants, all favorable to the UFO question except one, were: J.
Allen Hynek, Rep. Ed Roush, NICAP's Assistant Director Gordon Lore,
Berthold E. Schwarz, M.D., McDonald, and the one skeptic, Lt. Col.
Lawrence J. Tacker, who had been head of Blue Book before Hector Quinta-
nilla. Tacker had written a book, which followed the typical Air Force line.'
As the panel chatted with each other Phil Klass arrived. He had been in-
vited by Harvey's wife, Angel, to participate on the panel. Harvey, however,
explained to Klass that he wanted him to appear only for the first 15-minute
segment, and then Dr. Hynek would take his place for the next seven seg-

1. Tacker, Lt. Col. Lawrence J., Flying Saucers and the U.S. Air Force, New York,
Princeton, Toronto, London, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960.

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

326 FIRESTORM

ments. This plan was unsatisfactoiy to Klass; it was not what he had been led to
believe and he bowed out. Since there was no transportation available back to the
airport until after the taping, he watched off-camera. Harvey's wife apologized
2

to Klass for the mix-up and tried her best to make it right with him.
McDonald's journal notes describing the Harvey show are a mixture of
the actual filming plus private conversations he had with the participants. A
copy of this program has not yet been located in Paul Harvey's archives. We
do know that Harvey asked the panel about Air Force neglect of the UFO
problem. He spoke from experience, for he'd seen a totally anomalous light
from a small passenger plane in the Pacific Northwest. He asked Hynek tact-
ful questions about the way he, as Air Force consultant, had discarded valu-
able data with "explanations" that did not fit the facts. Hynek defended
himself well. He was cordial and generally gave the impression of a folksy
intellectual, which indeed he was. The FTD at Wright-Patterson AFB now
had a new commanding officer, a Col. Weinbrenner, who was a bit more ac-
cepting toward UFOs than Col. Sleeper, with whom Hynek had been having
trouble and about which he had previously sought McDonald's advice (see
Chapter 5). Hynek had taken McDonald's advice and written a formal report,
giving FTD his growing impression that UFOs were a valid scientific ques-
tion. His report was now at FTD, and Major Hector Quintanilla, who was still
head of Blue Book, had gone to Sleeper's office to read it.
McDonald questioned Hynek closely about the Minot AFB case, which
had been referred by NICAP to the Condon Committee. Hynek and Robert
Low had been assigned as co-investigators. McDonald was curious to know
what was being done about the Minot case, for it gave promise of being a ver-
ified R-V event.
"I'm not sure what they're doing about that case, Jim," responded Hynek.
"I think the OSAF is calling it 'aircraft'."
3

An irritated look swept into McDonald's eyes; he'd studied the Minot case
and considered it solid. Hynek hurriedly added, "I still regard the case as signif-
icant, however." "Was the radar fix at the same time as the visual sighting?" pur-
sued McDonald. "Yes, it surely was," replied Hynek. "But of course we can't say
for certain that the radar fix was the same object that was seen. All the same, it's
still a significant case."
"What does Bob Low think about it?" asked McDonald, taking a different
tack. "Well, Bob Low didn't go with me to Minot," replied Hynek. "He was

2. Letter from Klass to author, dated 5 February, 1996.

3. Probably Office of Special Projects, USAF
WHAT'S OUT THERE? 327

checking out the Donnybrook case. Now, that one, within the limits of a single-
witness case, of course, is strong. Daytime observation, law enforcement officer
for a witness. You know how it goes."4
McDonald indeed knew how it went. He might have felt like starting a don-
nybrook of his own, but out of regard for Paul Harvey he remained cordial to-
ward Hynek, ignoring his ambivalence. He did no better when chatting with Rep.
Ed Roush. The Representative who had been so helpful and fearless during the
July hearing before the Committee on Space and Astronautics (CSA) was facing
an election and was watching his back. McDonald, and the scientific team who'd
done such a fine job with the Redlands sighting, had interested Rep. Jerry Pettis
of California in the UFO problem; he also was a member of the CSA. Roush told
McDonald that he doubted Pettis could swing new hearings because he was a Re-
publican, whereas the majority of the CSA were Democrats. If Pettis couldn't
convince the Democrats on the committee. Chairman George Miller would not
approve extended UFO hearings.
"However, Jim," advised Roush, "John Davis, a Democrat on the CSA,
would be an ideal fellow to shake things loose. The only thing is, Davis is not
interested in UFOs, but I think George Miller can help with that situation." Lis-
tening to Roush, McDonald's head might have whirled a bit, as he recognized
that further UFO hearings were mired deeply in politics and were not being
treated by Congressmen as a scientific problem.
"I don't know if I'll be running again, or if I'll interview for a job with the
Ford Foundation or ITT," continued Roush. "Phyllis O'Callaghan is leaving, you
know. She'll be teaching next semester, and Bill Stanton has been offered a job
with the Department of Commerce."5 McDonald didn't reply, realizing that the
Congressional team he'd so carefully nurtured was disintegrating like a dying
thundercloud after a Tucson monsoon.
Roush had just confirmed what McDonald had suspected; there would be
no further Congressional action on the problem of UFOs, at least as far as CSA
follow-up was concerned. Phyllis O'Callaghan had told him that it was "hope-
less to try to get much done" until after the November election and that there
would be no follow-up of any sort by the CSA. The committee's general coun-
sel Ducander had told her, "The Symposium was a one-shot affair. UFOs will
now revert to the Armed Services Committee." 6

4. McDonald, James E., fourth journal, p. 31.

5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., p. 21.
328 FIRESTORM

McDonald was pleased with panelist Berthold E. Schwarz, M.D. He was

quickly calling him "Bert" and listened with interest as Schwarz outlined some
of the UFO cases he'd investigated. Schwarz was a noted psychic researcher
as well as a psychiatrist. A most careful researcher, he was always on the look-
out for any sign of psychopathology in UFO witnesses which might indicate
that they were hallucinating, fantasizing, or otherwise telling capricious sto-
ries. Schwarz had determined, through statistical study, that people who re-
ported UFOs—even those who interacted with odd-looking humanoids
associated with landed UFOs—simply were not part of the mental hospital
population. In speaking to McDonald, Schwarz described one such witness as
"a character," but since he could not find, even after psychiatric evaluation,
any record of mental aberration, he felt that case was also significant.
"Paul Harvey was so kind and respectful, and just wonderful to all of us
on that panel," Dr. Schwarz recalls. "Harvey's wife, whose nickname was 'An-
gel,' was wonderful, too, and we were all calling her 'Angel.' Jim, too, was so
respectful of my involvement with psychic research and parapsychology. He
was accepting of all sides of a question, being a true scientist. I liked him very
much; it was the first time we'd met personally, but I felt he was doing a very
good job."
Schwarz is one of the few UFO researchers who remembers that James
McDonald had at one time included the parapsychological hypothesis among
his eight hypotheses. He thinks it quite likely that McDonald might have been
criticized by peers for mentioning the parapsychological/psychic hypothesis in
his first public talk. "To come out openly, especially in those days, for such an
hypothesis would have been considered very unscientific," says Schwarz. "Yet
his mind was like that, completely open and scientific. He would read every-
thing and consider everything."
In an unusual switch, McDonald also got along well that day with Col.
Tacker. He made a point to talk with him and found out that the Colonel had
accepted Harvey's invitation only because the Killian case was due to be dis-
cussed. This case was a classic which had been thoroughly investigated and
documented by NICAP and APRO. In February of 1959, three UFOs were
sighted over Pennsylvania and Ohio by the crews of four airliners. The sight-
ings hit the papers with a loud thud; it was one of those rare multi-witness cases
where extremely credible witnesses talked freely to the press before the Air
Force could shut them up.
Capt. Peter W. Killian, piloting American Airlines Flight 713, was the first
to see three bright objects pacing his plane at a distance. One of the UFOs sep-
arated from the others and came rapidly nearer. He started to turn away, but the
object stayed a safe distance, pacing. It then made a rapid, second approach;
WHAT'S OUT THERE? 329

this time Killian kept a straight course and got a good look at the object. It was
immense, much larger than his aircraft. He alerted the passengers, only one of
which showed any sign of panic. Killian got on the radio and learned that a
United Air Lines crew was watching the objects. Then two other United flights
verified Killian's description. All airmen agreed that the objects were round,
were not any type of known aircraft, and stayed in precise formation except for
the time when one paced Killian's airliner at close range. A report was made
to the FAA, who forwarded it to the Air Force.
Don Keyhoe investigated this case thoroughly and wrote a detailed ac-
count, giving names of witnesses. The Air Force refused to talk to him. When
he called the FAA, the official he reached was hesitant and nervous. He abrupt-
ly answered Keyhoe's questions about airline safety, the right of flight crews
to report publicly any hazards in the skies and the responsibility of the Air
Force to follow out such reports. "FAA's responsibility ends when a UFO re-
port is forwarded to the Air Force," he told Keyhoe. "Beyond that, no com-
ment." Project Blue Book, incidentally, took no public action.
Although the three other flight crews fully confirmed Killian's statements,
he received the most publicity. The Air Force finally "identified" the three ob-
jects as "stars seen through broken clouds," yet Killian's plane was flying above
the clouds. They then tried to "identify" UFOs as an "aerial refueling tanker," but
that didn't work either. Finally, an anonymous Air Force spokesman implied that
Capt. Killian had been drunk when he saw the objects, an unfounded charge di-
rected toward a pilot with a spotless record and 15 years' experience! Killian,
thoroughly angered, went on television and publicly denounced the Air Force.
Within 24 hours, American Airlines, prodded by the Air Force, informed Killian
that he was forbidden to defend himself publicly in any way. The FAA reacted
against the Air Force's slander, releasing the logs of the incident. Throughout the
sixties, it also revealed several other pilot reports that the Air Force tried to con-
ceal. Eventually, however, the FAA realized that reporting UFOs was not "ac-
ceptable." Airline pilots everywhere, seeing what had happened to Capt. Killian,
got the same message.7
Apparently, the Killian case was not discussed much on the Paul Harvey
show, even though it was the main reason Tacker had agreed to appear.
James McDonald's journal states that Tacker's only assertion on the air was
that the USAF "never said that extraterrestrial intelligence was out of the
question." McDonald later described Tacker in his journal:

7. Keyhoe, Maj. Donald E., Aliens From Space, Garden City, NY, Doubleday & Company,
Inc., 1973, pp. 197-99.
 330 FIRESTORM

No ogre. Now Vice President of Loretto Heights College, in Denver

(girls' school). Leaving WCN [ABC-TV] we discussed the 7/11/59
Pacific case. He not adamant.8
Hector Quintanilla, the then-current head of Blue Book, possibly had moved
aside to let Tacker handle McDonald, in case a debate developed. This did not
happen, probably due to Tacker's soft approach. To this day, no one in the UFO
field knows just what exactly was discussed on that "Paul Harvey Show."
"The show, strangely, was never shown nationwide, as it was supposed to
be," relates Dr. Schwarz, "I think it might have been shown once in Oklahoma.
It should have been shown [nationwide], because it was a good show, very fast
moving and full of information."9
Phil Klass has a different take on the situation. He contends that the show
{ never aired widely because it was dull. "Because I declined to participate, and
Tacker was a bit reserved, there was no argumentation, no differences of opin-
es v,^ ion," he writes in a September 14, 1996, letter. Klass points out that many of
the segments were re-filmed until Harvey was pleased with the final product,
and that this reduced its spontaneity. If the program can be found in Paul Har-
vey's archives, it would fascinate many, especially in the UFO field.
After the show had been filmed, there was apparently fast-moving ac-
tion. Some of the panel, including McDonald, Schwarz and Klass, went to
the airport in a limo the network provided. Schwarz relates what happened.
"Somehow Jim and Phil were in the back seat, and I was sitting in the mid-
dle of the limo. I heard them talking. The conversation got louder and louder,
and Phil started shouting remarks.. .toward Jim and toward the UFO subject in
general. He made remarks like... 'How can you say that!' and 'Who are you
that you think you know anything!' The argument was very loud on both sides,
and Phil and Jim were almost coming to blows. I was amazed that Phil would
call Jim names like that. It was a personal attack that simply astonished me....
It was so bad I just
J
can't remember the whole episode."1" ^ ^
fOO
Phil Klass remembers the incident another way. "I have absolutely no rec-
ollection of'almost coming to blows' with Jim McDonald," he states. "I knew
that [he] had contacts 'inside' the University of Colorado UFO-study team, and
my recollection is that I tried to get Jim to reveal what he had learned about the
Condon Report's conclusions, but he was close-lipped."11

8. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 31, and reverse, p. 31.

9. Author's interview with Berthold E. Schwarz, M.D., 24 January 1993.
10. Ibid.
11. Letter from Philip J. Klass to author, 5 February 1996.
WHAT'S OUT THERE? 331

To which Bert Schwarz replies: "I stick by my guns and have nothing to
add but that Phil Klass has memories that do not match my consistently held
belief of what happened.... The whole imbroglio was so odd and so unexpected
that it naturally stuck in my mind." 12
Although the program might have lacked a certain spontaneity, it was
based on a popular subject, had a top host, yet was never shown nationwide.
The Paul Harvey Show brought guests together from every part of the country,
paid their expenses, treated them royally, and worked hard to produce a fine
product. Paul Harvey was, and still is, one of the finest television and radio per-
sonalities around. The "fight in the limo" as described by highly-regarded re-
searcher Dr. Bert Schwarz is equally puzzling.
Regarding the "ride in the limo" McDonald wrote later in his journal: "To
airport in ABC limo, Phil Klass aboard." 13 Phil Klass feels that this short entry
shows that their discussion never reached the "argument" stage. McDonald's
friends might disagree, knowing his penchant for minimizing the importance
of emotional confrontations.
Shortly after the negative Condon Report was released, McDonald realized
that his most important task now, as far as UFOs were concerned, was to prepare
a thorough rebuttal. It would be three-pronged:
1. to address the fallacies in the Report and repair the damage its "Conclusions" had
done in the scientific community;
2. to investigate the promising n e w cases hidden within its pages;

3. to reach out wherever opportunity presented itself for more and more ideas and
data on technology w h i c h could be used to track UFOs.
^ppl'C^H*^. .
As far as the public and the scientific community were concerned, a top sci-
entific panel, with government funding, had thoroughly researched the question
and had come to the conclusion that UFOs were not worthy of further study. The
first task McDonald listed was extremely crucial to civilian UFO research orga-
nizations.
"The interest was there when Jim was alive to bring it out," relates Dick
Hall. "At a certain phase in NICAP, during the years the Condon Committee was
active, we had so many requests for information from scientists, even clini-
cians—people who were household words—showing an intense interest. But it
went underground after the Condon Report came out negatively. There was one
scientist, Lloyd Herwig at NSF, who knew and respected McDonald. He became
strongly interested and approached us, but he drew back after the Condon Report

12. Leucr from BcrihulU E. Schwarz lo author, 22 February 1996.

13. McDonald, op. cit., reverse p. 31.
332 FIRESTORM

came out." Herwig had come to hear McDonald and the other scientists at the
July 1968 Congressional hearing,'4 and McDonald's journal mentions another
time he met with Herwig in June 1969 at NSF, but relates no details.15
McDonald also felt keenly the closure of Project Blue Book, much more
than lay researchers did. NICAP didn't feel its loss, because it had been es-
sentially a source of irritation, "a public relations scheme." McDonald real-
ized that its closure meant that now there was no visible evidence that any
part of the U.S. Government was even interested in studying UFO reports;
his five trips to Blue Book files/archives revealed many astounding hidden
cases, and now even this source was cut off. He had hoped that Blue Book
would be expanded into a genuine scientific study. Instead, it came to an end.
He continued adding to his "Controversies & Unorthodoxies" file, perhaps
as a way of steeling himself against renewed negativity he was receiving from
some of his colleagues, after Condon found the UFO subject "worthless." At
the end of 1968 he wrote:
...[0]ne might use Gilbert's illumination of magnetism. One of his main
tasks was to explode myths & superstitions, which he did systematically.
To many modern scientists, Gilbert would epitomize the hard-headed
scientist clearing away the debris of popular delusion and misconcep-
tion. [See] "Magnetism " by Lee & other references on magnetism.
A paperback edition of the Condon Report was published in February
1969. Using this convenient format, McDonald began, in his own words,
"to clear away the debris" Condon had caused. He weeded through the "fluff
and fill" and uncovered more hidden treasures within it, many of which had
not been noticed. One-third of the cases in the Report, about 30 in all, were
labeled "Unidentified" by various members of Condon's staff! He also stud-
ied the other two-thirds labeled "Identified" to confirm whether or not they
had been logically explained. His friend Jim Hughes picturesquely describes:
"Condon did go through some dandy, twisted efforts to explain these things,
from spots on people's eyes to everything else."
Y„V .T>vi to o. ojsoa o««
Many of McDonald's colleagues encouraged him to rebut the Condon
Report. Within a couple of months, he was giving talks rebutting portions of
the Report. In May 1969 he spoke at the Sacramento Section of the AIAA,

14. Ibid, reverse p. 19.

15. Ibid., reverse p. 43.
16. McDonald, "Controversies and Unorthodoxies file," reverse p. 1.
17. Condon, Dr. Edward U., Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, New York, Tor-
onto, London, Bantam Books, January 1969.
W H A T ' S O U T THERE? 333

as part of their Distinguished Lecturer Series. He titled that paper "A Very
Creditable Effort?" The title referred to the NAS's official review of the
Condon Report, where the Panel had termed Condon's Report "a very cred-
itable effort." McDonald's impish question mark in the title of his talk plain-
ly indicated how he regarded the NAS panel's judgment.
More letters from scientists poured in, encouraging his efforts. Even with-
out encouragement McDonald's desire for honesty in science would have
spurred him on. He arranged a methodical graph, using the "case" and "code"
numbers Condon had assigned to each case, identifying witness names, page
numbers, and type of each case—radar-visual (R-V); photo; power outage; etc.
He identified the date and location of each case and other identifying informa-
tion he was able to glean from his wide knowledge. The last column on his
graph listed Condon's "explanations" (See Appendix Item 13-A, page 5/7.)
Q>
Condon had jumbled and hidden the data deliberately, making it difficult
(and even impossible) for new researchers who might want to re-investigate
the cases. McDonald obtained several copies of the paperback version, sending
some to colleagues and keeping a couple of copies for himself. He heavily an-
notated one of these copies, indicating other page numbers that would further
clarify the annotated text. He attached plastic tabs to each section, in order to
easily find specific material. His tabs divided the lengthy text into:
1. Section I: "Introduction," by Walter Sullivan of the New York Times, a letter to Air
Force Secretary Brown, and a Preface by University of Colorado officials giving
assurance that a scientific study had been concluded in accordance with Contract
No. F44630-67-C-0035
2. "Table of Contents," and Condon's "Conclusions and Recommendations"
3. Section II, a 42-page "Summary of the Study," presumably written by Condon, in
which McDonald underlined statements as: "We were assured that the federal
government would withhold no information on the subject."
Condon's section contained a lengthy reference to the "fantasy believers in
the ETH," and recounted a well-known contactee's story, about a mythical plan-
et named "Clarion," allegedly the source of some UFOs. Condon also discussed
Menzel's theory of afterimages, faulty vision, and autokinesis as "explanations"
for UFO reports. He devoted nearly a page to the Zanesville photo (which was
proved to be a hoax), but only two sentences to the McMinnville, Ore., photos,
dismissing them as "too fuzzy to allow worthwhile photogrammetric analysis."
(See Figure 30) Yet Dr. Bill Hartmann's investigation of the McMinnville pho-
tos, buried deep in the text in the middle of the book, was quite complete and ob-
jective.18 Hartmann concluded, "This is one of the few UFO photos in which all

18. Condon, op. cit., p. 407.

334 FIRESTORM

factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical, appear to be consis-

tent with the assertion that an extraordinary, flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-
shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of
two witnesses. Yet Condon dismissed the McMinnville photos as "too fuzzy" to
be analyzed. Apparently, Condon had not bothered to read his own report!

F I G U R E 30. One of the two classic McMinnville, Ore., photos "in which all
factors investigated...appear to be consistent with the assertion
that an extraordinary, flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped,
tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within
sight of two witnesses."

Condon addressed the question of R-V sightings in a half-page and re-

ferred the reader to Section III, Chapter 5, written by Gordon Thayer, who was
described as "a radio propagation specialist on the staff of the ESSA in Boul-
der." Thayer included 35 reports in his section, and Condon states (erroneous-
ly): "There was no case where the meteorological data available tended to
negate the anomalous propagation hypothesis.... 19 Thayer's Chapter 5, Sec-
tion III was 61 pages long. Yet there was another "Chapter 5" in Section IV,
titled "Radar and the Observations of UFOs" written by Roy H. Blackmer, Jr.,

1 9 . I b i d . , p. 4 2 .
WHAT'S OUT THERE? 335

and several other authors, none of which were on Condon's staff but were sub-
contracted from Standard Research Institute (SRI). It was not until July 1968,
just at the close of the committee's active investigation, that SRI revealed they
did not intend to discuss any specific UFO cases in their sub-contracted sec-
tion! Condon claimed that he had expected SRI to include specific UFO cases
and acted surprised when they didn't. In May 1968, however, Dave Atlas of
Condon's staff had told McDonald that SRI personnel had told him they were
told not to look at any specific radar-UFO cases but only to prepare a summary
on radar propagation anomalies. Atlas himself had advised SRI what their re-
port should contain, emphasizing quantitative analysis, etc.
A lot of this "radar" section was devoted to insects, including their cross-
section diameters that could, hypothetically, cause radar blips! Complex graphs
were included, which denoted the heights at which various species of insects
flew, and other "information" that had nothing to do with radar-echoes of UFOs
confirmed by competent operators as unidentified, solid "craft" tens of meters in
diameter, performing complicated maneuvers, and also verified by eyewitness-
es! Forging through the fill, McDonald found several errors in the text. He wrote
rebuttals right on the pages, referencing scientific textbooks which corroborated
his own conclusions. He also wrote in his journal one of Atlas's remarks: "The
SRI report gets quantitative only in one area. In insects."20
Gordon Thayer's radar section was filled with errors and misconceptions
on many cases with which McDonald and other researchers were thoroughly
familiar. In Thayer's section, McDonald inserted extra pages, identifying the
cases that were discussed, for they, too, lacked specific locations, dates and
witness names. McDonald learned that Thayer was assigned the task of writing
his section in July 1968 and given only five and one-half weeks to complete it!
It was done on a "leave without-pay" basis.21 Thayer had a B.S. in physics
from the University of Colorado. At the time of the shake-up on the Condon
staff, McDonald had written to Jim Hughes that Saunders's and Levine's dis-
missals left Robert Low, the project administrator, as "the radar expert" (see
Chapter 11). Apparently the task of writing the radar section was not to Low's
liking, and it is to Thayer's credit that he took it on at all. He did not see Con-
don's "Summary and Conclusions" until the Report was published.22 Dr. Roy
Craig of Condon's staff selected most of the radar cases to be analyzed. Thay-
er, who wrote the Section, selected only two or three. He did no witness inter-
viewing and was not well acquainted with the 35 R-V cases he wrote about.
% ockrl I ' M A l+Me s h o c U f t l all
- b ^ o ^ s "TK^er.
20. McDonald, op. tit., reverse p. 7.
21.Ibid, p. 45.
22. Ibid., reverse p. 45.
336 FIRESTORM

Thayer's was the section which McDonald annotated most heavily. The lit-
tle paperback is a treasure trove for anyone versed in calculus and higher math,
for he wrote down equations which proved Thayer's math mistakes right on the
pages. There are also notations containing highly technical information regard-
ing radar. For example, Thayer had mentioned a subgroup of radar cases which
he named, "B - Blip Like," where the radar targets showed characteristics of a
return from a solid object. In discussing these, Thayer wrote, "Acceleration or
velocities in excess of known aircraft capabilities, or periods of immobility, were
not considered to be contrary to normal target behavior." Above this rather as-
tonishing sentence, McDonald wrote, "Didn't catch this until 12/28/69!"23
McDonald worked more than a year on this section, as well as other parts
of Condon's Report, analyzing it whenever he could find time. As late as Au-
gust 19, 1970, a note appears on p. 120, referring to "Thayer's goof on label-
ing gradients."
Upon occasion, however, Thayer was objective when it came to labeling
an "unknown." One in particular should be mentioned. On June 23, 1955,
about 15 miles east of Utica, N.Y., the co-pilot of a Mohawk Airlines DC-3,
cruising at 3,000', noticed an object passing "at great speed" about 500' above
the plane. The object was light gray, almost round, with a center line, and had
several windows which emitted a brilliant blue-green light. The pilot also saw
the object and the two witnesses watched it for several miles. A few minutes
after it went out of sight, two other airliners sighted it and reported it on the
radio. The Albany control tower also saw an object go by one of their airways,
and Boston radar tracked an object speeding along the same airway. The two
Mohawk Airline witnesses computed the speed of the object at 4,500-4,800
m.p.h. There was no associated sonic boom. Thayer wrote:
...a most intriguing report, that must certainly be classed as an un-
known pending further study, which it certainly deserves. Statements
from some of the other witnesses would help in analyzing the event,
and should prove useful even 13 years after the event. It does appear
that this sighting defies explanation by conventional means.24
This was the type of R-V sighting McDonald was looking for, involving:
1. multiple technically trained w i t n e s s e s

2. several airborne s o u r c e s from different locations reporting a similar u n i d e n t i f i e d

object within a short s p a c e o f time

23. Condon, op ctt., handwritten note by McDonald in Thayer's radar section, p, 118.
24. Condon, op. cit., p. 143.
WHAT'S OUT THERE? 337

3. ground observers and ground radar contact from another location along the
object's flight path.

Realizing that the Condon Committee had had access to R-V cases which
were not known to the UFO community, he decided to visit Wright-Patterson
AFB again to search for them. At the end of June 1969, he journeyed to Day-
ton, but found that Project Blue Book had been moved into smaller offices,
with the staff again downgraded. He spent the next two days going through the
files for the fourth time and hand-typed notes on 18 cases.
On this trip, he carried with him a list of cases, mostly R-V, which he was
most interested in tracking down. Part of his list is included here, as it demon-
strates the wide distribution of UFO phenomena:
8/24/66 Minot AFB, N.D. 3/2/67 Holloman AFB
12/19/66 Patuxent R NAS 8/1/52 Bellefontaine, Oh.
7/3/67 Leewood, Ks. 4/20/52 Fleet, Mi.
7/29/48 Indianapolis, In. 8/19/65 Cherry Creek, N.Y.
7/29/52 Port Huron, Mi. 5/2/57 Edwards AFB, Calif.
At the new Blue Book offices, Sgt. Jones was no longer there and Quinta-
nilla, who'd been promoted to Colonel, was also gone. It is possible that the
job had gotten to Quintanilla when McDonald started dropping by in 1966. By
mid-1967, Quintanilla had been sending out strange letters to inquiring re-
searchers, for example, the following, that was published in NICAP's The
UFO Investigator:
To P. Flatley
677 East 29th Street
Brooklyn, New York 11210
Dear Flatley:
Reference your undated strip of paper. I can prove that the Air Force
does exist, but you can't prove that flying saucers are real. Evidently
the asphalt jungles ofBrooklyn are beginning to get to you. Why don't
you take a walk out in the country... and quit living in a dream world....
Sincerely,
(s) Hector Quintanilla, Jr., Major25
In his journal, McDonald notes that Quintanilla's replacement, Lt. Carmen
Marano, was "worse than Col. Q!" 26 When McDonald saw the Edwards AFB

25. The UFO Investigator, January 1968.

338 FIRESTORM

case available at last, he typed several pages, gathering details for which the re-
search field was hungry. Marano was not pleased. McDonald described how, as
he was typing: "Marano hover[ed] around to pick an argument."27
On this fourth Blue Book visit, McDonald was still denied access to classi-
fied R-V cases. Returning to Tucson, he took "the little rest" which his wife
Betsy had been urging. Previously, each summer, when the children were small-
er, the family went off together to relax and enjoy tranquil surroundings. This
year, McDonald and Betsy traveled for a week by themselves through Taos, Tra-
na Amarillo and Canyon de Chelly.
"A long dormant period then ensued," McDonald wrote in his journal after
returning home on July 8,1969." 8 "Dormant period" meant something different
to McDonald than to other people. He tended to a pile of correspondence which
had collected on his desk, regarding not only his professional work but UFO mat-
ters as well. He then devoted an entire week fixing up a VW bus he'd bought so
that Betsy could drive it to Oakland, Calif.,, with some of her fellow activists, to
attend a Black Panther conference. Betsy was a supporter and member of the So-
cialist Workers Party. Besides her other causes, she regarded the Black Panthers
movement, in its early days, as part of the civil rights struggle. A few months lat-
er, she decided that she didn't want to be involved any longer.
McDonald did not participate actively in this cause, but when two Black
Panthers came to Tucson, early on in their movement, Betsy had invited them to
stay at their home. McDonald talked with them far into the night, asking ques-
tions about their philosophy, their plans and their progress. The Panthers slept
with their guns at hand, explaining that government agents sometimes broke into
places where they were housed.
McDonald, too, was proficient with firearms. He had a small, snub-nosed
pistol, which he had purchased in 1953 in Chicago. He had begun to be con-
cerned about his family's safety when he went on extended professional trips.
He kept it in a handy drawer for home defense. He urged Betsy to learn how to
shoot, but she told him she could never use a gun against an intruder. In Tucson
he traded the pistol for a larger revolver with a neighbor down the block, who
provided him with a supply of cartridge "re-loads." But Betsy disdained the
larger gun, too. It simply rested in their bedroom drawer.
Betsy began her long drive to Oakland in the family's re-fitted VW van.
McDonald took advantage of the time alone to brush up on the theory of rela-

26. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 43.

27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., p . 4 4 .
WHAT'S OUT THERE? 339

tivity. He also studied evolution, heredity and genetics. Betsy returned home,
but McDonald continued studying for ten more days.
As the August 8th meeting of the POWACM approached, McDonald noted
in his journal that he was in "nadir state."29 It was, for him, an unusually private
remark—it meant that he had reached "the lowest point." The POWACM was
an NAS panel and ordinarily he would have been looking forward to the meet-
ing. He was not used to "feeling low." In the past, he'd had a couple of bouts with
severe depression, brought about by particularly difficult projects he'd taken on
and which seemed unsolvable. According to Betsy McDonald, these depressions
occurred about once every ten years. The last one had occurred in 1961 during
the Titan controversy (see Chapter 1).
It is not known what brought on the "nadir state" in 1969. Nothing like
it is mentioned elsewhere in his writings. His UFO journals indicate that he
had immense enthusiasm for that research. His intense involvement was ev-
ident not only to his new-found colleagues in the UFO field, but also to his
scientific colleagues who did not share this interest. Marilyn Epperson de-
scribes observations of her mother, Idabel Epperson, who was chairman of
LANS. Idabel often corresponded and spoke by telephone with McDonald,
as well as hosting meetings whenever he was in the Los Angeles area.
"She had a feeling that he seemed to be rushing, as though he couldn't get
it all done in his lifetime," Marilyn relates. "He was so intense about his
work.... She never thought about him dying. She just thought 'he was trying
to get it all done,' was the way she put it. I don't mean that he did things in a
hurried way. He was a perfectionist. He was in a hurry to get everything done
in the sense that he didn't want to miss anything that went into this."
McDonald journeyed to Palo Alto, Calif., for the POWACM and while
there, he recovered from his nadir state. Upon his return, he spent an entire
week researching the legal, economic, and social problems inherent in weather
modification, and spent the next week in intensive review of Bureau of Recla-
mation questions. By that time, the date for the Denver, Colo., UFO Sympo-
sium rolled around. He noted succinctly in his journal:
The 8/22 Denver symposium renewed UFO interest.30
He was one of six scientists who gave talks on the UFO question at the Na-
tional Astronomical Association (NAA) Symposium. Another packed period
of UFO activity began for him; he rebutted the Condon Report case by case in
articles, talks, and media appearances. He also intensified his research into

2 9 . I b i d . , p. 44.
30. Ibid., p. 44.
 cre
340 "TVvs "ft* W&SOrtl UC-- • FIRESTORM
.TiCl^ Hs O cu<JS rooigKr i-h I . .3

possible ways by which a monitoring network could be set up, with govern-
ment and military, the scientific community, and the public cooperating to-
gether to detect, track, and document UFO sightings. He felt this would be the
most logical way to gather hard, irrefutable evidence.
An early instance of tracking data he'd come across was during a Navy
Stormfury session in 1968, when he'd learned about a Navy satellite "FENCE"
across the lower states, which was a setup of several continuous-wave radar in-
*' w terferometers. It had detected many meteors but rejected them because of their
steepness of entry angle; it also had other selectivity factors built in. It was actu-
v ve ally set up to detect objects in orbit, including all the small debris from earth sat-
ellites. FENCE had been described to some extent in Aviation Week. McDonald
derived this information from talking with Jack Townsend, a NASA physicist,
who told him that"Aviation Week drags out most such facts eventually, despite
V
u classification."31
of
McDonald realized it would take a while to gather enough ideas on a track-
ing network to put together a proposal which would be acceptable to major
funding agencies, but his abiding principle was "First things first." Establish
ideas for a network first, get data flowing in, and then worry about how much
data was necessary. At the same time he was gathering tracking ideas, he con-
tinued rebutting the Condon Report, for this was an immediate contribution he
could make. The Report officially negated the importance of UFOs, so what
would be the use, scientists would ask, of setting up a tracking system to mon-
itor a "non-existent" phenomenon? McDonald endeavored to have one of his
articles about the flaws in the Condon Report published in a scientific journal.
He had voluminous data, written in polished form, for he was speaking on a
regular basis before scientific and academic groups on the subject, revealing
new information about the inadequacy of the Condon study each time he
spoke. He was tracking down the witnesses on stunning cases that had been in-
cluded in the Report, but about which very little was known in the UFO field.
Most scientific journals, fearful of peer pressure and disapproval, refused
to print his UFO papers, just as they refused to print Hynek's. McDonald did
succeed in having one paper on the inadequacies of the Condon Report pub-
lished in the prestigious journal, Icarus?2 Ostensibly a book review, the article
went far beyond the boundary of an ordinary review, comprising three and a
half pages. In the same issue of Icarus was another review of Condon's Report,

31. Ibid., reverse p. 32.

32. McDonald, James E., "Book Reviews: The Condon Report, Scientific Study of UFOs, E. P.
Dutton & Co., New York, 1969; also Bantam Books, New York, 1969," Icarus: Interna-
tional Journal of Solar System Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, Nov. 1969, pp. 443-447.
WHAT'S OUT THERE? 341

authored by the NAS panel of scientists who'd been appointed to review the
Report before it was released. Their names were at last made public: Gerald
M. Clemence; H.R. Crane; David M. Dennison; Wallace O. Fenn; H.
Keffer Hartline; E.R. Hilgard; Mark Kac; F.W. Reichelderfer, William
W. Rubey, C.D. Shane, and Oswald G. Villard, Jr. The contrast between the
two reviews was startling—the NAS whitewash clashed vividly with James
McDonald's logical analysis.
The eleven scientists on the NAS Panel wrote: "[Condon's Report] has
been a very creditable effort to apply objectively the relevant techniques of sci-
ence to the solution of the UFO problem.... The Report also shows how diffi-
cult it is to apply scientific methods to the occasional transient sightings with
any chance of success.... [A] study of UFOs in general is not a promising way
to expand scientific understanding...." 33
McDonald's Icarus review outlined in detail the weaknesses and faults of
the Condon study, including the fact that only 1% of all the promising cases
which lay researchers had funneled into the committee had been investigated at
all; that many historically important cases were omitted entirely; and that basic
facts about the cases which were included were defective and incomplete. "I find
it extremely difficult to understand how so inadequate a report could have re-
ceived such clear-cut Academy endorsement—except for the fact that none of
the eleven panelists had any evident prior scientific contact with the subject,"
McDonald wrote. "None, so far as is known, undertook any cross-check investi-
gations of cases to be found in the Condon Report. Few scientific subjects re-
ceive Academy endorsement on such a superficial basis."
His "book review" also revealed that key witnesses on truly puzzling re-
ports were not interviewed by Condon's staff, even though they were avail-
able, and that extremely important and well-documented cases the staff had
checked, such as the Levelland and Redlands cases, had been omitted from the
Report. It pointed out that the Report was heavily weighted with trivial UFO
reports. "The Colorado Project was supposed to explain the tough ones, not the
easy ones," he wrote in plain English. In many interesting cases which the Re-
port did discuss, the analysis was "woefully inadequate," McDonald contin-
ued. He particularly mentioned the 1957^Lakenheath case in England and the
Louisiana-Texas B-47 events of Sept. 19, 1957, both of which were military
R-V cases previously unknown to the UFO field (See Chapter 16).

33. Icarus, "Book Reviews," "Review o f The University o f Colorado Report on Unidentified
Flying Objects by a Panel of the National Academy of Sciences," NAS, 1969, Vol. 11, No.
3, Nov. 1969.
342 FIRESTORM

He demonstrated how Condon had arranged the Report so that the dates,
locations, and names of witnesses were missing on most of the 59 cases
which comprised the core of the text, a totally unscientific technique. Con-
don had contended that witness names were omitted to avoid embarrassment,
but many of these cases had received full media attention and the witnesses
were readily available. He emphasized how Condon's format prevented ver-
ification by independent researchers—and verification was the heart of sci-
ence! He also pointed out examples of "scientifically weak or specious
argumentation" in the Report's case analyses. In the few pages Icarus al-
lowed him, he couldn't go into details on all these cases, but he mentioned
several, including the Flagstaff, Ariz., (May 20, 1950) and Vandenberg AFB,
Calif., (Sept. 10, 1967) sightings. He added that many other examples could
readily be cited. One of his most devastating criticisms of the Condon Report
was especially cogent:

[SJo much basically non-relevant padding has thickened the Report

that it will give some readers the impression of great scope and others
the impression that it's so detailed as to defy easy study.
Some of the bulk was fairly businesslike, but does not support the mis-
sion laid before the Condon project, namely, showing whether careful
scientific analyses can give satisfactory conventional explanations of
the most puzzling UFO reports of the past twenty years.
McDonald had enough space in his "book review" to go into detail on the
Haneda AFB, Japan, incident of August 5, 1952—a classic case which had
been described in books by Ruppelt, Keyhoe and Hall, among others. On a
clear cloudless night with 60-mile visibility, an intensely bright light, attached
to a darker object at least three times the light's diameter, was viewed from
widely-separated USAF bases in Japan. The object had smaller lights also,
some of which ran in a curved line along the lower edge. The object changed
altitude rapidly at times, faster than a jet. At other times it winked out abruptly.
McDonald had a 25-page Blue Book report on the Haneda case—the orig-
inal intelligence reports from the Far East Air Force units which investigated
the incident. He'd copied these under Lt. Marano's scowling gaze. The same
intelligence reports had been available to Condon's staff, but had apparently
been ignored. The Haneda base alerted the USAF radar station at Shiroi, which
had state-of-the-art radar equipment. The Condon Report noted this, but assert-
ed, "It is not clear whether the GCI 35 radar ever tracked the fast-moving tar-
get...." This particular statement irritated McDonald. It was only one of the

34. McDonald, "Book Reviews...,"op. cit., p. 445.

35. Ground Control Interception
W H A T ' S O U T THERE? 343

details omitted in Condon's version, but it was one of the most important, for
the USAF radar station at Shiroi did detect an unknown target moving over the
north end of Tokyo Bay, and an F-94B jet with airborne radar had been scram-
bled from Johnson AFB.
The Blue Book intelligence report clearly stated that the F-94's radar of-
ficer picked up a target which matched the target being picked up from the ra-
dar station on the ground. His testimony reads in part, "The target was rapidly
moving from port to starboard and a lock-on could not be accomplished."
Ground radar from Shiroi, the airborne F-94 radar, and radar blips from Hane-
da corresponded almost exactly—a remarkable correlation considering the
UFO's violent maneuvers. Yet Thayer's radar section attributed these correlat-
ed radar readings to "unusual radar propagation effects." Worst of all, the Con-
don Report "identified" the Haneda object as Capella, a bright star, which was
at 40° azimuth, 8° above the horizon.
"Shades of Menzel," McDonald might have murmured, when he read the
Haneda report for the first time. In his Icarus article, he demonstrated why the
object could not have been Capella. It was seen from two different Air Force
stations 50° apart: witnesses at Haneda AFB had seen "Capella" in the NNE
and tower control operators at Tachikawa AFB had seen it in the ESE? The
term "diffraction" was loosely bandied around in the Condon Report's expla-
nation, but McDonald shot that down by pointing out that Capella's elevation
angle was far too great to be affected by an inversion layer. Besides, the visual
description of the object did not fit any type of optical distortion.
Surprisingly, in spite of Condon's negativity, he had stated in his Final ^
Report: "We believe that any scientist with adequate training and credentials
who does come up with a clearly defined specific proposal for study should t
be supported." This encouraged McDonald to try again to obtain funding, not i*
only frcflp Q ^ R but from NSfrf. Part of his planned proposal would address '
the need for UFO tracking systems. Most UFO researchers wondered why
the U.S. government had not long ago formed a monitoring network, to de-
tect and document UFOs. The idea had been discussed enthusiastically by
several of the participants on the Congressional UFO panel on July 29, 1968.
The idea of a tracking system to detect UFOs did not originate with
James McDonald. The Air Force had thought of it back in the fifties. An ob-
scure document, known as thepentacle Memorandum, submitted by the Bat-
telle Memorial Institute, together with members of the intelligence
community, had proposed a tracking network in 1953. Capt. Edward Ruppelt
of Project Blue Book had suggested it in 1956, as had Hynek in his capacity
as Blue Book astronomical consultant. Jacques Vallee had published photo-
graphs which showed unidentified "tracks," which had been taken by auto-
344 FIRESTORM

mated astronomical cameras. The team of Hynek, Vallee and Powers at

Northwestern University had made proposals along these lines and had dis-
cussed their proposals with McDonald during their meetings. And NICAP
had formally pre
All of these early proposals had been ignored by officialdom, at least as far
as the UFO community was aware. Vallee offers a possible reason: "The first
problem is cost, the second is that, contrary to satellites and missiles, you don't
know what you're tracking," he says. "It is an insurmountable technical problem,
unless you have complete coverage, a multi-billion dollar undertaking at the
time. Who would have paid for it?" Still, tracking systems seemed the best way
to obtain solid evidence of the reality of basic UFO phenomena, that is, uniden-
tified metallic aeroforms buzzing around Earth's skies. Once the reality of the
basic phenomenon was firmly established by science, then the peripheral ques-
tion of its nature, motives, purposes, etc., could be addressed. McDonald was al-
ready convinced that UFOs did exist. Dick Hall explains:

"The lack of real physical evidence never really bothered him, because he
was impressed by the quality of the people who reported UFOs," states Hall.
"He had a way of determining for himself if they were trustworthy and telling
the truth."
However, McDonald was fully aware that the scientific community had to
be convinced by hard evidence. Consequently, he discussed the idea of a na-
tionwide tracking system with other scientists who were pushing for the same
thing, whenever the opportunity presented itself, and he wrote down many of
the conversations and ideas in his journal. As a direct result of his influence,
the AIAA had initiated a "UFO Subcommittee" in 1968, and the idea of a
tracking system had been discussed with much interest among its members.
Supposedly, plans were being put into effect to establish it. The subcommittee
was headed by Dr. Joach Kuettner, a scientist who served on the Navy Storm-
fury Panel with McDonald, and whom he saw personally two or three times a
year at Stormfury meetings. At first Kuettner seemed enthusiastic and man-
aged to get a few influential scientists to serve on the UFO Subcommittee. Yet
there are items which McDonald jotted down in his journal which give rise to
speculation about how earnest Kuettner really was.
In mid-June 1968, Kuettner called McDonald from Denver, where he
was trying to set up a session for the subcommittee. Kuettner had stopped in
at the Condon Committee offices. Ed Condon had fallen into conversation
with him, complaining about the "trick" memo, on which McDonald had
helped blow the whistle in Look. Kuettner told him that Condon claimed the
memo was taken from Low's personal files. "It must be true," Kuettner said.
"Robert Low was standing right there when Ed said that." McDonald did his
W H A T ' S O U T THERE? 345

best to convince Kuettner that Condon didn't have his facts straight. He then
called Mary Lou Armstrong, Robert Low's Administrative Assistant, to clar-
ify Kuettner's remark. She strongly defended the circumstances under which
the memo had surfaced. "It had been in the 'Air Force Contract' and 'Blind
files'," she stated. 36
In spite of minor disagreements with Kuettner, McDonald was willing to
speak any time at the AIAA's UFO Subcommittee sessions. Toward the end of
May 1968, Kuettner called to say that the session that had just been planned
had been canceled, because there were no travel funds available. McDonald
took the news in stride, and when Carl Sagan phoned sometime later the next
day, asking his advice as to his choice of speakers for the forthcoming AAAS
session, McDonald listed Kuettner's name among a dozen other scientists who
were, by then, publicly involved in the UFO field, pro and con. He continued
to hold out hope that the AIAA UFO Subcommittee would succeed, not only
in interesting many more scientists to study UFOs, but also in setting up an ac-
tual UFO tracking system. Toward the end of July 1968, in one of his phone
conversations with Dr. Robert Wood, he was gratified to hear that Mr. Andy
Mosley, deputy chief scientist of Douglas Aircraft, had agreed to serve on
Kuettner's UFO Subcommittee. Mosley was "Douglas's No. 2 man," wrote
McDonald in his journal.

About the same time, Kuettner asked if McDonald could speak to a session
of the UFO Subcommittee in mid-September in Boulder, Colo.; he'd also in-
vited Hynek and Condon to speak at the session. This was before the negative
Condon Report was released in January 1969, but after the Look article had
been published. On this occasion, McDonald asked Kuettner for a list of the
scientists who were on the AIAA UFO Subcommittee, since Kuettner had nev-
er even shared this information with him. Kuettner agreed to send it. On Sep-
tember 11, McDonald traveled to Boulder for the AIAA session and
discovered it had abruptly been changed to a 7:00 P.M. dinner meeting! The car
pool which was supposed to pick him up at the airport didn't show, and he had
to rent a Hertz car to get to the banquet. A less cheerful and tireless man would
have become discouraged with the AIAA UFO Subcommittee, but McDonald
never mentioned in his journal that he was at all concerned.
In mid-October 1968, during a discussion with Dr. David Saunders, he
learned that Kuettner would report on the AIAA UFO Subcommittee findings in
New York the coming week, and that "the report would be partly positive." Sur-
prisingly, McDonald had not been informed about this. Weeks went by without

36. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 2.

37. Ibid., reverse p. 17.
 346 FIRESTORM

Kuettner contacting him; in mid-November he called Kuettner to find out more.

Kuettner told him he'd arranged for the UFO position statement to come out in
the AIAA journal, Astronautics and Aeronautics. Over the phone, he read what
would be in the article, and McDonald later summarized it in his journal:
Position, tho conservative, urging [UFO question] warrants more
study, etc. He says they 're trying to get Subcomm beefed up, esp in
area of tracking. "K[uettnerJ added that he's coming around to view
that I'm probably right & that others agree but are afraid to 'stick
their necks on block.' Feels it is serious problem iS
Although the position statement wasn't as strong as McDonald wanted, he
accepted the status quo. His own bold personality probably couldn't fully under-
stand the reluctance of colleagues to come out in the open, but long talks with
scientists such as Bob Wood had acquainted him with the undeniable fact that
many scientists' careers would be in jeopardy if they publicly entered the field.
McDonald next saw Kuettner in mid-December 1968 at a Stormfury Ad-
visory Panel Session in Miami. During the three-day session McDonald
spoke to both the AMS, which was meeting in Miami, and to the AIAA at
Cape Kennedy. His talk was titled "UFOs and Atmospheric Physics," and
Joach Kuettner attended both. McDonald discussed the Redlands case, the
Levelland sightings, and some other classic cases, such as the Chiles-Whit-
ted sighting, which he had thoroughly re-investigated by tracking down the
original witnesses. He did not discuss any Air Force cases, since the Condon
Report had not yet come out, and many of the good cases which the Air Force
had shared with Condon were still unknown to outside researchers. After the
talk, Kuettner and McDonald discussed the UFO Subcommittee position pa-
per which had appeared in Astronautics and Aeronautics. It wasn't as posi-
tive as he'd hoped, McDonald told him. "I've given the best of the data to
you, and it doesn't show."
>
^^ ^ "We're doing the best we can," answered Kuettner. "After all, with scien-
tists afraid to speak out, this is something that's going to have to proceed slowly."
"Why not get people on the committee who have academic protection,
who don't have to be afraid?" asked McDonald. His question may have been
too logical, because Kuettner abruptly changed the subject.
This conversation took place before the Condon Report was released, but
is inserted here in order to show Kuettner's rather strange attitude toward the
whole UFO problem on this occasion. "Say, Jim," he said, "I think you're go-
ing to be surprised when the Condon Report comes out."

3 8 . Ibid, p. 2 8 .
W H A T ' S O U T THERE? 347

"Surprise isn't quite the word I'd use, Joach," replied McDonald. "Every-
thing points to a negative report, from what I've heard and read."
"No, Jim," said Kuettner, with an air of mystery. "You and Condon aren't
as far apart as you think." 3+n^V, I avte h 4 , 0 s t W ^ M ^
"I don't know how you can say that," McDonald replied. "I'm pessimistic
over the whole deal, beginning with the Low memo and Condon's preoccupa-
tion with the contactees. And that's only the beginning. Various members of decs
Condon's staff have let me in on what's really going on. I'll bet you a beer that
my pessimism is more correct than what you're saying."
"Well, I know you've checked more cases than the whole Condon Commit-
tee project," Kuettner said. "But I'll take you up on the bet. A beer I'm right."39
He then confided that he'd had his own unexplained sighting just a few
weeks before, while traveling on an airliner near Denver. He'd sighted several
glowing objects which seemed associated with a larger red light which was on
the right of the plane and presumably pacing it. The smaller objects were ma-
neuvering up and down—erratic maneuvers which didn't correspond with any-
thing he was familiar with. Kuettner got one of the stewardesses to watch, and
she was also thoroughly mystified. She told the pilot, who sent back the mes-
sage that he thought the objects were "aircraft." Kuettner also related a recent
sighting which had occurred to an airline pilot whom he knew well, whose air-
liner was followed by a "lighted unknown."
Tower broadcast appeal to any other A/C, asking if anyone else saw
it. Pilot friend answered: No. "Then they came!" (Airliner & glowing
object ahead) JK asked pilot if he then reported it to tower. Did not.
Gave JK some phony reason. JKfelt sure was unwilling to report it.40
McDonald knew enough about airline pilot sightings to understand why
Kuettner's friend hadn't reported the sighting. By this time, the FAA would not
accept pilot sightings of "UFOs" and, if an airline pilot was bold enough to re-
port one, his job and his reputation would be on the line.
"There's a sighting we know about, of a 'Farmer Johnson' in Clarinda who
got up at night, looked out the window, and saw a UFO close to his house,"
McDonald told Kuettner. "The farmer looked at the object awhile, wondering
what he should do about it. You know what he did? He went back to bed."
Kuettner replied, "I can believe that. Same attitude, basically, as my pilot
friend." Kuettner then showed McDonald a letter from Phil Klass, who was

39. Ibid., p. 32.

40. Ibid., p. 32.
348 FIRESTORM

protesting that the recent AIAA position statement didn't take his work into ac-
count. McDonald suggested that Kuettner review the paper he'd delivered be-
fore the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute the previous Man4i, in
which he'd scientifically taken apart Klass's and Menzel's theories. McDonald
wondered whether Kuettner had even seen that important paper.41 He didn't
hear from Kuettner for more than two months. In early February 1969, shortly
after the public release of the Condon Report, he traveled to Denver to appear
on Canadian Broadcasting System TV, and phoned Kuettner from the airport.
Kuettner told him he was meeting with the UFO Subcommittee on February
12th in Washington, D.C., missing McDonald by only one day.
"I may stay for your AMS banquet talk on the 13th," Kuettner said.
"I hope you will," replied McDonald. "And afterwards, we can have that
beer."
"But I'm not sure who won the bet!" said Kuettner. "Who'll pay?"
McDonald thought that remark very odd. "How can you say that?" he
asked, launching into a brief summary of the sham Condon had perpetrated in
the name of science.
"But Condon's comments regarding future proposals being acceptable
certainly leaves the UFO question open!" answered Kuettner.42
"I keep trying," said McDonald, who was on the verge of irritation but man-
aging to hide it. "I've tapped the ONR, NAS, NASA, and NSF for funding over
and over, and the answer's always the same. But I'm going to try NSF again."
Kuettner deftly changed the subject. "Our UFO Subcommittee is prepar-
ing a report for publication in AIAA Journal on the Condon Report." "Well, I'll
mail you some pages of the talk I'm delivering to AMS," replied McDonald.
"That'll give you a general notion of my position on Condon."
In spite of receiving advance copy on McDonald's Washington, D.C.,
AMS talk, Kuettner remained unconvinced. As the audience was walking out
after the Q & A period and a post Q & A period, Kuetttner came up to him. "I
thought Gordon Thayer's radar section was pretty good," he said. Kuettner's
remark thoroughly irritated McDonald. Later, he wrote in his journal, using
one of his rare exclamation points: "J. P. Kuettner made comment.... Thayer
section pretty good! I demurred!"4 .

41. Ibid, reverse p. 32.

42. Ibid, p. 35.
43. Ibid, reverse p. 35.
 WHAT'S OUT THERE? 349

Toward the end of March 1969, McDonald tried twice to phone Kuettner,
to find out how the UFO Subcommittee was getting along, particularly in the
matter of setting up a tracking system, but Kuettner didn't return his calls. Nine
months passed before Kuettner is again mentioned in the journal. The two met
at the Miami Stormfury session in early December 1969. This time, Kuettner
oV told him that Condon had tried to get him to call off the January 1970 AIAA
session, saying it would encourage "irresponsible speculations" about UFOs,
etc." Even when Kuettner asked Condon if some other scientist who'd served
on the Project would speak in his place, Condon refused, saying "no one else
• H B B p f c e n t him.' I -fVd -Win odd, since Co*Jor> reAlkj <}«JnH I o « "H*

Another full year passed before Kuettner was again mentioned in the journal
of James McDonald. In late January 1971, while McDonald was deep into
ozone-layer research, Kuettner and Thayer called from Denver, asking him to
lend Thayer his copy of the Blue Book's Lakenheath case, so Thayer could write
it up for the AIAA. Thayer had earlier asked him for his copy, but McDonald had
suggested that he borrow the copy in the Condon committee's files. Thayer
called Condon, but Condon had told him bluntly that he didn't have any of the
files anymore.
"Why?" asked McDonald. "I've been told by archivists at the Colorado U.
library that Condon had the files and was going to keep them. I've been trying
for over a year to get access to them." At this point Thayer turned the phone
over to Kuettner.
IUCHAV^ ^ foote
"Condon said he destroyed the files, Jim," said Kuettner. ^ y^f
6r +W> V GrorM
"Destroyed the files?" said McDonald. "Why would anyone do t h a t ! " ^
"He had a lot of reasons, Jim," said Kuettner. "One of them was that they2+1 1'
took up too much space." McDonald's irritation boiled over. "There's plentys*^..->
of space in the University of Colorado archives!"
he I3 ^ -h>
"That's all he'd tell us, Jim," said Kuettner. "But that leaves Gordon Thay-
er without a copy of the Lakenheath case. He wants to go over it again, in view
of the information you've been able to pull out of it that no one else could be-
cause of the mess it was in when Blue Book sent it to us (see Chapter 16).
Could you get your copy to him?"
"I'll send you a copy of my copy," said McDonald. "But maybe Condon
only destroyed the Blue Book items." Kuettner replied, "All I know is what he
told Gordon Thayer."45

44. Ibid., reverse p. 44.

45. Ibid, p. 49.
 350 FIRESTORM

In spite of the less-than-brilliant record of the AIAA UFO Subcommittee,

McDonald never stopping researching data for a UFO tracking system, hoping
that it would soon materialize. While exchanging ideas on the subject with Don
Keyhoe and Dick Hall, they reminded him that the Ground Observer Corps
(GOC), which operated from 1950 to 1959, had produced numerous fascinat-
ing reports which defied explanation. Leonard Stringfield, an active NICAP re-
searcher, had cooperated with the Air Force in conjunction with the GOC in
the 1950s, for the express purpose of logging UFO reports from the public.46
McDonald had also been intrigued by a remark which J. Allen Hynek had
made in a press interview, just a few months after the Rivers Committee hearing
in April 1966, where Hynek had given negative testimony on UFOs. In the later
press interview, he'd done an about-face and had listed several reasons why the
UFO problem should be tal^en seriously. McDonald noted Hynek's seventh rea-
son: "Radar, meteor cameras, and satellite tracking stations have picked up 'odd-
ities' on their 'scopes or films which have remained unidentified."47
McDonald had also discussed tracking-network ideas with Dr. Robert M.
Wood, who was vitally interested in the subject. Several unidentified objects had
been photographed by astronauts in orbit, and Wood had had a lengthy telephone
discussion with Scott Carpenter, one of the original seven astronauts, who had
taken a picture of a UFO. Carpenter had told Wood that he'd photographed a
piece of space debris, but in his debriefing, NASA officials had queried him for
two hours about the "debris" and the photo he'd taken! Carpenter was very frank
in his discussion with Wood. He commented on the fact that the Condon Com-
mittee was studying UFOs, but then fell silent for a little while. Finally he said,
"On the other hand, there's something wrong with the management up there."
Bob Wood suggested to McDonald that he try to get a copy of that partic-
ular debriefing. Carpenter had also confirmed that John Glenn, the first Amer-
ican to orbit the earth, had seen what he described as "fireflies," a phenomenon
which other astronauts had reported but which had never been explained, at
least publicly. The "fireflies" were small glowing objects which clustered
° around Glenn's view-window and also flew alongside his spacecraft. Although
not typical UFOs, the phenomenon had captured McDonald's interest, and
Glenn's confirmation of the event was important to him 4 8

46. Stringfield, Leonard H., Inside Saucer Post 3-0 Blue, Cincinnati, Civilian Research, Inter-
planetary Flying Objects, 1957.
47. Kotulak, Ronald, by-line article, Chicago Tribune, October 22, 1966.
48. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 16.
WHAT'S OUT THERE? 351

McDonald had begun gathering specific ideas for the design of a tracking
network as early as 1966, drawing on earlier work by other scientists and adding
his own unique touches. In June 1966 he had written in his journal:
6/18/66 Tom Malone phoned me.... OK'dmy idea of ...phoning Egg-
ers at NASA.... Tom asked if 1. I'm organizing a concise presenta-
tion; 2. I have specific ideas on design of an experiment. I pointed
out "yes" to both.49 TV I ueud re*'1- nte "fc
During his 1966 briefing to NASA officials in 1966, it seems from the
above journal entry that McDonald had offered a specific plan by which
NASA could track UFOs with existing technology. If he had a specific plan,
however, he did not talk about it freely among his UFO colleagues, and in-
stead continued to gather other ideas and encouraged other UFO researchers
to do the same. In a 1966 letter to A. Donald Goedeke, chief scientist of the
Space Science Department at Douglas Aircraft in Santa Monica, Calif., he
wrote, "Your efforts to work out some direct sensing methods for collecting
data on UFOs sound excellent. Blind groping may be necessary at the start,
but I'm optimistic about ultimate possibilities." 50 He was referring to
Wood's and Goedeke's "lightning van."
Early in June 1966, he had discussed UFO tracking systems with Dr. Eu-
gene Epstein of the Aerospace Corporation based in El Segundo, Calif. Epstein
had talked with Duke McCroskey at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics in
Cambridge, who had, during a five-year period ending about 1956, participat-
ed in all-night watches in New Mexico, observing meteors. He'd told Epstein
he'd never seen anything "unusual." J. Allen Hynek had set up this Smithso-
nian network and had tried to use it for UFOs. Yet McDonald knew that tech-
nically trained observers had seen UFOs in Tucson during a similar "meteor
watch." McDonald wrote in his journal that perhaps the negative New Mexico
results might have been due to lack of interest, or adverse climate of opinion.
Dr. Epstein also told him that satellite-tracking Baker-Nunn cameras had
"unusual stuff' appear on some of their photos, and he felt this situation might
be worth special research.5' The unusual tracks were recorded on single-shot
plates, and were not stereo pairs; therefore, triangulation to obtain true height and
size was not possible. The Smithsonian had similar Baker-Nunn cameras around
the world; they were doing orbit work, with no close pairs, so triangulation was
not possible here either. McDonald pointed out that one could scan the singleton
plates for 90° trails.

49. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 16.

50. Letter from McDonald to A. Donald Goedeke, December 13, 1966.
51. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 20.
352 FIRESTORM

George Earley of NICAP*CONN knew of at least one curious object that

had been photographed by Smithsonian cameras. He'd been shown a startling
example by Dr. Thornton Page, who'd shown him photographs taken by the
Prairie network cameras in the Midwest, that were supposed to take photos of
meteors. "They were big 6" or 8" Newtonian Schmidt-type cameras, and they
were all controlled by timers," relates Earley. "They looked at one section of
the night sky and took pictures.... I don't know what the length of the exposure
was. Page pulled one out and said, 'If you want to see something really strange,
look at this.' What this picture showed was a series of lozenge-shaped white
spots. The exposure was long enough so that when something went across, it
would show it as a streak.
"The white spots were, as I recall, maybe a half inch or so long, and about
half as wide as they were long, maybe a little longer...on an 8.5" by 10" piece
of film," continues Earley, "A series of lozenges running along, let's say, the
bottom right corner parallel to the bottom. Then the line bends 45° and goes up
to the top of the page, and bends again, and you've got a series of lozenges go-
ing to the upper left corner. Dr. Page said this was a plate right out of one of
the Schmidts. He wouldn't let me have it. I didn't ask him then to turn it over
to see if there was any date on the back so I could write to the Smithsonian and
ask for a print. I remember querying him about this some years later and him
saying, 'it would be impossible to find that,' because there were literally thou-
sands of photographs taken. The tricky thing was at the point where the line
went from horizontal to a 45° climb and then changed back to parallel again.
At those two points, the lozenge bent. It's frustrated me ever since. It may have
been some sort of a funny little glitch in the machine. Maybe somebody five
years later figured out what caused it, but still, you want to know." 52
It is doubtful that Page ever showed this particular photograph to James
McDonald; no mention of it has been found in his files. Also not mentioned
was the fact that Jacques Vallee had shown McDonald a photo by Grumman
of an unidentified satellite, similar to one which Vallee had tracked optically
at the Paris Observatory in 1961.
On the May 21, 1966, television program, "CBS Presents, UFOs: Friend,
Foe or Fantasy," Capt. Gary Reese of NORAD stated that the space-tracking net-
work at Colorado Springs covered 100,000' to 2,000 miles, but that "no UFO had
ever been seen." The USAF radar at the site was capable of detecting a water-
melon-size object at 200-400 miles.
McDonald early on discussed the question of tracking systems with his
friend, Prof. Charlie Moore, in Socorro, N.M. Moore told him that the govern-

52. Author's interview with George Earley, 31 April 1994.

W H A T ' S O U T THERE? 353

ment had radar with 200-mile range and a network of Baker-Nunn cameras
with the capacity for wide-angle search photos and that the Baker-Nunns did
show many unidentified object tracks. Moore also felt that one ought to get ra-
dar data from USAF and USN high-power long-range sets. He'd seen the
"lapse time" of a certain English radar system which could see birds at 200
miles. Then he added, "They must see all kinds of stuff in there." He also con-
firmed that NASA had Spacewatch radars positioned in the Southern part of
the U.S. with the capacity to track orbiting satellites. In this journal entry re-
garding Moore's input, McDonald also mentioned that NICAP had some data
on Baker-Nunn tracks.53
McDonald therefore had plentiful reason to believe that official monitor-
ing systems did pick up unidentified objects. For more than one reason, how-
ever, he felt that a tracking network set up to detect UFOs should not be in the
hands of the Air Force alone. Gen. Cruikshank, who was head of the FTD,
where Blue Book was headquartered, had stated that he felt the best place in
government to study UFO reports was "right here in FTD," emphasizing Air
Force capabilities for detection of objects in the sky.
"Other military services besides the Air Force might be interested in
UFOs," McDonald had responded. He also pointed out that the UFO problem
was worldwide, that national boundaries did not worry UFOs, and that tracking
systems should not be concerned about national boundaries, either. He told
Cruikshank that U Thant, who at the time was the Secretary-General of the Unit-
ed Nations, was actively interested in the question. He also mentioned a col-
league who had told him that the chief Russian scientist in UNESCO was
actively studying Russian reports.54
McDonald had had a superb opportunity to gather other data about track-
ing systems when he participated in the July 1968 Congressional hearing. Dr.
Robert M.L. Baker had introduced the subject, detailing existing instrumenta-
tion in the U.S. that was deliberately designed to screen out all except particu-
lar targets which were being watched for, such as incoming Soviet bombers
and missiles. The built-in selectivity made it quite unlikely that anomalous
phenomena would be detected. Nevertheless, some had been detected but, to
Dr. Baker's knowledge, had never been adequately studied. He stated that op-
tical tracking equipment, too, was specialized in purpose. He gave the example
of minor planets (asteroids), which had been detected on old astronomical
plates that had been photographed for other purposes, and then set aside. He
suggested that instrumental equipment to detect UFOs be put in place, and that

53. McDonald, op. cit., p. 3.

54. Ibid., p. 12.
 354 FIRESTORM

study of older data involving visual observations be phased out. It was then that
Baker exploded this bombshell:
There is only one surveillance system, known to me, that exhibits suffi-
cient and continuous coverage to have even a slight opportunity of be-
traying the presence of anomalistic phenomena operating above the
re^r 1s Earth's atmosphere. This system is partially classified and, hence, I can-
To CBS not go into great detail at an unclassified meeting.... Since this particu-
'fnero fee*, lar sensor system has been in operation, there have been a number of
anomalistic alarms. Alarms that, of this date, have not been explained.55
o' - In the 1/6/67 Electronic News, Hynek had stated at a NASA Goddard Space
Flight Center seminar that the U.S. had a superb tracking system to detect and
study UFOs—i.e., the extensive Early Warning military radar networks. He stat-
ed that on several occasions these networks had tracked UFOs, and that the IGY
+TC<i' world optical network had photographed UFOs which could not be explained.
Yet at the Congressional hearing Hynek said nothing about this. There was gen-
* eral agreement that the U.S.'s ICBM-tracking system rejected all objects above
90,000 ft., except those on a ballistic trajectory from the direction of the Soviet
p Union. All "uninteresting" trajectory objects were "thrown away."

"But since all these 'uninteresting' objects are thrown away," stated Dr.
u>< Carl Sagan on that occasion, "we have no way of knowing at the present time
ho^ . whether there are or not large numbers of interesting objects at altitudes above
90,000 feet." He might have been thinking of reports of immense UFOs—
sometimes described by credible witnesses as being a half-mile or more in
length—which seemed at times to "orbit" the Earth and occasionally to release
smaller objects which were assumed to be typical surveillance-type UFOs.
Dan Boone, the CSA technical consultant, participated in this vigorous CSA
Congressional hearing discussion, clarifying which different tracking systems
were monitoring at different altitudes. Some were pertinent to national de-
fense, others served air-travel needs, but most were throwing away or ignoring
"uninteresting" objects, which might well be genuine UFOs! His most mean-
ingful statement, at least to McDonald, was the revelation that software to de-
tect UFOs at different altitudes could be added to the present systems, with
some difficulty, but there was no question that it could be done.56
McDonald had listened quietly. He knew that a laser-radar built by Stan-
ford Research Institute in California had detected "invisible clouds" just before
they formed visibly and also after they had dissipated. In a written communi-

55. Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects: Committee on Science and Astronautics (U.S.
House) 29 July 1968, Washington, D.C., USGPO, PB179541,1968, p. 131.
56. Ibid., p. 191.
WHAT'S OUT THERE? 355

cation, Jim Hughes had discussed sonar observations by the Italian navy of ap-
parently unidentified undersea objects. These observations had later been
explained as returns off underwater peaks, returns that had been mistaken for
"moving objects" by the sonar operators.57 When asked by Rep. Roush if he
had a comment, McDonald cut through to the heart of the matter:
f In almost every monitoring system you set up, whether for defense or
scientific purposes, if you don't want to be snowed with data, you in-
tentionally build selectivity in.... You do not see what you are not look-
ingfor. Consequently ...thefact that they don 7 repeatedly turn up what
appear to be similar to UFOs, whatever we define that to be, is not
quite as conclusive as it might seem.58
It is not known what efforts McDonald made to follow up on Dr. Baker's
intriguing comment that unidentified targets were already being tracked by an
ADC surveillance system in Boulder, Colo. Perhaps when his missing note-
books are found, they will contain entries that will throw light on this enchant-
ing information.
Several years after McDonald's death, Dr. Robert M. Wood was able to
confirm that UFOs were being detected by satellite technology. From about 1978
to 1982, Wood worked on what he describes as a routine McDonnell-Douglas
program. He'd had secret clearances to an Air Force facility, whose classified li-
brary contained documents from the Navy, the CIA and, in Wood's words, "ev-
erybody else." In the course of his work there, Wood met a person who had veiy
high security clearances. He had read Wood's 1967 paper, "The Giant Discover-
ies Of Future Science," in which Wood discussed the subject of UFOs.
"We became good friends," relates Wood. "Every time I was there I'd pop
in to see him. And we started talking about UFOs—he seemed to be interested
in that. He'd read in the paper that there was a report of a UFO in the Philip-
pines, really bright. I asked, 'Do you suppose our overhead satellites would
pick up something like that?' My contact replied, 'I don't know, but I know
just the guy to call.' He picks up the phone— a secure phone, and asked, 'What
have you got about such and such a date, in the Philippines?'"
About a week later, Wood received a communication from his contact, that
our satellites did detect the bright light at that place, just at the time the newspa-
per said the natives reported the UFO.59 Wood stressed that his contact had got-
ten the information from classified files. He could not reveal the location or name

57. Letter from James Hughes to McDonald, 25 May 1966.

58. Symposium, op. cit., p. 192.
59. Interview with Dr. Robert M. Wood, 23 August 1993.
 356 FIRESTORM

of the library, only that he himself was permitted to use it because he was en-
gaged in classified work at the time.
"The classification levels would be, typically, Secret, Top Secret, or Top
Secret Code Word," Wood relates. "Actually since then, they have changed the
rules, again and again. It used to be that contractors could go to study [in] these
libraries as a contractor and look through the files.... If you found the document
you wanted, you could check it out and read it at your own pace. Whenever I
had occasion to go to the library.. .1 pawed through the other stuff to see if there
1 ho* a was any on UFOs. There were entries there the first few times I checked. And
roJlj i t j i e n a b o u t J 980 all of a sudden they vanished. All entries in the entire category
cpMaW were expunged from all the Secret files."
The existence of libraries like this was apparently not known to McDonald,
JWt if they existed at all during his lifetime. In his work for ONR and NAS, as well
as for IAP at the University of Arizona, he apparently did not require Top Secret
clearance. The ONR contract, at least, which was discontinued after his Austra-
of 1C lian trip, required no use of classified materials.
"He would have required the 'need to know'," states Jacques Vallee.
"Remember that Hynek had asked and had been told he didn't have 'need to
know u tf l» ,n rrftrtn^e •+» -tVe co^-w^. H
Woi /w 0.
In August 1968, right after the Congressional hearing, McDonald dis-
cussed the matter of a UFO tracking network with Dr. Robert Nathan, who had
been helpful in analyzing the Heflin photos (see Chapter 12). Nathan knew that
f„r * Gen. Bruce Holloway, who was second in command in the USAF and head of
the SAC, was Sympathetic to the idea of tracking UFOs* Nathan had an ap-
>, pointment to see Holloway in a few days, but he couldn't decide if he should
Ttf^T^ c o m e o u t publicly regarding his own UFO work.61 McDonald urged him to
talk to Holloway about how SAC could participate in a scientific UFO tracking
system and also urged Nathan to come out publicly. He pointed out how im-
portant it was that well-regarded scientists, who understood the importance of
the UFO question, should speak out.
There is no mention in McDonald's journal about what Nathan told Hol-
loway, if anything. A few months after the Congressional hearing, both Dr.
Robert Nathan and Dr. Robert M.L. Baker rather abruptly turned skeptical on
the subject of UFOs. They had both worked avidly in the field, contributing
time and expertise, but now both of them withdrew to a large extent.62 It is one
m«fbt
pOS+VOl^ Or '
-to l*cU s* data?
60. Author's communication with Dr. Jacques Vallee.
61. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 21.
62. Author's personal knowledge.
WHAT'S OUT THERE? 357

of the mysteries of the "McDonald years." He was aware of similar withdrawal

by other scientists, but this did not affect his own pursuit of the data. During a
three-day trip, he spoke on UFOs at a Du Pont banquet meeting in Philadelphia
and, the next day, at a meeting of the AMS in Washington, D.C., and came
across a startling example of the worldwide nature of the UFO problem.
Following the banquet talk, McDonald went to a gathering in colleague
Ken Spangler's hotel suite. A German emigre scientist who was working at a
U.S. Army Research lab was also present, and described a 1945 sighting event,
witnessed by 20 German scientists who were fleeing from Russian soldiers.
They were on a ship harbored in a North Germany bay near Schlesweig Hol-
stein. They had viewed, in broad daylight, a bright object high in the sky. Dur-
ing the 20-minute sighting, the object, which was "larger than Venus," moved
30° to the east. Binoculars were handed around in an attempt to identify it.
"There was no explanation from any of the highly trained scientists and tech-
nicians," McDonald wrote.63 It was not a balloon or a plane, and was never re-
ported officially by any of the scientists.

McDonald was intrigued by this early sighting, because it occurred close

to the end of World War II, about two years before Kenneth Arnold's first
public UFO report on June 24, 1947. The name of the German scientist
whom McDonald interviewed that evening was not noted. The case, howev-
er, correlates with a 1945 event witnessed by this author in Long Beach, Cal-
ifornia, in the early summer of 1945. It also occurred in broad daylight, two
or three weeks before atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Na-
gasaki and around the time the first experimental nuclear weapon was ex-
ploded in the New Mexico desert. The Long Beach object was also viewed
by the author's mother, Aileen McElroy. It was seen at about 60° elevation
for over an hour. The object's great height, slow angular movement, size and
brightness match the German scientists' sighting, the only difference being
that the object seen by the emigres was moving east, whereas the object, as
seen from Long Beach, Calif., was moving slowly west. 64 McDonald never
shared the 1945 German emigre case with his UFO colleagues in Los Ange-
les. As a consequence, he was never aware of the California sighting that
might have correlated with it.
In February 1969, McDonald met in Denver with David Saunders and other
former members of the Condon staff. Herb Roth, who was helping McDonald
obtain data on some of Condon's cases, told him that the NORAD workers tend-

63. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 36.

64. Druffel, Ann, "An Early Sighting at the Beginning of the Atomic Age," UFO Magazine,
Vol. 17, N o . 4, August/September 2002, pp. 68-71.
 358 FIRESTORM

ed to be quite interested in UFOs, because of the relatively large number of"un-

correlated targets" which were programmed out or else ignored entirely. Dave
Saunders confirmed that during an early Condon staff briefing session at Colo-
rado Springs, they were given the impression that "non-satellites and non-mis-
siles get filtered out."65 McDonald came to the conclusion that a sophisticated
'tracking system for UFOs was well within the capability of the U.S. government
and scientific facilities. "Mac was hoping to get through to an NAS committee
on the idea of setting up an international UFO observation and data-collection
agency...similar to the International Weather Bureau, because he was familiar
with that," Betsy McDonald relatesP'What was needed to solve the question
would be an international observation and data-collection agency."
OoU orf o J
A remarkable example of how multinational cooperation could accumu-
late immediate data on a UFO's presence had occurred on September 8, 1970.
It is unlikely that McDonald ever knew of it, for a full account was not printed
until October 1992.66 Saxa Vord, an isolated radar station off the coast of Great
Britain, picked up the blip of an unidentified "aircraft" midway between the
m. t. Shetland Islands and Alesund in Norway at 8:17 P.M. It was monitored for sev-
A-tiv. eral minutes proceeding southwesterly at a speed of 630 m.p.h., at 37,000' al-
titude. Then, veering 30°, it headed due south, increased speed to 900 m.p.h.
w
b' and climbed to 44,000'.
TVnv,
The radar controllers at Saxa Vord alerted the nearest NATO airfield,
RAD Leuchars on the east coast of Scotland. Two Lightning interceptors were
scrambled and vectored toward the bogie. It was assumed this was a routine
scramble, for Russia often sent out reconnaissance aircraft to test the nerves of
the RAF. However, the blip abruptly turned 180° on a due north bearing and
within seconds disappeared off the screens, at a speed calculated around
D
17,000 m.p.h. It was now plain that this was not a Russian aircraft! During the
aw next hour, the mystery blip reappeared several times, each time out of the
vk north. The British interceptors attempted to intercept it each time, but each
, <L
time it went back to the north and disappeared.
Two F-4 Phantom jets of the USAF were scrambled from the American
1 ^„ base at Keflavic, Iceland. Their radar was more sophisticated than the British
f

ck 65. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 35.

66. Otter, Pat, "Captain Schafer's Last Flight: The Tantalizing Story Behind the 'Ditching' o f
Lightning Foxtrot 94 in September 1970," Flying Saucer Review (FSR), Vol. 39, No. 1,
Spring 1994, London, England. Otter was Assistant Editor o f the Grimsby Evening Tele-
graph, in which the account first appeared. FSR's article was republished with Otter's per-
mission. In his introductory note, FSR Editor Gordon Creighton likens the Schafer case to
the Australian case o f Frederick Valentich a young pilot who disappeared, with his plane,
over Bass Strait, Victoria, in October 1978.
W H A T ' S O U T THERE? 359

jets; they picked up the mystery aircraft on their airborne sets. Each time they
approached the object, it disappeared as before. By now, the situation was be-
ing monitored by the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) at
Flingdales Moor, near Whitby, and by a second BMEWS in Greenland. They
relayed their information to NORAD at Cheyenne Mountain and to the Detec-
tion and Tracking Center at Colorado Springs. The UFO reappeared on ground
and airborne radar at 9:39 P.M. traveling 1,300 m.p.h. southwesterly heading at
18,000' altitude. Four British Lightning jets were scrambled, and the RAF at
Fylingdales, which was in constant contact with NORAD at Cheyenne Moun-
tain, heard SAC Headquarters at Omaha, Neb., order its B-52 bombers into the
air, an order which could only have come from the highest level—President
Nixon at the White House.
Then Pentagon officials told NORAD that a USAF pilot of "great experi-
ence" was on an exchange visit with the RAF and was stationed at Binbrook in
North Lincolnshire. This was Capt. William Schafer, who had seen combat in
Vietnam. He'd been in Binbrook for some time as an exchange pilot. He was,
by coincidence, "flight available" and was ordered to join the four Lightnings.
Two other Phantom jets and three refueling tankers were also airborne and
were joined by a Shackleton MK3 from Kinross, which was ordered to patrol
along the East Coast of the United States.
Binbrook was a front-line fighter station and its aircraft shared Quick Reac-
tion Alert (QRA) duty with other East Coast airfields. Normally, QRA aircraft
took off in pairs. On this occasion only Capt. Schafer's jet took off, and it was
not one of the QRAs. He raced out and climbed into a Lightning jet which was
being refuelled. Its call-sign was Foxtrot-94. He ignored the standard pre-flight
checks, waved away ground crews, ordered the refuelling lines disengaged and
immediately took off, using re-heat to gain speed and height as quickly as possi-
ble. The Lightning turned out over the North Sea and Capt. Schafer disappeared
forever, in one of the great aviation puzzles of recent times.
Early the next morning, September 9, 1970, Foxtrot-94 ditched in the sea
off Flamborough Head, witnessed by the crew of a Shackleton reconnaissance
aircraft, and flares were spotted by the trawler Ross Kestrel. It took search
crews more than a month to find the wreckage on the sea bed. The cockpit was
empty, the canopy closed, the ejection seat in place. No trace of Schafer was
ever found. The aircraft was taken to RAF Binbrook, and kept under wraps in
the corner of a hangar. The ditching of the aircraft and the fact that the pilot's
body was not recovered was reported in the British press. Pat Otter, Assistant
Editor of the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, who contributed this account to
FSR, was alerted by Barry Halpenny, an aviation writer, to the fact that "there
was more to the story than met the eye."
360 FIRESTORM

Otter "birddogged" the case for six years, seeking additional clues to Capt.
Schafer's mysterious disappearance. The Ministry of Defense, the U.S. Em-
bassy, and the USAF base at Alconbury all proved dead ends. Even Bob Bry-
ant, Northcliffe Newspaper's aviation correspondent who had close links with
the RAF and the USAF, met dead ends. Bryant became convinced there was
an official blanket of secrecy surrounding the crash of Schafer's jet in the
North Sea.*7
News of the astounding UFO chase, caught on multiple airborne and
ground radar sets never reached McDonald from across the Atlantic. It was the
kind of case he would have birddogged with every resource at his command.

61. Ibid.
 CHAPTER 14

Secrets Upon Secrets

Here's to health for one and all, to the big and to the small
To the rich and poor alike, andfoe andfriend.
And when we return again, may our foes have turned to friends.
—from "The Rambling Rover"

There are two levers for moving men: Interest and fear.
—Napoleon Bonaparte

A the spring of 1969 drew near, McDonald continued sorting

A * W out the cover-up controversy in his mind. His NICAP friends
and other colleagues debated the problem with him. Key-
hoe's contention, since the early 1950s, was that there was ample evidence
that a "secrecy group" in the Air Force was covering up UFO information.
The Robertson Panel, its CIA sponsorship, the "debunking" curtain it had
thrown over the entire subject, the inability of pilots and military personnel
to speak out openly—all this and more convinced the UFO community
that an official cover-up was in place. McDonald still was not convinced.
"We all along debated the cover-up vs. foul-up thing," says Dick Hall,
who shared, in part, McDonald's skepticism regarding a widespread "con-
spiracy." "He did acknowledge that some of the things we came up with
shook his faith a little bit."1
At times, McDonald conceded that particular situations into which
r \r~ he'd fumbled didn't really fit his foul-up theory, but were more like a cov-
er-uprHe'd found cases where the documentation had vanished, such as
' , kb the B-36 case which Rudy Pestalozzi had described to him (see Chapter
3). On each of his visits to Project Blue Book, McDonald tried to locate
^ that particular report in the Air Force files, and each time came up empty.
Several other B-36 sightings were in Blue Book, but none fit the facts as
U
?v c

^V
Jv' 1. Author's interview with Dick Hall, 7 May 1994.
cs>3-

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

 362 FIRESTORM

Pestalozzi described them. Also, there were instances of confiscated film, such
as the Drury photo case in Australia (see Chapter 8) and the Newhouse movie
film (see Chapter 8), from which the best frames had been plucked.
^ ' ^ "[Instances like these] gave him a little bit of a problem," relates Dick Hall.
^ ^v "But then he always went back to the fact, 'Well, you know, it's too mind-bog-
gling'.... And looking into daily Blue Book operations, there's ample evidence
of a foul-up.... But we debated, 'It's a little-of-both kind of thing.' But he never
came around to accepting the cover-up theory." "7V~ -fa
COv er-uf
' ^ McDonald had been impressed by Thornton Page's description of the gen-
eral disinterest the Robertson Panel scientists had in the UFO subject. From his
acquaintance with the full Robertson Report, which Major Quintanilla had mis-
takenly lent him, he knew that the Panel had recommended that UFOs be offi-
cially "debunked," out of fear that a potential enemy, such as the Soviet Union,
might fake a widespread "flap" of fraudulent reports, thereby clogging U.S. mil-
itary communication channels. Such action could render our nation incapable of
defense if an enemy wished to launch a "first strike." McDonald conceded that
such a fear was logical in the 1950s. By the late 1960s, however, the military had
acccess to more sophisticated communication channels that could not be clogged
even if the Soviets hoaxed a widespread "flap." McDonald reasoned that the
"ridicule lid" had become self-perpetuating, adding to the "foul-up" surrounding
the government's neglect of the UFO question.
His friend Dr. A. Richard Kassander, Director of the IAP, states: "He did
feel that he was not getting the straight stuff from the Air Force, and... the as-
sumption might reasonably be made there were things that, by a matter of pol-
icy, the AF did not wish discussed."2 But even when McDonald ran into
information blocks, they didn't necessarily translate into "deliberate cover-
up." The information he'd gathered about the satellite, radar, and optical track-
ing systems which the U.S. had in place around the nation and in other parts of
the world contributed to his belief in a "grand foul-up," since he reasoned that
the government had the ability to track UFOs but was not bothering to do so.
In 1966, he had felt that perhaps the main basis for Air Force security was
C ^ k * "cover-up for bungles and errors of radar and pilot errors, etc., so that one
wouldn't get far by starting in USAF radar records."3 By January 1968, how-
ever, his view was changing. At his talk at United Aircraft Corporation, to an
overflow crowd, he stated:

2. Author's interview with Dr. Richard Kassander, 19 November 1993.

3. McDonald, James E., second journal, p. 3.
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 363

The UFO problem has been so badly mishandled, for so many years, by
Project Blue Book that it is almost easier to imagine this part of a grand
design of some high-level intelligence agency than to accept the conclu-
sion that any program could possibly be handled so ineptly. I have to
concede a point to those who criticize my position when they stress, "It's
hard to imagine that they could be that incompetent...." For the
record...I have never been dogmatic about insisting the 'grandfoul-up
theory,' and I have never scoffed at those knowledgeable students of the
UFO problem who defend the only seemingly sensible alternative,
"grand conspiracy. " The existence of repeated small [localized] UFO
cover-ups so confuses the issue that one cannot be certain.4
By September 1968 McDonald had come face-to-face with a puzzling sit-
uation which promised possible proof of "Air Force cover-up." It was so in-
triguing to him that he pursued it for many months. Dr. Benjamin M. Herman,
whom McDonald had guided through doctoral studies, first learned of it from
Donald Dewey, editor and publisher of a small magazine called the R/C Re-
modeler in Sierra Madre, Calif. Sometime between 1956 and 1957 Dewey,
who at that time was employed as a Prudential & Northwestern Mutual Life
agent, became acquainted with an Air Force officer who lived in a residential
area of Altadena, Calif.
The officer was about 45 years old at the time and was either a brigadier
general or a colonel. Dewey got to know him pretty well, visiting him at home
several times in the process of selling him insurance. He claimed the officer,
who was always dressed in an Air Force uniform, told him that, for many years,
he had been "in charge of UFOs" for the Air Force but now "worked out of his
home and traveled a great deal." He showed Dewey four or five dozen UFO
photos taken in Australia, Japan, Russia and the U.S. He told Dewey that the
UFO photo research was the most extensive investigation the Air Force had
ever undertaken, in which they secured the collaboration of foreign nations,
"including Russian scientists who were not involved with Soviet intelligence."
The Air Force, according to the officer, considered UFOs to be extraterrestrial
in nature. "We know UFOs are for real," Dewey quoted him as saying, "But
how do you tell the public?"5
The photos Dewey was shown were "not top secret," Dewey's source
claimed, but they shouldn't be discussed generally "because there were too
many quacks and the public would panic." The officer kept other photos in a

4. McDonald, "Science, Technology, and UFOs," Presented January 26, 1968, at a General
Seminar of the United Aircraft Research Laboratories, East Hartford, Conn.
5. McDonald, "Cover-up vs. Foul-up" file, handwritten notes. In McDonald's Personal Col-
lection, University of Arizona Library, Tucson.
364 FIRESTORM

locked safe and did not show them to Dewey; the implication being that these
were classified. McDonald and Herman realized that some aspects of Dewey's
story seemed dubious, principally: Would an Air Force man still on active duty
work out of his home and invariably wear an Air Force uniform? Would a colo-
nel or brigadier general be buying life insurance? Wasn't that all taken care of
by the military services?
McDonald set about trying to confirm the story. Dewey couldn't recall the
officer's name, but remembered that he was Scottish and had a five-foot Scot-
tish crest in his home. McDonald flooded Herman with questions to ask Dew-
ey, including, "Is there any possibility the guy is a nut?" 6 As far as Herman
could determine, Dewey was independent of the Air Force. He was married
with one child. Herman had met him the previous summer, with brief corre-
spondence before that. McDonald and Herman eventually assessed Dewey as
"generally reliable" and continued researching the case. If the USAF officer
who allegedly had official photos of UFOs could be tracked down, and his
stock of photos confirmed, this might yield valuable information concerning
the reality of UFOs. It might also confirm an Air Force "cover-up."
Dewey, at McDonald's suggestion, tried to find out where in Altadena the
Air Force officer had lived and found a house on Meadowbrook Road which
he felt fairly sure was the right one.
McDonald confided the basic facts of the case to Jim Hughes and asked
him to tap his contacts, to try to track the officer down. He also sent Dewey
another list of questions, including a list of Irish and Scottish names thought to
be possibly involved in UFO research, which might jolt his memory. Dewey
answered in detail. He'd been shown four or five dozen photos, all taken from
the air. Some were taken from specially equipped Air Force aircraft; none were
gun-camera photos. Some taken by airline pilots were less impressive. Some
of the objects showed distinct features, including domes, and appeared to be
flying vehicles.
In September, 1968, Betsy McDonald went to Los Angeles to engage in civ-
il rights activities and visit their son Kirk, who was working on his doctorate at
Caltech. McDonald wrote to her, outlining the Dewey case and asking her to re-
search some of Dewey's statements on-site, since Altadena was close to where
she was staying. His letter read in part:
I've thought, of course, of the ever-present possibility of intentional
misleads; but it seems to make no sense at all here.... Ben can't imag-
ine [Dewey] fabricating this.

6. Ibid, p. 1.
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 365

McDonald's letter ended on a personal note:

I hope you get some rest, Sweetie, which you sure need after "the long hard
summer " of Pfeace] & Ffreedoming], See you next week Love, Mac.7
Betsy consulted the Pasadena-Altadena Street Directory, and learned that
the house address Dewey had located was not the residence being sought; one
family had owned and lived in it for 20 years. Dewey searched again, making
a list of all conceivable addresses on Meadowbrook Road. Betsy checked these
out and solved the problem. An Air Force colonel, Robert Crawford, had lived
just next door to the house Dewey had first pegged.8 The next door neighbors
remembered that the former occupant, who'd lived in the house in 1956 and
1957, "had been involved with the space program." They referred Betsy to a
family named Posey, who were under the impression Crawford was now in
Thailand and retired from the military.
When Dewey was asked if he was willing to contact the life insurance
company he'd worked for to get more information on Crawford, he was reluc-
tant because "the company is careful on that." At this point McDonald wrote
to Don Keyhoe at NICAP, telling him about the case which seemed to have a
bearing on the cover-up hypothesis.
I find it very hard to understand an officer, actively connected with a
secret UFO investigation, disclosing to a young insurance salesman
not only several dozen impressive photos but also information on co-
operation with foreign air intelligence programs.... Dewey may be
somewhat confused in his recollections....
To me it is much more reasonable to think that Crawford had some past
UFO connections, managed to compile a personal library of pho-
tos ...would regard such photos as of diminished intelligence value, and
might, in a confidential way, disclose those to someone like Dewey.9
Keyhoe checked but was unable to find out anything about Col. Crawford.
McDonald then referred the matter to Drew Pearson's aide, Jack Anderson, who
agreed to try to locate the traveling colonel. McDonald then wrote another letter
to Betsy, which reveals how much the cover-up vs. foul-up controversy con-
cerned him:

7. Letter from McDonald to Betsy McDonald, 2 September 1968.

8. The exact address o f Col. Robert Crawford in Altadena, Calif., is not given, to spare the
present occupants inconvenience and/or annoyance. However, anyone with precise informa-
tion who can help me solve this puzzling case is urged to contact me c/o the publishers.
9. Letter from McDonald to Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe, September 4, 1968.
366 FIRESTORM

If there's accuracy in what [Dewey 'sj told us, i f , as late as 1957 or so,
USAF really was still engaged in an extensive UFO investigation be-
hind the scenes, and was enjoying the cooperation of foreign air intel-
ligence groups ...then maybe Don Keyhoe's long-standing insistence
on grand cover-up is correct....10
In this letter, he continued to muse:
NICAP has information on a number of other instances in which large
files of UFO photos were reportedly shown to important witnesses to
find what shape they'd seen. One... involved a Navy Constellation in
1956. The crew...was shown an album of photos to pick out similari-
ties to what they'd seen.... So many other items from Keyhoe have
proved reliable and well founded that I can't write it off as meaning-
less despite it being only hearsay for me.11
To our present knowledge, McDonald never tracked down the elusive colo-
nel. His inquiries to Jim Hughes, Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson yielded no
feedback.1 He tended to regard the inability to track down Crawford as evidence
which strengthened the "foul-up" hypothesis rather than the "grand conspiracy,"
but his mind remained open.
NICAP's Dick Hall, who tended to be on the fence regarding the cover-up
vs. foul-up controversy, was leaning more toward the grand conspiracy hypoth-
esis at about the time McDonald was pursuing the Dewey-Crawford case.
NICAP had procured from the Air Force a large number of 1951-1953 Project
Grudge and Project Blue Book Reports which had recently been declassified.
The reports were formerly Top Secret or Confidential, and some described star-
tling UFO events which had remained "unidentified" for 15 years or more.
NICAP published these reports in a large soft-cover book. This NICAP publica-
tion revealed many important snippets of information, including the fact that dif-
fraction-grating cameras had been used by the government in an effort to obtain
spectrographic data which could reveal the chemical elements of which UFOs
were composed. However, the Grudge-Blue Book data emphasized that this par-
ticular aspect was not being handled directly by Blue Book and that the exact sta-
tus of the diffraction-grating research "was unavailable at the time of this
report."13 McDonald, in studying this 235-page NICAP document, still rational-

10. Letter from McDonald to his wife Betsy, dated 4 September 1968, p. 2.
11. Ibid.
12. In 1994-95, combined research on this case by William L. Moore and myself revealed that
Crawford has dropped out o f sight, and is possibly dead.
13. United States Air Force Projects Grudge and Blue Book Reports 1-12, Washington, D.C.,
published by NICAP, 1968.
SECRETS U P O N SECRETS 367

ized that the information within was part of an incredible "foul-up": although he
continued to qualify this judgment with the statement, "One can't ever be sure
here."
A 1950 telegram to a Virginia FBI office, released under the Freedom of
Information Act, indicates the extreme seriousness with which certain units of
the U.S. government treated UFOs:
FBI, RICHMOND 12-03-50
DIRECTOR: URGENT
RE. FLYING SAUCERS. THIS OFFICE VERY CONFIDENTIALLY
ADVISED BY ARMY INTELLIGENCE, RICHMOND, THAT THEY
HA VE BEEN PUT ON IMMEDIA TE HIGH ALERT FOR ANY DA TA (
WHATSOEVER CONCERNING FLYING SAUCERS. CIC HERE - $
STATES BACKGROUND OF INSTRUCTIONS NOT AVAILABLE Co,
FROM AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE, WHO ARE NOT A WARE OF
REASON FOR ALERT LOCALLY, BUT ANY INFORMATION
WHATSOEVER MUST BE TELEPHONED TO THEM IMMEDIATE-
LY TO AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE. CIC AD VISES DA TA STRICT-
LY CONFIDENTIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE DISSEMINATED.
(S) AUERBACH.
The acronym "CIC" in the telegram stood for "Counter Intelligence Corps."
The wording of the telegram is rather obscure, but reading between the lines it
might be assumed that the CIC was privy to the fact that the UFOs were being
clandestinely studied, that the FBI was being let in at least partially on the secret,
but that Air Force Intelligence was not aware of this in 1950! McDonald knew
nothing of the existence of this document, however, for it was not declassified
until mid-1970. Completely unaware of such official, furtive government inter-
est in the UFO problem, McDonald continued on his crowded schedule. In a typ-
ical two-week period, between May 22 and June 10, 1969, he was featured
speaker at the Tulsa AIAA, the Kansas City AIAA, the Los Angeles AIAA and
at an Edison Conference in St. Paul, all talks being on UFOs. Then he went on
to Washington, to attend the Science Advisory Panel of the NSF.
He spent five days in Washington, taking care of various professional re-
sponsibilities. In his "spare time" he gave a NICAP-sponsored talk, titled
"UFO's—Unsolved: A Challenge to Science," before an enthusiastic crowd of
250 at Hotel Presidential Arms. 14 Phil Klass was there, taping it from the au-
dience and McDonald noted in his journal that "Klass offered a similar dona-

14. McDonald used the acronym "UFO's," with an apostrophe as indicated. Various researchers
in the field prefer "UFOs."
368 FIRESTORM

tion lecture!"15 One purpose for this talk was to raise funds for NICAP, since
the research organization was in financial straits. Memberships were dropping,
due partially to the fact that the Condon Report had helped cut off public inter-
est. His main topics, as in all his 1969 talks, revolved around the inadequacy
of the Condon Report and results of his investigations into the excellent cases
hidden within the ponderous text and the continuing cover-up controversy.
During an official meeting at the NSF, on June 9-10, 1969, he learned of
an organization called Interdisciplinary Research on Problems of American
Society (IRPOS). He reasoned that the UFO question might be an apt subject
to approach the NSF for funding, under the umbrella of the IRPOS. The NSF
colleague to whom he spoke told him that the NSF could not support mere pub-
lication of what McDonald had already done in the field but set up a meeting
with Dr. Joel Snow, NSF's acting chairman. Snow told McDonald there were
no NSF funds available until about autumn but that a proposal would be wel-
comed. NSF colleague Fred White also suggested that he "would be glad to
look over a draft proposal if I wanted to try him." 16
At NSF, McDonald was questioned at some length on certain UFO cases by
Dr. Wayne Gruner, head of NSF Physics. McDonald mentions "Basthen" and
"Van de Graef," etc., as being the situations in which Gruner was most interest-
ed. ' 7 He also noted in his journal, "Saw Herwig,"^but gave no details about his
meeting with this prominent scientistWho had expressed much interest in UFOs
to NICAP officials, but who had abruptly withdrawn his interest after the Con-
don Report was issued.18
When McDonald arrived home from this marathon trip, many letters were
waiting on his desk, among which was an interesting addition to his growing
data on possible UFO tracking systems. The letter was from Richard Striner of
Washington, D.C., who'd heard his NICAP talk and who wrote to disagree re-
garding his dismissal of the "conspiracy" thesis. Striner's letter specified:
I maintain that someone in the intelligence community must be aware
of the problem.... [SJatellite reconnaissance-filtering, such as...the
BMEWS system, would not eliminate UFO data. The ISamos" sys- |S:
tern...providesfilms which are highly scrutinizedfor details as well as / r° ^
patterns: Imagine viewing a 500 ft. diameter disc from overhead on
bock
QXt.HV*
15. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 43. \
16 .Ibid.
17. Ibid. Due to difficulty in reading some o f McDonald's handwriting, "Basthen" might not be
the correct spelling. It would be of interest to know in which cases the NSF official was so
interested!
18. Author's interview with Richard H. Hall, 7 May 1994.
 SECRETS UPON SECRETS 369

film that can be enlarged to reveal well-defined objects down to 20

ft!.... [T]he whole globe is watched; even if the free world is ignored
by film analysts, the whole Asian land mass must provide the men in
Sunnyvale with a constant sampling of UFO maneuvers....19
McDonald's involvement in UFO research was growing ever more com-
plicated. This in itself did not trouble him, for he was used to tackling convo-
luted scientific problems and coming up with answers. In the case of his UFO
research, however, many of the ideas he pursued at first seemed to hold out
promise and interest from influential officials, but then the promises and the
interest would be abruptly snatched away. He came to the conclusion that con-
tacts with scientific, military, and government officials, his talks before scien-
tific groups, and the few articles on the UFO subject which he'd had published
in refereed journals, were not enough.
McDonald decided to write a book which would tell the history of scientific
UFO research and present the best evidence—documented physical aspects such
as radar-visual cases, power outages, car ignition failures and other EM interfer-
ence resulting from UFO passage. He was confident that such a book would be
well received in the scientific community because of his good reputation and his
many contributions to atmospheric sciences. He prepared an alphabetized out-
line of numerous aspects of the UFO problem and placed it in the front of a three-
ringed notebook. In the body of the notebook—its pages divided with tabbed
sections—he wrote preliminary notes on these aspects. The numerous subjects
he wished to cover included: Animal Reactions to UFOs, Ball Lightning, Cloud-
Related UFOs> cover-up vs. foul-up, etc. The complete list of aspects he planned
- cn to include are in Appendix Item 14-A, page 568.
A few brief notations in his fourth journal demonstrate how deeply the
UFO subject absorbed him. During a three-day trip in February 1969, when he
? ••. gave talks to the Scientific Research Society of America (RESA) in Wilming-
V o t o n , Del., and the AMS in Washington, D.C., Betsy called him at his hotel in
^ ^ ., Wilmington with sad news. After their conversation he wrote in words devoid
of emotion: "2/12/69 At c. 11:15 Bets called, said Mom had died 0130 Wed 2/
5C
J: 12.1 sent wire to TUS mortuary re. cremation."20
"He had been spending a lot of time with his mother, because she had been
ser ous
cA* \ i t y ill," relates Margaret Sanderson-Rae. "We always were up against a
. . deadline to prepare the printed handouts for his talks, but this was one of the
worst. I had three secretaries typing parts of it." The copies of the handout
X^ which he carried in his briefcase to Delaware were flawless, as usual, but only

19. Letter to McDonald from Richard Striner, June 14,1969.

20. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 35.
370 FIRESTORM

two pages long, due to the rush under which it had been prepared (see Appen-
dix Item 14-B, page 569). After receiving the news of his mother's death, he
continued on this non-stop schedule, stopping only to buy a new tie to wear at
the memorial service, which would be held when he returned home.
2/12/69 Called Hans, set up plans for afternoon. Lunch with Bo,
bought tie @ Kennards. Sci writerfor WIL News-Journal papers, John
Roberts, did interview 1500-1615. Then picked up by Joe Pope of local
EDUC TV Channel 12 WHYY-TV & did 4 min interview for PMnews
plus 8 min for later feature use. Both re. Condon Rept.21
He still had many hours left in the day. He met with the RESA officers at
a pre-banquet gathering in the Hotel Du Pont, then gave his talk before a crowd
of 800. The audience was a lively one, asking many questions. But he still
could not return home. Next day he went on to Washington for a NICAP meet-
ing. Accompanying the regular NICAP staff was a new staff member, Stuart
Nixon, whom Isabel Davis had "taken under her wing" and was steering
through the ways and means of scientifically oriented UFO research.22 NICAP
was busy preparing its own formal rebuttal of the Condon Report, and the
group exchanged data and ideas. McDonald then went on to his other appoint-
ments. He went to VOA for about an hour with A1 Johnson, chiefly regarding
the Condon Report.23
"VOA" stood for the radio station, Voice of America. Its director, A1
Johnson, was acquainted with the Condon situation. He'd tried to get Condon
on VOA but only got informal comment from him, which was very negative.
In his journal, McDonald underlined "very". 24 Johnson read notes which he'd
taken during his phone conversation with Condon, who had remarked, among
other things, that the "whole UFO biz is kooky" and that McDonald was "not
an ethical scientist." This remark might have stung, but McDonald kept his
cool and discussed with Johnson his new hypothesis, which he had formed dur-
ing the past two or three months, namely, "that bad science advice is substitute
for Conspiracy [hypothesis]."2* f ^ .
His "new hypothesis" showed that he was not convinced that the Air
Force, or any part of the government, was deliberately covering up information
on UFOs. He could not forget that Blue Book had been given bad advice from
scientists such as Donald Menzel and J. Allen Hynek, as well as the five scien-

21. Ibid.
22. Author's interview with Marty and Gordon Lore, 11 September 1993.
23. McDonald, op. cit., reverse p. 35.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 371

tists on the 1953 Robertson Panel. McDonald was bending over backward to
be objective.
Before he left the VOA, McDonald called Jim Hughes at the ONR and
brought his good friend up-to-date. He then called Dick Olsen, Sen. Morris
Udall's aide, who was busy gathering Blue Book cases mentioned in the Con-
don Report which McDonald wished to study but which he had not been able
to wrench free from Lt. Marano at Blue Book. Then, at the Washington Hilton,
he met with colleague Gary Gill and afterwards gave a banquet talk to the AMS
on various UFO cases which had been downplayed in the Condon Report. For
this talk, no handout had been printed because time hadn't permitted; instead,
McDonald distributed dittoed copies of the draft of his talk.
A considerable discussion about Gordon Thayer's radar-visual section in
the Condon Report ensued in the Q & A session which followed this AMS
talk. Colleague Don Sweigle concurred with him that Gordon Thayer's sec-
tion was "weak." 26 McDonald found out later, from talking with Joach
Kuettner and Sweigle, that Condon's staff had not seen Condon's "Conclu-
sions" section until the book had been published and made available to the
public in its Bantam edition!
McDonald had become even more careful by 1969 in stating his hypoth-
esis that UFOs might be extraterrestrial in nature. His RESA talk in Wilm-
ington, Del., had been titled "A Dissenting View of the Condon Report," and
the care with which he presented the ETH is apparent in his summary hand-
out: "Even a bare possibility that this hypothesis could be correct would call
for the most determined effort of scientists throughout the world to elucidate
as quickly as possible all aspects of the UFO problem." 27
After the AMS banquet talk on the 13th, McDonald talked with colleagues
until after midnight. Restless and needing exercise, he walked to his hotel in-
stead of taking a cab, then phoned home to talk to his family. His son Kirk had
arrived home from Caltech for the memorial service. No one in the family was
sleeping, for all were as restless as McDonald: The memorial service had been
set for 4:00 P.M. McDonald left D.C. that morning and arrived just a few hours
before the service. It was held at the Presbyterian church which his mother,
Charlotte Linn McDonald, had attended for 14 years. Many friends and ac-
quaintances she'd made in Tucson attended.

26. Ibid.
27. McDonald, James E., "A Dissenting View of the Condon Report," presented to the DuPont
Chapter o f RESA, Wilmington, Del., 12 Feb., 1969.
372 FIRESTORM

A less intense man would have taken off a few days to grieve for his mother,
but McDonald had commitments which he couldn't ignore. Only three days after
the service, he spoke on the UFO question at the Pacific Naval Missile Range at
Pt. Mugu, Calif. The talk had been on his schedule for some time. He'd been
alerted by Idabel Epperson of LANS that valuable UFO information could be
gathered there from a confidential source. At a pre-meeting luncheon, Capt. Tom
Andrews, Vice-Commander of the Pacific Missile Range, related a personal
UFO sighting, which had occurred at White Sands, N.M. It was a long-lasting
UFO event which had occurred the week of April 30-May 4, 1956, which had
been observed by multiple, technically-trained witnesses.
Capt. Andrews was one of 200 Navy officers attending Ft. Bliss Missile
School that week in 1956. The group had been bussed up to a White Sands range
to witness an Aerobee missile firing, but the Aerobee malfunctioned. Some of
the officers, including Andrews, saw a round, metallic object "like an aluminum
ball" in the clear, daytime sky. Its angular size was relatively large—one-fourth
of the moon. The group with Andrews lined up the stationary object with a phone
pole and put a stick in the pole to mark the exact position of the object. The UFO
did not move.
The object was seen by many missile-range personnel, also. At one point,
the UFO changed from its round configuration to cigar-shaped, remained that
way for 20 minutes, then changed back to circular, but it never moved from its
stationary point. The malfunction of the Aerobee cut short the officers' time at
the range. They were loaded back on the buses and taken back to their quarters.
The trip back was lengthy, but the object remained in the sky for about four
hours and was viewed by Andrews and many of his colleagues through the
windows of the bus. They asked their instructors about it the next day, but no
White Sands personnel would discuss it with them. 28
On his 1969 trip to Pt. Mugu, McDonald had handouts for his talk, which he
titled "UFOs and the Condon Report: A Dissenting View." He distributed them
along with some copies of earlier talks and papers he'd written. The Pt. Mugu
personnel were eager to know all that McDonald had learned, and his talk was
well attended. Later in the evening, with the help of officials, he chased down the
address of an FAA radar controller, Jeanine Hill, who was a witness to an impor-
tant sighting in Oxnard, Calif., which had occurred on March 23, 1957. James
McDonald had long sought Jeanine Hill's address to learn more about this radar-
visual event which had caused much interest in the UFO community. As usual,
once he was on the trail of a promising case, he tracked it down and didn't rest
until he had wrung out every available bit of data from it.

28. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 36.

SECRETS U P O N SECRETS 373

He also phoned Juanita Evans at China Lake, Calif., regarding an intrigu-

ing Ridgecrest sighting which had occurred in September 1960. He was grad-
ually becoming aware, through LANS and other Southern California sources,
that the naval air station at China Lake and the surrounding mountains were
scenes of fascinating UFO activity. These sightings were being investigated
and documented by LANS and by scientists and engineers from the San Diego
area. McDonald took this opportunity to interview Evans by telephone. She de-
scribed the object she and her family had seen in September 1960. Lenticular
and faintly glowing, it made six passes overhead in two hours, in an overcast,
rainy sky. No sound was heard by the witnesses except a faint whir, "such as a
glider would make." Through Evans, McDonald was invited to give a talk in
late May at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center. This would also give him
an opportunity to investigate on-site many other sightings in that area.

After he arrived back in Tucson from Pt. Mugu, he was visited by Larry D.
Morton, an FAA Chief at Santa Monica, Calif. Morton attended many LANS
meetings, and was extremely interested in the subject. He told James McDonald
about two Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) radar cases, where the
anomalous objects were not seen visually but were, however, seen on two types
of radar from the LAX tower. He also shared other earlier Los Angeles area cas-
es. McDonald made copious notes on Morton's visit and filed them in his "Ox-
nard file." He also called Capt. Robert J. Wooten (USN Ret.), a former Naval
aviator, about whom Capt. Tom Andrews had told him. McDonald interviewed
Wooten at length on the phone, but mentioned only succinctly in his journal that
he had "interviewed him."29 The Wooten case notes are part of the "Pt. Mugu:
Pacific Missile Center: AIAA: Wooten and Andrew AFB cases" file in James
McDonald's UFO archives in the Personal Collections Section, University of Ar-
izona Library, Tucson.
McDonald was getting close to some very important material, but was
forced by circumstances to treat most of it confidentially. He could not know
that, tucked away in secret places and accessible only to a few military and
government officials who had "need to know," were a multitude of Top Secret
documents describing the same kind of sensitive events. Literally thousands of
documents from all branches of the military services and all government intel-
ligence agencies have slowly surfaced from 1975 through 2000 and beyond via
the FOIA—now known as the FOI/Privacy Act. They constitute evidence of
massive government interest in UFOs which was hidden from the public—in
essence, the UFO cover-up.

29. McDonald, "Oxnard" file, in McDonald's Personal Collection, University of Arizona

Library, Tucson.
374 FIRESTORM

A few documents regarding government cover-up have not surfaced

through the FOIA, but instead have been "leaked" to certain UFO researchers.
Most of the documents to be discussed below have surfaced by this second meth-
od, and have undergone minute analysis by well-regarded members of the UFO
community. Many researchers consider some of them genuine or probably gen-
uine, while other equally objective researchers consider them hoaxes or "disin-
formation." One of these is the controversial "Briefing Document" dated
November 18, 1952, which was allegedly prepared for President-Elect Dwight
D. Eisenhower at the request of President Harry S. Truman.30 The document was
received anonymously through the U.S. mail by Jaime Shandera, a film producer
who worked closely with UFO researcher William L. Moore. The document was
on a roll of undeveloped film and included a Top Secret: Eyes Only memo from
Truman, which was dated September 24, 1947, and addressed to Secretary of
Defense James Forrestal. Truman's letter reads:

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

Dear Secretary Forrestal:
As per our recent conversation on this matter, you are hereby autho-
rized to proceed with all due speed and caution upon your undertak-
ing. Hereafter this matter shall be referred to only as Operation
Majestic Twelve....
(s) Harry Truman
The Eisenhower briefing document lists the members of "Operation Ma-
jestic Twelve." The MJ-12 members, as listed in the alleged Eisenhower brief-
ing document, are arranged alphabetically. Because one member died soon
after MJ-12 was allegedly established, his replacement's name also appears,
making a total of 13: These individuals were all prominent scientists and gov-
ernment leaders:
1. Dr. Lloyd Viel Berkner (b. 2/1/05, d. 6/4/67) scientist, explorer; first Executive
Director of the Joint Research and Development Board (JRDB), World War II era;
an expert on ionization and on radar; engaged in atmospheric pollution studies at
the time of his death.
2. Dr. Detlev Bronk (b. 8/13/1897, d. 11/17/75) space-medicine expert and aviation-
physiologist; Chairman of the NRC and Director of the NAS.
3. Dr. Vannevar Bush (b. 3/11/1890, d. 6/28/74); outstanding R&D leader at MIT
and, afterwards, Carnegie Institute; Head of the National Advisory Committee on
Aeronautics (NACA), the predecessor of NASA.

30. "TOP SECRET/MAJIC, EYES ONLY, Briefing Document: Operation Majestic 12, Pre-
pared for President-Elect Dwight D. Eisenhower: (EYES ONLY), 18 November 1952."
William L. Moore Publications & Research, 1987.
SECRETS U P O N SECRETS 375

4. Secretary of Defense James Forrestal (b. 2/15/1892, d. 5/22/49) who allegedly

committed suicide while hospitalized for "stress" in Bethesda Naval Hospital in
Maryland.31 He was replaced by Gen. W. B. Smith (see below.)
5. Mr. Gordon Gray (b. 5/30/09, d. 11/25/82) former Secretary of the Army, a wide
background in intelligence services, holding many high-security positions for
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower.
6. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter (b. 5/8/1897, d. 6/18/81) Rear-Admiral, Naval Intelli-
gence; Director of the CIA from 1947 to 1950 and, after retiring from the Navy,
became a NICAP Board of Directors member from 1957 to 1962.
7. Dr. Jerome Hunsaker (b. 8/26/1886, d. 9/10/84) who was associated with the Aeronau-
tical Engineering Department at MIT, and head of NACA after Vannevar Bush. His
death occurred only three months before the "Briefing Document"filmwas received
by Jaime Shandera.
8. Dr. Donald H. Menzel, (b. 4/11/01, d. 12/14/76) Head of the Astronomy Depart-
ment at Harvard, expert on widely diverse subjects, such as eclipses, cryptoanaly-
sis, and radio propagation; a prominent UFO "skeptic."
9. Gen. Robert M. Montague (b. 8/7/1899, d. 2/20/58) Army General who presided
over White Sands Missile Range/Ft. Bliss; head of Armed Forces Special Weap-
ons Control (AFSWC), Sandia Corporation, NM.
10. Gen. Walter B. Smith (b. 10/5/1895, d. 8/9/61), who replaced Forrestal; President
Eisenhower's World War II Chief of Staff and later Ambassador to the USSR;
fourth Director of the CIA.
11. Mr. Sidney W. Souers b. 3/30/1892, d. 1/14/73 an Admiral in the Navy who retired
by the age of 55 but continued in the Naval Reserve; first Executive Secretary of
the National Security Council (NSC) and an intelligence consultant to the Presi-
dent.
12. Gen. Nathan F. Twining (b. 10/11/1897, d. 3/19/81) Head of the Air Materiel
Command (AMC); Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; his September 23, 1947,
letter to the Commanding General of the Army Air Force directed the establish-
ment of a study of UFOs, Project Sign.
13. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg (b. 1/24/1899, d. 4/2/54) second Chief of Staff of the
U.S. Air Force; G-2 intelligence rank in 1946. (The so-called "Estimate of the Sit-
uation," in which Air Force officials stated that UFOs were real and probably
extraterrestrial, was handed up the line of command and landed on Vandenberg's
desk. The general reportedly considered it so sensitive that he ordered it destroyed
(see Chapter 5).

The briefing document also cited eight "attachments"—A through H, but

only one attachment page actually was included in the roll of film sent to Shan-

31. Stacy, Dennis, "Forrestal's Fall: Did He Jump or Was He Pushed?", FSR, Vol. 38, No. 3,
Autumn, 1993.
376 FIRESTORM

dera. If the document, which has become known in the UFO community as "the
MJ-12 briefing document," is eventually proved genuine, it will probably be the
most important evidence to date that an official cover-up group exists which
structures U.S. government policy on UFOs. After developing and enlarging the
filmed pages, Moore and Shandera confided in Stanton Friedman, a nuclear sci-
entist who has been active in the UFO field since the mid-1960s. The three
worked together for almost three years, attempting to determine whether it was
a clever hoax or a genuine government document, before releasing it to the UFO
community and to the public. By 1990, Friedman had gone as far as one can go
in proving that it was "probably genuine in the original." In the meantime, a sec-
ond copy of the same document was sent independently in the spring of 1987 to
Timothy Good, a prominent UFO researcher in England.32

As stated above, the MJ-12 briefing document and related documents

which subsequently surfaced, have not been wholly accepted throughout the
UFO community. Dr. Jacques Vallee is one of many respected researchers who
consider it a well-planned hoax. "I think there was a secret group," says Vallee,
"but the MJ-12 documents are just a hoax to hide the secret group." He contin-
ues with a humorous, but thought-provoking example. "If you buried your un-
cle in the lilies, you would spread a rumor he was buried in the geraniums.
[People] would check and find nothing under the geraniums, and people would
stop looking for your uncle."
The quandary UFO researchers face in analyzing the "MJ-12 docu-
ments" which have been "leaked" to various researchers is that most of them
have been anonymously received in the form of filmed copies. Forensic
methods which could prove conclusively whether or not these documents are
authentic eventually depend on having original paper copies, so that the ink
and the paper itself can be physically analyzed. Copies of reportedly classi-
fied documents have recently been obtained by Dr. Robert Wood, Ryan
Wood and Timothy Cooper, but until they are studied and documented, ques-
tions and doubts must remain. Skeptics like Philip J. Klass have also entered
the controversy. In the winter of 1990, Klass released a "Special Report,"
which cast doubt on the authenticity of the Truman signature in the Septem-
ber 24, 1947, letter which accompanied the November 18, 1952, briefing
document, and his work influenced many in the UFO field to regard the Tru-
man letter, at least, as a hoax. 33

32. Experienced researchers, including Bill Moore, Jaime Shandera, Stanton Friedman and
Dr. Robert Wood, who have studied the "Eisenhower briefing document," have come to
the conclusion that the document is quite possibly genuine. The Center for UFO Studies,
the Fund for UFO Research, and Stanton Friedman have published material on the MJ-12
documents, both pro and con. These materials are available to the public.
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 377

Since 1987, several other documents have been released through the FOIA
or through other anonymous sources, which bear the phrases "MJ-12," "Ma-
jestic* 12," or "Majic-12." These do not contain detailed information about the
history of the MJ-12 group which the Eisenhower briefing document embod-
ies. These documents are described below, not in the order in which they were
released, but chronologically by the dates in their text. Some of these docu-
ments are described below, not in the order in which they were released, but
chronologically by the dates in their text. This list is not complete, as other al-
leged MJ-12 documents have continued to surface. At the time of writing they
are being intensely studied by objective and scientific researchers but are con-
sidered controversial by some in the field. The controversy itself demonstrates
how avidly the truth is being sought.
The first significant document which points to the existence of a secret U.S.
government group studying UFOs, is "the Smith memo," allegedly written by
Dr. Wilbert B. Smith, Senior Radio Engineer of the Department of Transport,
Ottawa, Ontario. Marked Confidential and dated November 21,1950, it was sent
by Smith to the Controller of Telecommunications in Canada. For several years,
Smith's group had been investigating various aspects of radio wave propagation,
which had led them into several aspects of science, including geomagnetism.
Smith's memo states in part: "[W]e are on the track of a means whereby the po-
tential energy of the Earth's magnetic field may be abstracted and used.. ,." 34
According to this document, which some UFO researchers do not consider
genuine, an experimental unit extracted sufficient energy from the Earth's
magnetism to operate a volt-meter at approximately 30 milliwatts. The team
refined this design into a self-sustaining unit which provided a small amount
of surplus power, leading them to believe they were "on the track of something
which might well prove to be the introduction to a new technology." Smith at-
tended a NARR Conference35 in Washington, D.C., and while there, heard
about Donald Keyhoe's first book, Flying Saucers Are Real?6 It occurred to
him that the Canadian work in geomagnetics might provide a link to the tech-
nology by which UFOs operated. Smith made discreet inquiries through the
Canadian embassy staff in Washington, who were able to obtain for him cer-
tain information. The Smith memo continues:

33. Klass, Philip J., "New Evidence of MJ-12 Hoax," Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1990.
34. Smith, Dr. Wilbert B., memo to Canadian Dept. of Transport, November 21, 1950, p. 1.
35. N o meaning of this acronym has been found to date.
36. Keyhoe, Donald E., USMC (Ret), Flying Saucers Are Real, New York, Fawcett Publica-
tions, Inc., 1950.
378 FIRESTORM

a. The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States
Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb.
b. Flying saucers exist.
c. Their modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being
made by a small group headed by Doctor Vannevar Bush.
d. The entire matter is considered by the United States authorities to
be of tremendous significance.37
Smith discussed the matter with Dr. Omand Solandt, Chairman of the Ca-
nadian Defence Research Board, and a proposal was officially made that
"Project Magnet" be set up within the framework of the Canadian Department
of Transport. Keyhoe wrote in one of his later books about Wilbert Smith and
"Project Magnet," but subsequent inquiries to Canadian officials failed to ver-
ify it. It was not until the "Smith memo" surfaced years later that it became ev-
ident to the UFO field that "Project Magnet" might actually have existed. No
record has been found in McDonald's files describing any interaction with
Wilbert Smith or Dr. Solandt.
Although Smith's description of a working model using geomagnetic ener-
gy for a self-sustaining motor is interesting, more impressive is the statement that
in November 1950, a group of American scientists headed by Vannevar Bush
was secretly at work trying to unlock the secret of UFO propulsion. Vannevar
Bush is listed in the Eisenhower briefing document as an MJ-12 member.
"This proves nothing," states Jacques Vallee. "The author of the MJ-12
hoax would have known about the Smith memo, as everyone in the UFO com-
munity did. He just arranged his text to fit the memo." Dick Hall also is skep-
tical of the authenticity of MJ-12 documents, as are other well-regarded UFO
researchers. But as stated above, documents relating to "MJ-12" keep surfac-
ing. Detailed information regarding all such documents can be found in the
websites of Dr. Robert M. Wood and Ryan S. Wood, 38 and Stanton Fried-
man, 39 as well as other sites on the Internet.
Besides the Eisenhower Briefing Document and the Smith Memo, another
document classified Secret has surfaced. It was a teletype dated November 17,
1980, from AFOSR headquarters at Boiling AFB, Washington D.C., to the
AFOSR detachment at Kirtland AFB, N.M., requesting information regarding
official analysis of UFO photos by government sources. Below the Bolling/Kirt-
land addresses is the phrase, "Info 7602 AINTELG Ft. Belvoir, VA, (Note that

37. Smith, Dr. Wilbert B., memo to Canadian Dept. of Transport, November 21, 1950, p. 1.
38. www.majesticdocuments.com
39. www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 379

the section name had been changed from 4602d (See Chapter 12) to 7602d, but
other declassified documents in the hands of UFO researchers today confirm it
was the same unit. The UFO photos described in this teletyped message include:
1. A C - 5 A on approach with a large U F O streaking in the lower portion o f the film;
2. a cylindrical U F O which, w h e n compared to terrestrial reference points w a s
j u d g e d to be "a legitimate negative o f unidentified f l y i n g object";
3. an irregular-shaped U F O in s e v e n frames o f 8 m m f i l m 4 0 ;
4. a strip o f 8 m m film ( 3 4 frames) depicting a colored object m o v i n g across the sky,
spectroscopy revealing the colors as basic prism features;

5. a saucer-shaped object, approximate diameter 3 7 feet, with a trilateral insignia on

the lower portion. The conclusion here w a s "Legitimate negative o f unidentified
aerial object." 4 1

Other intriguing statements are found in later paragraphs in this document

(which is regarded by many objective researchers as at least partially faked.) It
states that the Air Force was "no longer publicly active in UFO research, how-
ever USAF still has interest in all UFO sightings over USAF installation/test
ranges." It also states that several other government agencies, led by NASA,
"actively investigate legitimate sightings through covert cover." One such cov-
er is listed as "UFO Reporting Center, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Rock-
ville, Maryland." Then a possibly significant sentence: "The official U.S.
government policy and results of Project Aquarius is still classified Top Secret
with no dissemination outside official intelligence channels and with Restrict-
ed Access to MJ Twelve." 42 This sentence would help establish that MJ-12
was, indeed, a secret government group devoted to covering up information on
UFOs, as indicated by the Eisenhower Briefing Document and relata. The sus-
picion among some researchers that this sentence might have been inserted
into a real document by unknown disinformation sources casts doubt in the
mind of some UFO researchers about this so-called "Aquarius document."

40. Could these frames have been clipped from the Australian Drury UFO movie film, which
was taken with an 8 mm camera? Or might the "irregular shape" have been the object
emerging at high speed from the anomalous cloud Drury was photographing? (See Chp. 8.)
41. The number of pictures stated in the text matches quite well with a situation known person-
ally to me. A scientist of my acquaintance, who has requested anonymity, analyzed "about
50-55 photos" with state-of-the-art, classified photogrammetric equipment in the mid-six-
ties. The conclusion of the analysis, done at the request of the CIA, the USAF and "one
other agency," was that the objects were "unidentified aircraft from an unknown source."
42. Many UFO researchers regard this "Aquarius document" as at least partially faked. Richard
Hall points out in a 10 June 1997 letter to the author that one of the glaring inconsistencies
in the document is the reference to the Coast & Geodetic Survey, which had ceased to exist
long before the date of this document (17 November 1980), its functions having been taken
over by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
380 FIRESTORM

McDonald found it hard to accept that a question as serious as the UFO

problem was being furtively studied by a "secret group" of scientists in the Air
Force, as Don Keyhoe and NICAP hypothesized, while the scientific commu-
nity had no means of knowing who was involved. We have discussed some of
these controversial MJ-12 documents in detail because McDonald interacted
closely with, or was known to, several of the members of the "MJ-12" panel,
as they are listed in the Eisenhower briefing document. In the event that MJ-
12's actual existence might some day be authenticated, these interactions
might prove significant. It is reasonable to suppose that any official govern-
ment group involved in UFO cover-up would have been aware of McDonald's
high-profile study of the UFO question.

Whether or not "MJ-12" as a specific group ever existed, it is the opinion of

most objective UFO researchers that a "cover-up group" did exist, but not nec-
essarily known as "MJ-12.' 43 The Air Force was officially designated by the
government to investigate both military and civilian reports, yet Project Blue
Book's operation was, in most part, incompetent and superficial. Logically, there
had to be some competent government group working on the problem. Indeed,
after Blue Book was dismantled in December 1969, McDonald found files in its
archives which revealed that the Air Defense Command (ADC), Air Force Intel-
ligence (AFIN), the Strategic Air Command (SAC) and other highly placed fa-
cilities of the government were involved in UFO incidents (see Chapter 17). He
came home from this trip exclaiming what he found was "a real bonanza."44
He never thought that scientists like Menzel and Hynek were deliberately
sloughing off sound data by assigning inane explanations which did not fit the
facts. One of the reasons he remained unconvinced of an official "cover-up"
was his own experience concerning the Manhattan Project. Contrary to the
prevalent opinion that the project which developed the atomic bomb was kept
strictly secret, he wrote in his "cover-up vs. foul-up" file, "Most of the scien-
tists around the country knew about [the Manhattan Project] early on." He was
perplexed, however, how Capt. Killian had been effectively silenced following
his multi-witness UFO sighting (see Chapter 13). He compared it to another
case, the Ryan sighting, which Don Keyhoe had written about in Flying Sau-
cers Top Secret. About this, McDonald wrote, "Makes out Ryan case 4/8/56 as
a cover-up somewhat like the Killian case. Does seem odd Ryan would have
denied it after press & TV statements."45

43. It is the opinion of many experienced UFO researchers that the name "MJ-12" and equiva-
lent (if MJ-12 did, indeed, exist) has been changed over the years. This possibility is being
researched by several UFOlogists, as the controversy over "MJ-12 documents" continues.
44. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 47.
45. McDonald, "Cover-up vs. Foul-up" file.
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 381

He discussed the cover-up vs. foul-up puzzle with any colleague he thought
could throw any light on it. Following a discussion with Dr. Robert Hall in
O'Hare Airport, McDonald wrote, "[He] brought up the old point that CIA/NSC
might try to cover up, to exploit the UFO situation in some way—to gain any sort
of advantage in international affairs.... But from all I know of UFO's, this is
about as implausible as some ant trying to keep quiet the fact that he knows
Homo sapiens exists (and occasionally comes near the home anthole) in an effort
to improve his own political fortunes back down in the anthole. And always I
come back to 'Why not a competent cover-up? Why no talent [assigned to the
problem]?' The only sensible answer is that authorities lost track of the whole
problem years ago." 46 The most plausible answer to McDonald's question was
that there was an extremely competent cover-up in place.
Nine of MJ-12's alleged members, as listed in the Eisenhower briefing
document, were still alive during the period McDonald publicly researched
UFOs. Generals Vandenberg, Montague and Smith had died by 1961, but the
replacement of Forrestal by Gen. Smith indicated that the group replaced de-
ceased members. McDonald interacted closely with four of the nine remain-
ing. The most obvious of the four is Dr. Donald Menzel.
When the Eisenhower briefing document first surfaced, the presence of
Menzel on the list of MJ-12 members was a shock to UFO researchers; some
quickly dismissed the document as a hoax on that point alone, because Menzel
was the original "debunker." However, he might have played the part of "skep-
tic" because by doing so he effectively diminished scientific interest in the sub-
ject. Menzel was an active scientist and academic and attacked McDonald
viciously and often. McDonald never hesitated to correct a colleague who made
errors in scientific matters where McDonald himself was expert. He rebutted
Menzel's attempts to "explain" solid UFO cases every opportunity he had. This
enraged Menzel, whose 1963 book, which "explained" UFOs as common aerial
phenomena such as sundogs and mirages, had been well received by most of the
scientific community. He might have regarded McDonald at first as an upstart,
but surely he realized quickly that he had misjudged him.
Menzel was also a patriot, who had served in highly classified cryptoanaly-
sis work during World War II (as McDonald had done also). We now know that
he held the highest clearance, Ultra Top Secret, to the end of his life 4 7 indicating
that he very possibly had been engaged in top-secret intelligence work of which

46. Ibid.

47. UFO researcher and scientist Stanton Friedman uncovered this surprising bit of information
shortly after first MJ-12 document surfaced.
382 FIRESTORM

his colleagues were unaware. Menzel must have been embarrassed at times by
McDonald's slashing logic.
Another of the original MJ-12 members with whom McDonald interacted
closely was Dr. Lloyd Viel Berkner, who had a wide and varied career. He was
a naval aviator, an expert on terrestrial magnetism and the ionosphere, a polar
explorer and space leader. He was also the first Executive Director of the
JRDB under Vannevar Bush in 1946.48 He was president of the Graduate Re-
search Center of the Southwest (GRCS), but he retired at the age of 60 because
of a heart ailment. He continued as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of
GRCS, however, and was extremely active in scientific research. He was par-
ticularly interested in the growing problems of world pollution, the possibility
of life on Mars, and new concepts of evolution—three fields of study in which
McDonald also was interested.
Berkner had been one of the five eminent scientists on the 1953 CIA-spon-
sored Robertson Panel, and this was probably the main reason McDonald
sought to meet him. In McDonald's journal, the first mention of Berkner reads:
"7/18/66 Hartford, Monday. Tom Malone, had good discussion.... Tom thinks
he may call Berkner."49 A brief notation, indicating that Tom Malone knew
Berkner and considered contacting him on McDonald's behalf. Malone might
have dragged his feet; almost a full year passed before McDonald and Berkner
met face-to-face.
In McDonald's files is a copy of a 1965 letter which Julian Hennessey, an
English UFO researcher, had received from Berkner. Hennessey was interest-
ed in learning Berkner's present attitude toward the UFO problem. Berkner
wrote back on GRCS letterhead: "In the cases of all so-called unidentified ob-
jects brought to my attention to date there are none which cannot be explained
as definable physical phenomena."50 Even if McDonald was aware of
Berkner's negative attitude, that would not have stopped him! The contact
which finally brought it about was with Frank S. Johnson, then director of the
Earth and Planetary Sciences Laboratory of the Southwest Center for Ad-
vanced Studies (SCAS, formerly GRCS), a colleague of Berkner. Apparently
Johnson and McDonald knew each other on a first-name basis.
McDonald's itinerary for April 15-24,1967 indicates that he had "put a leg"
on a flight schedule to Washington, D.C., in order to visit Berkner in Dallas, Tex.
His itinerary specifies a "three-hour briefing session" with Berkner and Johnson.

48. N o w known as the Research and Development Board o f the National Military Establish-
ment.
49. McDonald's second journal, p. 28.
50. Letter from Lloyd V. Berkner to Julian Hennessey, January 2 5 , 1 9 6 5 .
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 383

He met with them in the afternoon, and traveled on to his professional appoint-
ments in Washington, D.C., that evening (see Appendix Item 14-C, page 570).
The briefing was on a Saturday, for there was difficulty in finding a gap in
Berkner's schedule—a week-day appointment, according to Johnson, "would be
difficult before June." Johnson's statement was tragically ironic. On June 4, just
seven weeks after McDonald, Berkner and Johnson met in Dallas, Berkner col-
lapsed and died of a heart attack at a meeting of the Council of the NAS.
According to his New York Times obituary, Berkner devoted his life to as-
saults on challenging frontiers and helped to shape scores of government poli-
cies. He was widely accepted as the "Father of the International Geophysical
Year (IGY)" of 1957-58, and his ability to make scientific problems dramatic to
legislators and government were factors in the success of the American part of
the program.51 The fact that Berkner had "retired" in 1965 because of heart trou-
ble had not slowed him down one whit. An associate described him as "a forceful
speaker, who seemed to speak in capital letters," and that he had "the vigor of six
oxen."52 Six-foot two and weighing 200 pounds, he did not seem to be a candi-
date for an abrupt, fatal heart attack. His work was in Dallas, Tex., yet his home
was in Ft. Lauderdale, Fl., which indicates that he traveled a great deal, not only
in his professional work but also in his personal life. Both of his parents were still
living at the time of his death; he came from a long-lived family.

No notes or record of the three-hour briefing session which McDonald held

with Berkner and Johnson have been found in his files, but it is logical to think
that McDonald discussed the many solid radar-visual cases which gave evidence
of the reality of UFOs, as well as the data which indicated UFOs seemed associ-
ated with ionization. It is also possible that he discussed Canadian researcher
Wilbert B. Smith's group which had produced a working motor powered by the
Earth's geomagnetic field.53 We can only assume that McDonald used all the
tact and data at his command.
Was McDonald able to persuade Berkner that the time had come for pub-
lic, well-funded studies of the UFO problem? Could Berkner have wondered
whether secret government UFO data should be shared with some scientists
like McDonald? Berkner was a persuasive speaker. Might he have recom-
mended to other MJ-12 members that the time was right for at least a limited
turnaround on secrecy, before he was stricken with his fatal heart attack at the
NAS meeting? The NAS was inextricably linked with other alleged members

51. "L. V. Berkner Dies: Research Leader" (Obituary), The New York Times, Monday, June 5,
1967.
SI. Ibid.
53. Smith, op. cit., p. 1.
384 FIRESTORM

of MJ-12, and it certainly held the possibility of adequate funding in its hands
for research on the problem. Berkner was, at the time, Treasurer of NAS, and
McDonald had once come close to obtaining funding from the NAS to study
the problem and had continued similar proposals for fiinding. Was this another
reason why McDonald sought Berkner out?
Rear Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter also was doubtless aware of James
McDonald's influence in the UFO field. It seems more than coincidental that
MJ-12 was (allegedly) initiated on September 24,1947, the very month and year
that Hillenkoetter became the third Director of the CIA.54 He retired from the
Navy in 1947 (where he had been fully involved in Naval Intelligence), and his
immediate transfer to directorship of the CIA shows that he had merely stepped
from one intelligence position to another. He was Keyhoe's friend and classmate
and accepted a position on the board of directors at NICAP when Keyhoe as-
sumed the Directorship in 1957. If he was, as alleged, a member of MJ-12, did
he involve himself in NICAP's activities for hidden reasons? By 1950, the year
Hillenkoetter ended his CIA directorship, Keyhoe was publishing vital UFO data
in prominent magazines and had written his first of four UFO books. Hillenko-
etter had made a public statement about the reality of UFOs and the necessity of
investigating them openly. He allowed Keyhoe to use this statement in NICAP
publications for several years, and this added greatly to NICAP's prestige and
credibility. Hillenkoetter also helped funnel important UFO cases from NICAP
to various government agencies.

Gordon Lore, a former Assistant Director of NICAP, states: "For several

years, Keyhoe began fiinneling information about UFOs, at Hillenkoetter's re-
quest, as I recall, to certain government agencies. He chose the best of what he
thought was proof or evidence.. .the kind of stuff that we sent [later] to the Uni-
versity of Colorado. And I'm sure that Keyhoe didn't think then that Hillenko-
etter was collecting it for ulterior motives." Keyhoe trusted Hillenkoetter and
assumed that the data was being shown to military and government officials
who might be influential in ending the UFO cover-up.
Then, in a completely unexpected move, Hillenkoetter resigned abruptly
from NICAP's Board of Directors in 1962, stating that UFO research had
"reached a stalemate." In a letter to Keyhoe, he stated that the UFOs were not
secret U.S. or Soviet devices, and "if they are extraterrestrial we can do nothing
but wait for them to act." 55 His inexplicable turnaround did not result in hard

54. On May 1, 1947, Hillenkoetter was named Director of the Central Intelligence Group, the
group which became the CIA through a presidential directive in September 1947. MJ-12
was allegedly instituted on Sept. 24, 1947.
55. "Adm. Hillenkoetter Denies Menzel Claim," UFO Investigator, Washington, D.C., Pub-
lished by NICAP, Early 1965 (exact date not available).
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 385

feelings on the part of his friend, Donald Keyhoe, at least not publicly. Keyhoe
wrote in the UFO Investigator, "Though we did not agree there was a stale-
mate, we did not argue the point."56
Hillenkoetter's resignation from the NICAP Board and his puzzling letter
caused more serious damage to the UFO field than the mere loss of an influen-
tial board member. In May of 1961 the House Space Committee, largely
through the efforts of Keyhoe and NICAP, formed a group to study the subject
of UFOs. In August of that same year, Keyhoe sent them a strong statement,
signed by Hillenkoetter, in which the former Rear Admiral and CIA Director
urged immediate Congressional action. However, shortly afterward, when the
House Space Committee was on the verge of holding open hearings, these
plans were abandoned. Hillenkoetter had also sent a letter to the Committee
Chairman, suggesting that the hearings not be held because the Air Force had
done their best to identify the UFOs, and should not be criticized any more for
failure to deal honestly with the public on the UFO question!
McDonald was greatly interested in Hillenkoetter's unexplained turn-
around and questioned NICAP officials closely about it. His only journal no-
tation regarding him reads, "Hillenkoetter never retracted his serious
concern." Nothing found in his files indicates he ever contacted Hillenkoet-
ter personally, but it is logical to assume that he at least made attempts to com-
municate with him. The former admiral was apparently in good health; he did
not die until 1981.
Dr. Detlev W. Bronk was another member of MJ-12 who was very possi-
bly aware of McDonald's pursuit of the UFO problem. The only reference to
Bronk in McDonald's papers is found in a letter to George Wald, which was
tucked into his edition of National Academy of Sciences Centennial Celebra-
tion, Oct. 21-24, 1963: The Scientific Endeavor. This book is, paradoxically,
included in his UFO library. This letter mentioned that Bronk was a past pres-
ident of the NAS and chairman of the 1963 Centennial. An aviation-physiolo-
gist, he was chairman of the NRC of the NAS. McDonald was active in the
NAS and had succeeded, in early 1966, in securing a promise of NAS funding
for a "quiet, one-man study" of UFOs, which was abruptly withdrawn. We do
not know which NAS officials promised him the funds, but his friend and men-
tor, Tom Malone, was also well-connected there and spoke several times to top
NAS officials on McDonald's behalf.58

56. Ibid.
57. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 19.
58. McDonald's second and fourth journals.
386 FIRESTORM

We have not accounted for five alleged MJ-12 members who were still
alive during 1966-1971—Dr. Vannevar Bush, Gordon Gray, Sidney W.
Souers, Dr. Jerome Hunsaker, and Gen. Nathan Twining. No mention of these
five has been found in McDonald's papers, but there are possible links which
might indicate that at least some of them were aware of McDonald's research.
Souers was 74 years old in 1966. Previously an admiral, he later became
the first Director of the forerunner of the CIA in 1946 and was the first Exec-
utive Secretary of the NSC, which answers directly to the President. Souers
was an intelligence consultant to President Truman. The NSC was established
just about the time the UFO problem came to public attention in June 1947, fol-
lowing the Kenneth Arnold sighting. He probably had left NSC by 1966, but,
as an alleged member of MJ-12, he logically would be knowledgeable of any
UFO intelligence work under subsequent Presidents. On August 30, 1968,
when McDonald became aware that the House Committee on Space and As-
tronautics would not be holding extended UFO hearings, he told his Arizona
Congressman "Mo" Udall that he had spoken to several National Aeronautics
and Space Council (NASC) personnel who answered directly to Vice President
Humphrey. He suggested that a more immediate UFO study "would probably
require doing it within the executive branch."59 Udall listened but was non-
committal, so McDonald called Dick Olsen, Udall's staff assistant whom he
knew well and suggested the same action. Olsen said he would think about it,
but when McDonald again spoke with him four days later, Olsen was still un-
decided. "Time too short, too many minds would have to be changed quickly,
as Mo said on phone," McDonald wrote.60 A request that the NASC okay a
UFO study would surely be known to the NSC.

Dr. Vannevar Bush and Dr. Jerome Hunsaker also had connections that
would have alerted them to McDonald's activities. Bush had been an out-
standing R & D leader at MIT. Dr. Tom Malone, who had guided McDonald
through post-graduate studies at MIT, must have known Vannevar Bush, and
possibly mentioned McDonald's work to him. Also, Dr. Jerome Hunsaker
was head of Aeronautical Engineering at MIT. He was 79 years old when
McDonald entered the UFO field, but was apparently still active in the sci-
entific community. He died at the age of 98, in 1984.
No personal contact with Gen. Nathan F. Twining is mentioned in James
McDonald's papers, either, though his library contains an unclassified ver-
sion of Project Sign reports, with which Twining was involved. Twining
lived until 1981 and would seem a logical person for McDonald to track

59. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 21.

60. Ibid.
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 387

down. He had established Project Sign, the first publicly acknowledged U.S.
UFO study. A letter dated September 23,1947, sent by Twining to Brig. Gen.
George Schulgen, the Commanding General of the AAF, concluded that the
UFO phenomenon was "real and not visionary or fictitious" and that the ob-
jects were "the shape of discs...appearing] to be as large as man-made air-
craft." 61 Was it coincidence that Truman's letter allegedly establishing MJ-
12 was written just one day after Twining's letter to Schulgen?
McDonald's visits to the super-secret facility, Sandia Corporation in New
Mexico, might possibly impact on our puzzle, also. An alleged MJ-12 member,
Gen. Robert M. Montague, who died in 1958, was Commander of White Sands
Missile Range/Ft. Bliss and also head of AFSWC at Sandia, an extremely sensi-
tive area. McDonald was invited at least twice to Sandia in the late 1960s, and
gave briefings there on the UFO question. After one visit, he jotted down the
enigmatic phrase in his journal, "See small notebook," giving no further expla-
nation in his journal as to whom he saw or what was discussed.
His first trip to Sandia was more open; he'd been invited to speak there in
August 1967 by John A. Anderson (see Appendix Item 14-D, page 571). After
his initial talk, McDonald held an afternoon interviewing session, during
which he interviewed a half-dozen Sandia employees who'd had personal UFO
sightings. He also collected older cases from Sandia employees, including a re-
port from two (anonymous) employees, who'd seen an unconventional object
at Sandia in full daylight in 1952. And during this visit, Capt. Tom Andrews,
Vice-Commander of the White Sands Missile Range, spoke openly to assem-
bled Sandia personnel of his 1956 sighting at the Missile Range, which is ad-
jacent to Sandia.62 Andrew's sighting had occurred while Gen. Robert
Montague was Head of the Missile Range!
The point in going slightly off track here is to enter a speculation: When
Robert Montague died in 1958, was the person appointed to succeed him also
appointed Commander of the White Sands Missile Range/Special Weapons,
Sandia? Vice-Commander Capt. Andrews might have been speaking out of
turn, revealing a mass sighting that was most probably classified at some level.
McDonald would probably have been monitored closely after that. Only three
months later strange happenings began to occur which seem to indicate that
was the case.
If some secret "silence group" did in fact exist in McDonald's time, who
might have been logical replacements for those in the group who died before

61. This "Twining memo," as it is known, is widespread in UFO literature. It is even included
in the Appendices of the Condon Report.
62. See Note 28, page 372.
388 FIRESTORM

McDonald became active in the UFO field? It is logical to speculate that at

least one person high in the Air Force might have been a replacement, because
the Air Force was linked to UFO research from the beginning. Were there any
particularly obstructive, highly-placed Air Force officials who seemed to be
trying to prevent his success, a la Menzel? In studying the journals, more than
one name stands out. A scenario is presented here, backed by facts taken from
his journals. Any suspicions voiced here are merely conjecture.
Looking back to mid-May of 1966, we see that McDonald had written a
letter inquiring about the "university team" approach to Dr. Brian O'Brien,
head of an ad hoc committee under the USAF Science Advisory Board, which
had been formed in February 1996. Its chairman was Dr. O'Brien, who was
formerly chief scientist at the American Optical Company, but was now a pri-
vate consultant. The committee included scientists like Carl Sagan, Jesse Or-
lansky, and Richard Porter of General Electric.63 O'Brien wrote to the Science
Advisory Board in March, a confidential copy of which was received at NAS
in April. O'Brien had been quite negative toward McDonald's interest, even
though Tom Malone, who knew O'Brien well, had attempted to act as a go-
between. Then, on May 17, Malone called McDonald to inform him that
O'Brien had undergone a sudden change of heart:
5/17/66 Then Monday O 'Brien got my letter dated 5/14 & that somehow
changed his mind quite radically. O 'B had talked it over with some gen-
eral and then ran Tom down by phone in D. C. Said he wanted to get go-
ing on it right away... wants me to do consulting work directed towards
laying down some guidelines for the University investigating teams.64
Just like the "consultancy" offered McDonald at Blue Book, the "univer-
sity" consulting offer never materialized either, with no reason given. But
James McDonald didn't realize this was going to happen. He wrote in his
journal after his third Blue Book visit, "Tony said we could work out con-
tractual arrangements [after the NASA visit]. He stressed I'd be entirely free,
no strings attached." 65
While McDonald waited for the two consultancy plans to jell, Dr. Thomas
J. Ratchford, a solid-state physicist at the Air Force Office of Scientific Re-
search (AFOSR) contacted Tom Malone. Ratchford had been asked to look
into the UFO problem and had contacted Malone, ostensibly seeking sugges-
tions on assembling a panel of high-caliber scientists to review the whole prob-

63. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 1.

64. Ibid, p. 5, and reverse p. 5.
65. Ibid., reverse p. 24.
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 389

lem. Malone helped McDonald set up a meeting with Ratchford, and they met
in Washington just around the time he went to Blue Book for his third visit. 66
The first hour, McDonald spoke with Ratchford alone; then Dr. William
Price, AFOSR Executive Director, phoned and asked him to bring McDonald
up to his office. Ratchford claimed he was having trouble getting any scien-
tist to take on the position of "lead investigator." He was not forming a sci-
entific panel as Tom Malone had led McDonald to believe, but rather was
searching for an individual scientist to head the study. Both the "university
team" and the panel approaches had been discarded! McDonald expressed
surprise at this change in plans, but learned that Col. Robert Hippler, who'd
been in charge of finding suitable "teams," had presented ideas for official
"work statements" 67 which had been turned down by Price and Ratchford.
They explained to McDonald that Hippler's ideas would necessitate too
much Air Force control.

Tom Malone had emphasized that Ratchford was looking for a scientific
panel. It was not like Tom Malone to make mistakes. McDonald wondered about
this privately, and noted later in his journal, "Tom Malone's evidently not gotten
it straight." It did not occur to McDonald, apparently, that perhaps Malone was
not getting straight information from Ratchford and Price. Jacques Vallee's own
journals of that era paint a very similar picture of confusion and obfuscation on
the part of Air Force officials: promising offers were also proposed to him and J.
Allen Hynek, then abruptly withdrawn.
Continuing to take Ratchford and Price at face value, McDonald discussed
the apparent "dilemma" they were facing. Using hard logic he told them, "It's
going to take a lot of selling to [a scientist] to take it on in the face of present
scientific attitudes.... It's hard enough to find a good panel chairman of the
type I thought you were seeking, and much harder to think of a person to be-
come your lead man. It's not obvious who you're going to get to fill this bill.
You'll have to find somebody who's going to put a very large amount of time
into it, and continue to do so over a period of many months." 70

6 6 . I b i d . , reverse p. 28.
67. A few UFO researcher/historians have been interested in Hippler's part in that Air Force
study. For example, when approached by William L. Moore in 1986, Hippler stated that he
did not wish to discuss the subject, that he was tired o f it, and that it was "a long time ago."
He suggested that Moore should "talk to the Air Force if he wanted to know more." Further-
more, Hippler told Moore that "the Air Force shouldn't have been taking up its time with
such a ridiculous project."
68. Letter from McDonald to Malone, July 20, 1966.
69. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 28.
70 .Ibid.
390 FIRESTORM

"What do you think about NCAR?" asked Price. He was referring to the Na-
tional Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., where McDonald's
friend and colleague, Dr. Will Kellogg, was based. "Probably they can't take on
contract research of this sort, because they're a direct 'stepchild' of the National
Science Foundation," said Price. "But they certainly have a number of people
with the right talents we'll need."
Another idea struck McDonald.
"What about Gordon MacDonald and the Institute of C&PE as a nucleus,
with UCLA as the lead university," he suggested. "Of course, you've got the
problem there that Gordon's about the busiest guy on the block." No response.
"I'm not much help in proposing lead universities and related principal inves-
tigator prospects," continued McDonald. "I came here with the idea that you
were still looking for university teams or panels."71
McDonald then offered to spend his own time to talk with prospects for
"lead investigator" which Ratchford and Price might come up with, to try to
"sell him." "If you line up any lukewarm prospects, meeting your own specs,
I could help by being a kind of traveling salesman," suggested McDonald, his
sense of humor bubbling up. "I really do think that, given a day or two of full-
time conversation with a prospect, I could go a long way toward selling him on
the scientific importance of taking on the job." 72
"That's a very generous offer," said Price, cutting off his suggestion
rather abruptly. "I'm afraid groups like NICAP and APRO wouldn't shut up,
no matter how impartial a lead scientist the Air Force got, unless the answer
was that UFOs were extraterrestrial," commented Ratchford out of the blue.
McDonald disagreed.
"Both those groups are composed of reasonable people who'd be ready to
be convinced if they could see that the problem was truly getting a square
deal," he countered. "What you aren't aware of is, that to anyone who takes a
close look at what Blue Book has done, the thing looks like a whitewash."
Ratchford and Price said nothing, waiting for him to go on.
"One reason I feel especially sure that NICAP would back off in the face
of a well-documented scientific negation of the reality of the UFO problem
is that I, myself, would be quick to help them back off," McDonald empha-
sized. "NICAP would know that I wasn't selling out to the U.S. Air Force."

71 .Ibid.
12. Ibid.
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 391

"But the main criticism of the Air Force, regarding UFOs, comes from
kooks and cultists who never shut up," said Ratchford. Hiding his astonish-
ment, McDonald tried to interpret what was really going on, quietly insisting
that criticism of the Air Force did not come from kooks, but from reasonable
people. He stated his considered opinion that NICAP's study, especially, was
far superior to that of the USAF.73
By now, the meeting, which had begun at 8:00 A.M., was continuing
through lunch. Ratchford especially seemed genuinely interested in ways to
properly study the UFO question. He told McDonald that, in the course of
seeking the lead investigator, that he'd had a private meeting at Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute on Cape Cod, with Brian O'Brien, John Coleman of
NAS, and Aden Meinel, a prominent astronomer who was one of McDonald's
colleagues at the U. of A. McDonald might have wondered privately why his
colleague in astronomy had been invited to this top-level meeting while he,
himself, who knew immeasurably more about the UFO question, had not been.
However, he kept any doubts to himself.
This was McDonald's last face-to-face meeting with Ratchford. His offer
to talk personally with any good, "lukewarm" prospect Ratchford might come
up with was never acted on. Edward U. Condon was eventually chosen by
Ratchford; no one in the UFO research field could have guessed how negative
a tone the Condon Committee would foist upon the UFO subject. But in 1966
the Condon fiasco was still three years into the future. In the 20/20 light of
hindsight, it seems as if Ratchford and Price were meeting with McDonald to
drain his brain about what he thought was needed to put together an objective,
scientific UFO study and then turned around and did exactly the opposite.
An airline strike had wiped out McDonald's plans to go back to Blue
Book. DeGoes and Cacioppo continued to talk, but the consultancy they'd
promised wasn't materializing. McDonald waited until late August 1966 and
then, tired of the delay, called DeGoes at Blue Book. DeGoes was unavail-
able; McDonald was told he was in the middle of a meeting with Tom Ratch-
ford. McDonald never learned the contents of that meeting, but shortly
afterwards DeGoes went on a trip to the RAND Corporation in Santa Moni-
ca, Calif., and never returned to Blue Book. Neither did his two associates.
Project Blue Book went back to a major, a sergeant, and a secretary! Was
Ratchford's visit to DeGoes at Blue Book somehow linked with this and to
the fact that McDonald's Blue Book consultancy never materialized?
There were other instances where Ratchford appeared to be blocking
James McDonald's efforts. In August 1966 Ratchford talked to Tom Mal-

73. Ibid.
392 FIRESTORM

one, telling him that Will Kellogg of NCAR in Boulder had said he would
consider helping Condon with the new UFO study and that he would like
to get McDonald in on it. 74 Yet McDonald never heard anything more
about this. More false information, more false hopes. These attitudes of
negative officials like Ratchford might have been simply normal antago-
nism, a clash of personalities among individuals, so to speak. Jacques
Vallee offers this advice: "In science many decisions are made on a com-
petitive, even adversarial basis without implying conspiracies.... Just look
at global warming, or AIDS. A distinction needs to be made between 'nor-
mal' antagonism towards someone's ideas and outright interference and
harassment." 75

About two years later, while McDonald was helping Ed Roush plan the
Congressional hearing, he talked with Phyllis O'Callaghan about the "trick
memo" and the then-imminent Look article which would essentially "blow the
whistle" on Condon and Low. O'Callaghan had just talked at length with Col.
Ratchford, who told her that Fuller had been fired from his last job for "irre-
sponsible reporting." This was, in fact, not true. Had Ratchford been given
wrong information, or was he trying to destroy Fuller's reputation in Roush's
eyes? Fuller was a trustworthy author, whose two books on UFOs were com-
petently and thoroughly investigated. McDonald and NICAP had the highest
regard for him not only as a person but as a scientifically oriented researcher.
Ratchford also told O'Callaghan that "there are some suspicions that 'be-
lievers' were planted on the Colorado Project by NICAP," and that "Keyhoe
himself was an ex-contactee"!76 It was Ratchford who selected Condon to head
the new Air Force Study, instead of university teams or a scientific panel as orig-
inally proposed. All this might possibly indicate that Ratchford—or someone de-
liberately influencing Ratchford—was attempting to sabotage not only NICAP
but also McDonald's attempts to bring proper scientific attention to the UFO
question. The "facts" which Ratchford fed O'Callaghan on this occasion were all
false, while saying nothing about widespread suspicions that the forthcoming
Condon Report would turn out essentially negative. McDonald set her straight
on all points. Was Ratchford trying to torpedo both NICAP and the planned Con-
gressional hearing?
In a 1968 phone call to Tom Malone, Ratchford curtly criticized James
McDonald, saying he considered him "too emotional about the [UFO] prob-
lem, too much inclined to accept merely visual observations" and that his

74. McDonald, second journal, reverse p. 30.

75. Written communication from Jacques Vallee to author.
76. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 1.
SECRETS UPON SECRETS 393

charges against Hynek, Menzel, and Condon in the Look article were serious
charges against other scientists.77 Ratchford's criticism apparently disturbed
Malone greatly, for he also had disapproved of McDonald's criticisms of
other scientists. He urged McDonald "to omit all references to such implica-
tions here on out and to get on with a [UFO] paper for Science."
In fairness to Ratchford, it is possible that the colonel simply did not un-
derstand McDonald's basic makeup, or that there was a conflict of personali-
ties here. McDonald typically showed little or no emotion in public, except in
rare occasions such as the time he pounded on Hynek's desk. His intense per-
sistence when pursuing a scientific problem might be interpreted as "emotion-
al" by persons who did not know him well. Unlike his IAP colleagues,
NICAP's personnel and other researchers who worked closely with him, there
were others in the UFO community who did not appreciate his personality.
"Jim did project the image of a zealot, of a crusader, and he was the one launch-
ing personal attacks against Hynek," states Jacques Vallee. "To other scientists
who believed that Hynek had earnestly argued for a scientific study of UFOs
within Blue Book, Jim appeared (rightly or wrongly) as an extremist, who
wouldn't work with others."78

It is well known that before Condon and the University of Colorado were
chosen, the USAF had tried to get MIT, Cal Tech, Harvard and other presti-
gious universities to take on the UFO study. All had refused. Ratchford might
have been in a Catch-22 position. As critical as he was of McDonald's work,
and the stumbling blocks he set before him, Ratchford seemed to be available
to NICAP people who wished to speak with him. For example, William Weit-
zel, who had done such a thorough investigation on the Ravenna case (see
Chapter 7) came to Washington to see Dick Hall. Before leaving, Weitzel also
spoke to Ratchford and to House Speaker McCormack.79 Besides all of the
above, we have another unexplained excerpt from McDonald's journal:
7/26/68 Dave Saunders home in Colorado. Mary Lou Armstrong
& I went over Cover-up consideration. To both she & DRS, the
most suspicious factor was Bob [LowJ's repeated blockage or
foot-dragging re USAF cases.... On pursuing MLA views, her
Cover-up notions continue chiefly around covert agreements with
o/j
Ratchford, so not true Cover-up thesis.

77. McDonald, second journal, p. 30.

78. Written communication, Vallee to author.
79. McDonald, op. cit., p. 32.
80. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 19.
394 FIRESTORM

Mary Lou Armstrong at the time was Condon's secretary and one of the
staff members who appreciated McDonald's input. For Armstrong to mention
"covert agreements with Ratchford" to McDonald is intriguing. She seems to
imply that covert agreements were made by Ratchford with Robert Low. Why
would a middle man for the Air Force need to make covert agreements with
Condon's Assistant Project Director? Even after the Condon Report came out,
Ratchford was still very much in evidence, as McDonald noted on June 19,
1968, in his journal:
Called Lynn Catoe at the Library of Congress.81 Keyhoe's news
conference, along with Klass' efforts, has turned USAF to support of
Condon. Saunders is made out a blackguard for giving Keyhoe
memo way back in November.... Before Keyhoe's press conference
(re LOOK) Ratchford inclined to let Condon fight it out. But Key-
hoe 's having the memo turned them negative.
When Keyhoe handed out copies of the trick memo freely to the press
at his April 30 news conference, Ratchford was angered; he considered the
memo a private paper from Low's files. From that point on, the USAF de-
fended the Condon study, no holds barred. Secretary of the Army Harold
Brown had appointed Ratchford. 83 Was Ratchford, perhaps, carrying out
orders from a "replacement" in MJ-12, or an equivalent silence group?
Secrets upon secrets, mysteries upon mysteries. These are what faced
McDonald during those five stormy years. They still face UFO researchers
today. We know much more now, through the thousands of pages released
through the FOIA, about UFO studies that were being secretly conducted by
all branches of the military and governmental intelligence services. Where
is the deep, dark hole into which the best UFO data has been tucked by
anonymous officials? What prevents them from sharing this knowledge
with the American public?

81. Lynn Catoe produced the first comprehensive bibliography on UFO literature for the
Library of Congress.
82. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 4.
83. Secretary of the Army Harold Brown is mentioned as the top official who probably
appointed O'Brien and Ratchford to their respective positions of authority in determining
the way in which the half-million dollars in government money would be spent for " U F O
studies," as specified in McDonald's second journal, reverse p. 2, reverse p. 25, and p. 26.
CHAPTER 15

A Low Whistling Sound...

Tell me who, tell me who, oh, my bold chevaliers,

With your long-barreled guns from the sea.
Say what wind from the south brings a messenger here,
With a hymn of the dawn for the free.
—from "Kelly, the Boy from Killan"

All this has been said before—but since nobody listened

it must be said again.
Words used to open a lecture
by French philosopher Anore Gide

F rom 1969 on, McDonald's incessant UFO work began to affect

his professional career, and his university colleagues became con-
cerned. He still gave a full 40-hour week to his professional
responsibilities, but his prodigious publication on atmospheric subjects
slacked off. He continued to research cloud physics and meteorological
questions with the same vigor as before, but now rarely took the time nec-
essary to polish his writings for publication. Numerous unfinished papers
piled up in his files.
He produced 17 papers and articles during 1969, four on atmospher-
ic subjects and 13 on UFOs. The audiences before which he delivered
these 13 UFO papers were as prestigious as ever, ranging from the AMS
to the A A AS. These papers represented methodical and complex re-
search. McDonald would have taken time to polish them for publication,
but scientific journals simply refused to consider the subject. With the
sole exception of his Icarus review (actually a full article) on the Condon
Report, and a reprint of an 85-page paper published by a French UFO
journal, Phenomenes Spatiaux, his UFO work went uncelebrated in
print, and they remain "self-published" in his official bibliography. Lat-
er, in 1970 and 1971, some of his UFO papers were published in scien-
tifically oriented UFO journals. 1

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

396 FIRESTORM

The four papers he produced on aspects of atmospheric physics during

1969 were delivered before scientific audiences, also. They no doubt would
have been accepted for publication in scientific journals, but he did not take
time to hone and refine them to his satisfaction. Then, in September he sent a
15-page paper to the NSF, which discussed intentional climate modifications
such as cloud-seeding and inadvertent climate modification caused by the
growing problem of atmospheric pollution. He proposed research on the role
that lead and sulphur dioxide contaminants were playing in worldwide pollu-
tion. The NSF rejected the proposal.
McDonald's interest in the growing problem of atmospheric pollution
continued unabated, however, along with his interest in UFOs. He was one of
the first scientists to speak out about the problem of worldwide pollution by
lead contaminants. He developed his NSF proposal into a 42-page paper titled
"Airborne Lead: An Example of Technological Contamination of the Atmo-
sphere," but it, too, was never published. He also addressed the Environmental
Chemistry Seminar at the U. of A. Chemistry Department regarding pollution
by Tucson smelting plants; this paper, too, went unpublished.
His colleagues at the IAP were concerned about the fall-off in his formerly
prodigious output. The old academic adage, "Publish or perish," haunted them,
and they began to fear for his scientific status. None of them suggested outright
that he knock off UFOs but many felt that he was wasting his time rebutting the
Condon Report. Dr. A. Richard Kassander, the Director of IAP and McDonald's
fast friend, explains:
He certainly never neglected his duties at the IAP, but I think most of
us seniors in the Institute felt the same way.... His insights were so in-
ventive and so important that we all felt that he was capable of some
really great things in the advances and in the knowledge ofcloud phys-
ics and other areas of meteorology. That in some respects it was a
shame that he spent the time he did on UFOs, because much of that
was the sort of thing that lots of others could do quite well. It was his
privilege to decide where he could best use his talents ...but the amount
of time, and the heat he was taking... had to take its toll in other ways
on his science."
In spite of repeated efforts, McDonald had never been able to convince
Kassander and other IAP colleagues that UFOs were a serious scientific ques-
tion. "I believed that many of the phenomena he was trying to explain were
based on real observations," continues Kassander. "However, I wasn't sure

1. Copies o f this 100-page bibliography of all known writings by McDonald can be ordered
from Valerie Vaughan, 51 Longmeadow Drive, Amherst, MA 01002-3225.
A L o w WHISTLING S O U N D . . 397

then, and I'm not sure now, that they could not be explained by known scien-
tific principles if he had had all of the data and that it was reliable. However, I
felt that with his abilities, the possibilities of doing things in the areas that
would gain great scientific recognition were being neglected as a result of the
UFO work."
Disregarding the controversies that swirled around him, McDonald was
in his usual good humor when he went to St. Paul, Minn., for an Edison con-
ference talk at the end of May, 1969. A participant, Joseph Cook, told a story
which struck McDonald as funny, and he wrote it down for future use:
Joseph Cook told good story re novelty of approach ofgifted student:
how to determine the height of the school building using a barometer:
(1) Drop it off roof & time it; (2) Measure its shadow & ecclc brgs; (3)
Use it directly as yardstick; (4) Go to basement, knock on custodian's
door & say 'Mr. Johnson, if you '11 tell me the height of the school
building I'll give you this lovely barometer.2
A recent unexplained and widespread power outage at St. Paul, seemingly
connected with UFO incidents, took McDonald's interest. Ever since he had as-
siduously studied the 1965 Great Northeast Blackout, he had been intrigued by
such events. Herb Sherman and another local UFO investigator, who were chap-
eroning him around St. Paul for the Edison UFO conference, had not checked up
on a sighting which seemed connected with the blackout, so McDonald pursued
the issue. He tried to track down Mrs. Terry Walters, who had seen an unidenti-
fied object near power lines, but she had recently moved to Ohio. McDonald
made plans to contact her whenever his professional work took him into the Ohio
area; no promising case escaped his attention.
At St. Paul, he had long conversations with scientific colleagues A1 Cam-
eron and Henry Eyring. Eyring told McDonald that he thought he was on the
right track but that he personally doubted the extraterrestrial hypothesis. "Why
no contact?" asked Eyring.
AI [Cameron] used a somewhat new & very relevant argument: He
asked Eyring if he could conceive of anthropologists going to some
still untouched South Sea island & using...electronic bugging, tape-
recording conversations, use of closed-circuit TV, concealed cameras,
etc., to gather data discreetly & clandestinely, as means of avoiding
disturbance of the primitive culture... so maybe really advanced civili-
zations are far more enlightened.3

2. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 41. The meaning of "ecclc brgs" is unknown.
3. Ibid, p. 42
398 FIRESTORM

No handout exists for his May 26, 1969, St. Paul talk, but it was probably
similar to his talk at the Sacramento Section of the AIAA two days later, which
was titled "A Very Creditable Effort?" It was a rather winsome response to the
NAS panel's assessment of the Condon Report as "a very creditable effort," an
assessment with which McDonald intensely disagreed. (See page 332.) At the
St. Paul talk, where he was introduced by A1 Cameron, McDonald noticed two
of his colleagues in the audience, Drs. Strail and Van de Graef, "grinning neg-
atively at one introductory comment of Cameron's, suggesting their skepti-
cism regarding UFO reports. McDonald later philosophically wrote in his
journal: "What is the origin of this inclination to scorn & scoff? Isabel Davis
is paragon of critical non-scoffing, a good touchstone."4
His own scientific attitude was so honest that it never occurred to him to
scoff at anyone, even those whose scientific attitudes differed from his own. He
typically used logic, humor and impeccable data to back up his side of any de-
bate. His St. Paul talk was generally well received, however, and later McDonald
and Cameron walked to a nearby pizza place for coffee. McDonald shared some
ideas he'd picked up on the history of science. One should never set out to prove
anything, but work from a multi-hypothesis viewpoint, choosing the most logical
as a working hypothesis until undeniable proof surfaced one way or the other.
"It is very dangerous to get too enamored of any theory," McDonald said. "One
ought not be setting out to prove UFOs are anything, but to accept what the data
indicated. The bearing on UFOs is clear."5
McDonald asked Cameron about Gen. Clemence of NASA, whom he ap-
parently wanted to see regarding his own feeling that UFOs belonged in NASA's
province. Cameron replied that Clemence was a very conservative, unimagina-
tive fellow, "evincing zero imagination regarding what was going on."6 The
news didn't encourage McDonald, but it didn't discourage him, either!
After the St. Paul activities, McDonald flew on to Los Angeles. He was
scheduled to give a talk that night at the Naval Weapons Center (NWC) at
China Lake, Calif., but first spent a few hours with Los Angeles NICAP
Subcommittee (LANS) officials. He'd first learned of a China Lake "flap"
from a civilian employee, whose name must remain confidential, who
worked for a large private company which performed certain work at Naval
Ordnance Training Station (NOTS) and NWC. "He worked for a big com-
pany... that does a lot of work for the military," relates Marilyn Epperson.
"He was the one who first got the information. He was directed by some-

4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
A L o w WHISTLING SOUND.. 399

body to [contact] Mother [Idabel].... He sat and interviewed us for a while,

to see if he trusted us, before he even told us. Then he started telling us
about it. When Mother got this information, she thought, 'Wow! We've got
something!' She called McDonald and put the two in touch. They arranged
for McDonald to come and make a speech up there, a reason for him to
come on the base."
McDonald was flown to China Lake in a Navy-leased Cessna 210. 7 His
"China Lake" file mentions, "Dan Butler of Carlisle's group with us." 8 The
China Lake RESA section, connected with the AMS, was pulling out all
stops to treat him "first cabin." Many of the base personnel were eager to talk
with him regarding sightings they'd experienced; several of them had talked
with him in advance over the phone. McDonald had in his briefcase a reel-
to-reel hand recorder, intending to record particularly significant sightings
which would be shared with him on a confidential basis.
It was a swift but fruitful visit. He met for lunch with Lyman van Buskirk,
with whom he had gotten in touch through Epperson's initial China Lake
source and with whom he'd already corresponded at length. Van Buskirk told
him about a UFO photo which had been taken around 1952 by a reliable wit-
ness. McDonald took succinct notes, intending to follow up later:
Ray Hembree, a photographer (not sure if USN), was on range get-
ting ready for test. Photographed object; turned it in. Movie camera
of some type. Van did not see film, nor does he think Hembree saw
film after developed. Van [Buskirk] got here 1952, after incident
above. Van not sure of date. Maybe early 1950s, possibly late 1940s.
[Hembree] Now at Huntsville, Marshall Space Flite.9
Another confiscated UFO movie film down that deep, dark hole along
with Drury, Newhouse, and Heflin! It is not known if McDonald was able to
follow up the leads on the Hembree case.
McDonald had first learned of Van Buskirk's interest in UFOs while in-
vestigating Case #35 of the Condon Report, which occurred on October 6,
1967. It began when Vandenberg AFB radar detected a very large stationary
object some miles over the Pacific off the Northern California coast. Later, ra-
dar detected numerous small, but strong, targets traveling eastward in irregular
flight. The location and time of Case #35 was listed in the Condon Report as
"South Pacific, Fall 1967." 10 No one but researchers as thorough as McDonald

7. Ibid.
8. McDonald, "China Lake" file, handwritten notes.
9. Ibid.
400 FIRESTORM

could have identified this "Case 35" as the Vandenberg AFB sighting, espe-
cially since it was mentioned elsewhere in the report under the heading "Case
53." Whether the transposition of numbers was done deliberately to throw fu-
ture investigators off the track is moot. (Most of the other cases detailed in the
Condon Report were obscured in other ways; only extremely knowledgeable
researchers like McDonald had the background to make sense of them.)
McDonald had spoken before the A1AA section at Vandenberg AFB in
April and while there studied on-site the details of Case 35. As mentioned
above, these radar-visual sightings occurred on the evening of October 6,1967.
An original, large object had been viewed for 45 minutes by a missile-range
official at elevation 10-15° in the west-northwest. Unable to identify it, the of-
ficial called another range official, who viewed it through binoculars. The
large object was elliptical and the apparent size of "a large thumbtack." Al-
though it had red and green lights similar to aircraft, it was stationary for 45
minutes and was "fuzzy, like a spinning top."
Range Control Operations at Vandenberg AFB was alerted; they con-
firmed that the object was several miles out over the ocean at about 10,000' al-
titude. When missile radars were asked to look for it on a search mode, they
detected numerous smaller objects in that area. They traveled at varying
speeds, up to 80 knots. Several additional visual sightings were detected to the
east and north, over land. The Condon Report had "identified" the smaller ob-
jects as birds, AP (anomalous radar propagation) and perhaps a meteor or two,
and the large object as a mirage of a ship at sea. According to the Condon Re-
port, all the "misidentifications" had been caused by a "remarkable inversion
layer" which permitted optical mirages, scintillation, and AP, in spite of the
fact that many of the radar lock-ons indicated objects much larger than birds.
McDonald knew that an inversion layer would have limited optical mirages to
a few degrees above the horizon. Both the large and smaller objects were seen
at much higher elevations. McDonald's investigation revealed that the details
of the Vandenberg sightings were very different from that which was written
in the Condon Report. He was finding that same pattern repeatedly in his sys-
tematic checks on other Condon cases.
McDonald had earlier been informed by a Vandenberg official that his unit
had been queried by radio from the NWC at China Lake. NWC wished to as-
certain whether or not, at midday on October 6, 1967, any aircraft from Van-
denberg might have been flying in the NWC area at China Lake. VAFB
responded "negative." This inquiry was not mentioned in Condon's "Case 35."

10. Condon, Dr. Edward U., Project Director, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects,
New York, Toronto, London, Bantam Books, January 1969, pp. 353-65, also p. 171. Case 35.
A L o w WHISTLING SOUND.. 401

When he learned of the UFO incident at China Lake, which lies inland di-
rectly east of Vandenberg AFB, McDonald had established contact with Ly-
man van Buskirk of the NWC. He asked if van Buskirk could inquire about the
naval aviator's sighting, which had occurred a few hours before the Vanden-
berg radar-visual incident. The fact that the China Lake sighting occurred some
hours before the Vandenberg sightings did not trouble him particularly because
he was aware of the "carrier craft" concept in the UFO literature from Jacques
Vallee and other reliable researchers and considered such sightings, when re-
ported by credible observers, as valid. "Carrier craft" were large UFOs from
which smaller UFOs departed and returned over a period of hours.

Vallee was well acquainted with Aime Michel of France, a renowned UFO
researcher who had described cases of this type in France and surrounding
countries, particularly during the 1954 European flap. Michel, who called this
particular UFO phenomenon by the alternate name, "cloud cigars," wrote
about these cases in his book UFOs and the Straight Line Mystery.11 Vallee,
who studied similar cases, called these observations "Type II events."
The Vandenberg incidents, therefore, possibly represented a "carrier
craft" releasing numbers of smaller UFOs. Large UFOs like this had appeared
off the California coast from time to time, reportedly hovering for hours some
miles at sea. 12 If the Vandenberg main object was a "carrier craft," the Van-
denberg reports and the China Lake aviator sighting could possibly be linked.
In McDonald's files, no indication had been found that he managed to track
down the NWC aviator sighting.
McDonald's contact with China Lake personnel had begun almost a year
earlier, in December 1968. John H. Lyons of NWC had approached him after
a Miami Stormfury session and told him of an incident which had occurred
when Lyons was out on the NWC range, in radio communication with an air-
craft. Abruptly, electrical malfunctions occurred in his radio transmitter, and
his tracking gear went out. A range person at another camera station saw an un-
identified ellipsoid passing over. Lyons reported the incident, but there was no
official follow-up, so far as he knew.
McDonald had encouraged Lyons to talk to the two witnesses. He did so
and elicited some response, but many of the witnesses were reluctant to discuss
their sightings because of an attitude of ridicule among the base's top echelon.
It was during this period that McDonald established contact with Lyman van

11. Michel, Aime, Flying Saucers and the Straight Line Mystery, New York, Criterion Books,
1958.
12. Druffel, Ann, "Southern California's 'Cloud-Cigars'," Proceedings, Center for UFO Stud-
ies 1975 Conference, Evanston, 111.
402 FIRESTORM

Buskirk, who also knew several NWC personnel who'd seen UFOs. Some of
these were also reluctant to talk, but van Buskirk knew of an individual who
had photographed a UFO on the range. Those pictures had been immediately
confiscated through "official channels."
In 1955 or 1956 another set of UFO photos were taken by range person-
nel, Lyons told McDonald. An aircraft was flying over the range in broad
daylight, with a shining object following at wing tip. Witnesses on the
ground photographed the object, but the pictures did not turn out clearly. The
witnesses were ridiculed when they tried to show the photos, deterring others
from reporting UFOs.
Van Buskirk, however, had referred McDonald to Juanita Evans, who in
1960-62 had been a draftswoman at NOTS. She had seen a UFO from
Ridgecrest, a town outside the NWC/NOTS area at China Lake. She and her
husband were sitting on their porch on Labor Day weekend, September 1960,
in the early evening. An object came scooting across the eastern sky, under a
heavy layer of rain clouds, the estimated altitude of which was 5000'. It was of
immense apparent size, about 30° of arc; both witnesses confirmed this esti-
mate. The object was dull gray, with a translucent glow and little spots of lights
around the edge. It reflected light from street lamps situated near the Evan's
home. The witnesses heard a whirring sound "like a glider," and Mr. Evans at
first thought the object was an aircraft in trouble.13
The huge object was round, flat on top and bottom, with five bumps on the
front end. During the next two hours, from about 9:00 to 11:00 P.M., it made
several passes on differing courses—north to south, south to north and later
eastward. At the last pass, headed west, it pulled up at a steep angle. That same
night a man in a truck parked off the highway saw the object twice and reported
it to the local Ridgecrest newspaper, which ran a story about it.
The object was also viewed by the Evanses' eighth-grade son and their
older daughter. Juanita Evans made a model out of plastic material the next
day. At van Buskirk's urging, Evans reported the occurrence to the Air
Force.14 Five days after the Evanses' sighting, Mel Morrison, a security guard
at NWC, saw a red, pulsating UFO circling over Inyokern Airport, about six
miles away. As it came toward him, he saw that it was an inverted "V." He
could not see any solid body, even as it flew over him, only "red lights, feath-
ered out at the bottom." Morrison had a lot of range experience and was well
acquainted with aircraft and missiles, but could not identify it.

13. McDonald, "China Lake" file.

14. Ibid.
A L o w WHISTLING S O U N D . . 403

In February 1969, Marie McArtor, a NWC employee, had also contacted

McDonald at van Buskirk's urging, regarding a plane chase and abrupt disap-
pearance of a UFO she'd witnessed. She sent him a batch of useful unclassified
maps which detailed the weapons range. After lunch with van Buskirk at China
Lake, McDonald set about investigating the McArtor sighting on-site. It had
occurred on G1-G2 range, north of Armitage Field. In November or December
of 1955, McArtor was watching a pilotless drone aircraft which was flying
above 10,000'. The drone was part of a guided-missile experiment. The drone
was two to three miles ahead of the firing aircraft. The control planes which
were watching over the drone broke off as the attack plane came in. The drone
was 2.5 miles west of McArtor's station, when she spotted a very bright object
against the dull, overcast sky.
She'd seen bright UFOs like this before and had even viewed them in her
cine-theodolite, but this time she was not using it. Three other range person-
nel—aerology personnel and a timing man—also saw the object. They
watched it come down in a smooth, scooping curve and follow the attack
plane. It overtook the F-9 in 3-5 seconds and then abruptly vanished. All four
witnesses agreed that it "disappeared"; they simply saw no more of it. The
UFO had an angular size of about a third of the F-9 and was more oval than
round. Its edges were well defined, and it had a peculiar luminous look, "as
if glowing from within." It was orange-red and left no wake or exhaust. The
color was not uniform, being darker on the edges. 15 McArtor agreed to try to
track down the three other witnesses. She had not reported it to NWC offi-
cials, because she had been ridiculed when she reported a similar object prior
to that time. She later checked at the Record Office, but couldn't find records
of this particular period; she assumed that they had been routinely destroyed.
McDonald was interested in the object's abrupt disappearance, for such
cases almost seemed, to many researchers, to indicate "de-materialization." He
had referenced two dozen similar cases from the UFO literature and jotted
down brief details on many of them in his "miscellaneous" notebook, where he
was gathering preliminary data to write his book. 16
McDonald asked McArtor about the earlier sighting she'd reported. She
stated its appearance was very similar to the 1955 object. Also in the last half of
1955, she'd seen several objects of this type, which had flown at varying angles
to the path of drones and firing aircraft. The UFOs were always orange and oval.
She wanted to track them, but range regulations required that ground personnel

15 .Ibid.
16. McDonald's "Miscellaneous" notebook is archived with his Personal Collection at the
University of Arizona Library in Tucson.
404 FIRESTORM

stay with the drones and firing aircraft in the particular experiments which were
underway. Marie McArtor found no officials who were interested in these pecu-
liar objects which she and other witnesses repeatedly sighted. Her curiosity about
them never went away; reporting the incidents 14 years later to McDonald, she
still had no idea what they could have been. In his "China Lake" handwritten
notes, McDonald remarked that Marie McArtor was a very good witness and that
her sighting(s) held potential importance.
[McArtor] Very articulate & precise. Seemed almost relieved to talk
to someone who takes the problem seriously. Will be on lookout for
other UFO-NWC cases.... This is an Abrupt Disappearance case (4
witnesses.) Good example of Ridicule Lid.17
McDonald was also interested in the sighting during which radio interfer-
ence in the witnesses' truck had occurred, for EM effects were physical effects
which might provide hard data. The case had occurred on January 18, 1966;
the two witnesses were J.E. (Butch) Lamson and Gale V. Pingel. During his
busy afternoon at China Lake, McDonald went out with them to Range B-1C
of the NWC/NOTS facility where this incident had taken place, and they made
precise calculations and sketches depicting the event.
During the Lamson-Pingel sighting, the sky had been clear and blue, the
weather cool. No other range personnel were within ten miles of the site. The two
witnesses were sighting on a six-volt blinding flasher five or six miles away
when they heard a hum "like a cruising aircraft about three to five miles high."
Lamson looked up, and saw an odd, dark gray "craft" headed straight toward
them. When first seen, it was about 1,000' away.
"This thing was coming down my neck!" exclaimed Lamson, who had six
years' experience at NOTS. "When it went over my head I could have thrown a
rock at it and hit it. It was diving at a pretty good angle as it passed overhead."18
After its overhead dive, the object followed the contours of the ground, at
a height of about 10-15', with a uniform motion. Lamson quickly focused his
40X scope on it and got a good look at it; it filled about 75% of the scope's
field at first. At this point it was below them, because they were on a low hill.
The object was about 12' long, about 8' wide and one foot thick, excluding two
or three "fins" which stuck up from the back. Lamson saw three fins, and Pin-
gel, who was not using a scope, saw two. At the back, near the fins, was what
Lamson described as "a ha2y feature," seen before the object passed overhead;
this was not visible when the object traveled off to the south. McDonald ques-

17. McDonald, "China Lake" op. cit., reverse p. 5.

18. Ibid., reverse p. 5 & p. 6.
A L o w WHISTLING SOUND.. 405

tioned Lamson closely about "the hazy feature," for many UFOs reportedly
were surrounded by "haze:"
The "hazy " region began 1/4 way from back & aftfor 1 ft or so. "Real
thick. If you could see it off in distance you 'd have thought it was part
of the object. " Not glowing, not smoke.... After it went past, tail sharp
then... Doesn't think you could see through it. No impression of
spoiled image as looked at it from rear, he stressed.19
It was apparent that Lamson had trouble describing the "haze"; it was like
nothing he had ever seen before and completely outside his experience. Lamson
was clearly puzzled and deeply impressed by the event. "What a feeling!" he told
McDonald. "It was really different." Gale Pingel, who was seated in the truck
when Lamson first caught sight of the UFO, didn't see the "hazy feature" be-
cause he didn't see the object until it was passing overhead and started following
the contours of the land. After traveling a mile or so away from them, it dropped
down over a flat lava bed, then dropped down again 450'-500', still following the
contours of the earth. After that it was lost from sight. Lamson tried to start the
truck. The starter turned over, but the spark plugs wouldn't ignite. The truck's
radio didn't work well; Lamson estimated it was at about 20% transmission ca-
pacity and about 80% reception. Pingel tried to use the truck radio to report the
occurrence, but couldn't get through for about 20 minutes. It worked well before
and after the sighting.

Lyman van Buskirk had learned of this sighting soon after it happened
and had talked at length to the witnesses only two days later, while the details
were still fresh in their minds. Now, during James McDonald's re-investiga-
tion on-site, Lamson was still exhilarated by the sighting. "It was beautiful,"
he told McDonald. "It was as slick and as nice as it could be. I know it was
nothing we put together. It was too small for a person, and too quiet." 20
Gale Pingel, the second witness, had been employed at NOTS since 1946
as a range surveyor. Except for the "hazy" feature, his description of the event
matched Lamson's in all respects. McDonald was impressed with the quality
of the two witnesses. He noted that Lamson, particularly, was very articulate,
with no hint of exaggeration in his description. He'd spoken to very few people
about it "because of the attitude people have."
McDonald was curious to know whether anyone else at China Lake had
seen anything like this object. Van Buskirk located a security guard who saw
something similar a week earlier, within 3-4 miles of the spot where Lamson

19 .Ibid.
20. Ibid.
406 FIRESTORM

and Pingel had their sighting, but he didn't want to talk even to Lamson
(whom he knew well) out of fear of jeopardizing his job.
The third sighting McDonald investigated on-site on G-range at NOTS
during that busy May 1969 afternoon was a strangely shaped, silvery UFO wit-
nessed by Jack H. Kirkpatrick and Warren E. Specht. Kirkpatrick had been em-
ployed at NWC for 11 years. At approximately 2:00 P.M. in the afternoon of
September 4, 1960, the two men were part of a group watching a drone target
which was flying at about 10,000' or more. They spotted an object flying a few
thousand feet above the drone, "as if watching it."21 The sky was clear and
blue; the drone target was a bright red, easily seen. The UFO was bright, like
shiny metal, and reflected the sun. The UFO appeared about 35' long, about the
same size as the drone.
The UFO's unusual shape impressed Kirkpatrick. "It looked like a dumb-
bell, two spheres connected by a tube or tunnel," he stated. James McDonald
also interviewed Specht about this sighting, who confirmed the unusual dumb-
bell-shape of the object and recalled that it was "light-colored." The object was
very high, and Kirkpatrick and Specht could not see any ports, fins, or antenna
or get any clues to the object's propulsion system. The sun was at their backs,
which made the target drone and the object stand out very distinctly against the
sky. The witnesses called the object to the attention of several other range per-
sonnel, one of whom had binoculars. This witness agreed on the object's shape
and sharp outline; even with binoculars he could see no details on the UFO's
silvery surface. While Kirkpatrick remembered watching the object for about
two minutes, Specht recalled seeing it for 15-20 minutes while it paced the tar-
get plane. Then it shot up abruptly, disappearing in a few seconds, leaving no
trail of any kind.
Kirkpatrick's and Specht's descriptions agreed with several corollary wit-
nesses, including a Navy man who viewed the object with binoculars. They all
confirmed the dumbbell shape of the object. When Kirkpatrick first informed
McDonald about this sighting, he wrote: "I have done a lot of research and
reading on UFOs and aerial phenomena and at the time of this sighting I had
never heard of this particular shape, but since then I have read of similar ob-
jects being sighted somewhere over England and France."22
Kirkpatrick did not have to go to England and France to find dumbbell-
shaped UFOs; one had been reported just a few hundred miles south of China
Lake, in Los Angeles, on October 16, 1968. The initial call came over SKY-

21. Letter from Kirkpatrick to McDonald, dated 16 May 1969, accompanied by sketch of the
UFO.
22 .Ibid.
A L o w WHISTLING SOUND.. 407

NET, a tracking-system and filter center for public UFO reports which was an
adjunct of LANS. Harriet and Rochelle Dzik, ages 14 and 13, had viewed a
dumbbell-shaped object while walking to school at 7:50 A.M. The object was
seen clearly in a cloudless sky. Northeasterly winds, termed "Santa Ana"
winds in that region, had blown smog and other pollutants out to sea, and the
visibility was excellent. The object's apparent size was large, estimated on-site
at about two lunar diameters for each sphere. It was composed of two solid
round circles, dull steel in color, connected by a bar of the same color. On the
bar was a large, red light; the Dzik girls' sketches were eerily reminiscent of
Kirkpatrick's and Specht's. The object was traveling cross-wind and was in
sight for three minutes, emitting a whistling sound. In spite of their youth, both
witnesses were credible and reliable individuals. LANS thoroughly investigat-
ed and documented this sighting.23
Later it was learned that on February 28, 1971, a similar dumbbell-shape
was seen in broad daylight by Michael Jaffe, a well-regarded UFO investigator
in Northern California. Jaffe's dumbbell-shaped UFO was apparently being
pursued by a small plane, and was diving at a 45° angle. Its leading sphere was
red, while the trailing sphere was blue or green.24 This aspect of the sighting
is not unusual; UFOs are reported to change colors while varying speed and an-
gles of flight. The dumbbell-shape still continues to turn up on occasion in the
UFO literature.
During McDonald's 1969 China Lake visit, he investigated other promis-
ing cases. One in particular had occurred near sunset on January 19, 1966, the
day after Lamson and Pingel's sighting. The incident involved several witness-
es, most of whom McDonald interviewed. Two pilots flying on B range, plus
an Echo radar, were tracking a target drone, approaching Airport Lake. The pi-
lot in one of the planes made a turn at Airport Lake and then abruptly called in
to report that his gyroscope and all the needles on his dials were acting errati-
cally. At the same time, an Echo radar operator, Bob McClary, watching the
drone through an optical periscope, lost track of the drone. Instead, he saw a
dark unidentified "ball" in the scope for about 40 seconds.
This dark object was also seen from another site nearby by Frank Schaefer
and a second witness. Schaefer described the dull black, ball-shaped UFO as
about 20' in diameter, coming straight down from an estimated altitude of
5,000'. It dropped fairly close to the ground, then pulled out hard and took off
to the east. Schaefer guessed its speed at about 500 knots, but admitted that it

23. Druffel, Ann, FSR Case Histories, Supplement 9, February 1972, London WC2, England,
Published by FSR Publications Ltd., pp. 11-12.
24. Jaffe, Michael, FSR Case Histories, Supplement 5, June 1971.
408 FIRESTORM

was hard to judge. He stated that it went "down to the mountains and seemed
to hit the ground" before disappearing.25 Schaefer and the other witness report-
ed the incident to the office, but no one interviewed them about it.
One of the most interesting aspects to the China Lake sightings was that the
witnesses to one event had little or no contact with witnesses to other sightings.
Kirkpatrick had described this in his preliminary letter to McDonald,26 who con-
firmed this aspect on-site. As McDonald spent the entire afternoon investigating
case after case, it became apparent that, during many China Lake UFO sightings,
sophisticated instruments had been affected, important military tests interrupted,
and expert observers completely puzzled by unconventional aerial objects. If the
various tracking stations and other facilities at China Lake had had the support
of their superiors, a sophisticated monitoring and tracking system easily could
have been set up with the technology already at hand to track these unidentified
objects that NWC/NOTS personnel had been seeing for over ten years. If a gen-
eral air of "cover-up" had not surrounded the UFO subject, they would have been
able to present McDonald with undeniable, instrumented and photographic proof
that the UFOs were, indeed, flying over the Naval facilities at China Lake and
interfering with scientific experiments.
These were the type of empirical data that McDonald and a few other scien-
tists like Vallee and Hynek were seeking. The McArtor case, itself, demonstrates
that the Navy could have set up a scientific study at China Lake as early as 1955,
since UFOs were seen that year repeatedly during a six-month period. Sightings
were also being reported by civilians at the nearby towns of Ridgecrest and In-
yokern; therefore the tracking system could have included government, military
and public witnesses. Instead, McDonald found at these naval facilities the same
official disinterest and ridicule toward witnesses that the Air Force displayed.
He also queried Lyman van Buskirk about the October 6, 1967, sighting at
NWC, when a Navy aviator was buzzed twice by a UFO over China Lake. This
was the sighting which was possibly connected with the Vandenberg radar-vi-
sual sighting of the same date about which he was particularly curious—Case
#35 in the Condon Report. However, his "China Lake" notes reveal no details
about this. He had also queried "Ralston ROCC" at Vandenberg about it, but
again, no details have been found. Case #35 was of prime importance to him,
as it could be another significant case demonstrating that the Condon Report
had merely followed Blue Book's lead, and that a definitive UFO study had
still to be accomplished.

25. McDonald, "China Lake" op. cit., pp. 3-4.

26. Kirkpatrick's letter to McDonald, dated 16 May 1969.
A L o w WHISTLING S O U N D . . 409

He ran into even stranger reports at China Lake. They were not the type of
cases where he could interview the witnesses merely by picking up the base
phone and dialing an extension, yet he could not ignore them as they might re-
veal extraordinary data. The first of these came from Duane Mack, an NWC
employee well acquainted with Lamson and Pingel, who vouched for his ve-
racity. Mack told McDonald about an engineer friend, Arthur Richards, who
had had a ranch near a town named Brown, which no longer existed but had
been near Inyokern. About 12 years prior, Richards had told Mack he had seen
a "UFO landing" out on the lava beds near his ranch. The incident had occurred
"during the war" (apparently World War II). Richards' landing report had been
"a NOTS incident."
Mack told McDonald, "He told me he saw something awfully strange, and
he added, 'you wouldn't believe it!'" If a UFO landing had indeed occurred at
China Lake, it would be one of the earliest landing cases known. McDonald did
not speak openly of "UFO landings" in his talks before scientific groups, but he
was greatly interested in such reports, as were prominent researchers like
Jacques Vallee, J. Allen Hynek, Aime Michel and NICAP personnel. McDonald
expressed an interest in trying to track down this potentially important case. The
primary witness, Arthur Richards, had been killed in an auto accident, but his
wife, Jennifer Richards, was living in St. Petersburg, Fla. Mack thought she
might be able to tell McDonald more about what Richards had seen.
Mack also confided another strange, potentially valuable 1945 case which
possibly correlated with the 1945 emigre scientists' sighting as well as the
1945 Long Beach sighting (see Chapter 13). He had learned about this early
NOTS sighting from Lamson and Pingel. Pingel had been reluctant to discuss
it with Mack, but Lamson had spoken more freely about it. It was the earliest
sighting Mack had come across. Sometime in 1945, during a test rocket firing
at the range, several unidentified objects were seen reflecting the sun in the
clear blue sky. World War II was still raging in the Pacific. Mack and numer-
ous other witnesses saw the objects fairly close at first, moving in a group from
the south toward the north at a fairly high altitude. They were nevertheless dis-
tinct and reflected the sun brightly as if made of metal. However, no details
could be discerned, nor their exact shape.
A crash photographer was called to the scene, but by the time he arrived
the objects had moved farther away. The group of eight to ten objects was
maneuvering in ways that were impossible for any known aircraft: They
would drop down abruptly, then climb steeply, drop down in a shallow dive,
then rise again, basically keeping their same positions within the group. Af-

27. McDonald, "China Lake" op. cit.

410 FIRESTORM

ter several minutes, they flew off at high speed. The sighting caused a flurry
on the base because of the number of witnesses. A "Dr. Plum" was on the
range that day. He was intrigued by the sighting and especially the fact that
the objects had been filmed, even at considerable distance. Mack gave him
the film, but never heard what Plum did with it. Mack gave McDonald tips
on Dr. Plum's possible location.
Also on the range that day was a Dr. Dost, whom Mack described as an
"OEG Rep assigned to PX-5 experimental squadron." Mack and Dost had
many conversations afterward about UFOs, and Dost, "who had access to a
lot of Washington, D.C., information," told him that UFOs "definitely ex-
ist." 28 In 1969 Dr. Dost, a brilliant German-born physicist, was still with the
U.S. Navy. Mack succeeded in obtaining Dr. Dost's address in Maryland and
gave it to McDonald. Nothing has been found in McDonald's files to indicate
that he was ever able to follow up on Dr. Dost.
Another type of "UFO" case at China Lake intrigued McDonald. It was very
different from the reports of metallic-appearing craft which were so plentiful
from the NWC/NOTS personnel. Through LANS, McDonald had heard that a
civilian, Walt Bickel, who lived in the nearby mountains, was reporting many
strange sky objects. His observations were frequently corroborated by other re-
liable witnesses. He lived near Inyokern, in a cabin overlooking the Naval facil-
ities which, although in the mountains, was nevertheless in a small valley, "a
pocket of sorts." He had lived there for 20 years, mining a placer claim. A few
people who heard of his sightings would drive up on weekends to join him on
"skywatches." Bickel provided a primitive camp for his visitors, who were care-
ful not to spread the word too much, for Bickel did not wish to be overwhelmed.
Alice Perkins, a reporter on the Santa Ana Register wrote:
1 trust [Walt 'sj word more than I do most people's; he's an American
original, out of a pioneer mold... he has a fine and active mind with a
self-gained, practical education crammed into it.29
Dr. Neil Davis, a scientist who often attended LANS meetings, went up a
few times to Bickel's camp, as did Alice Perkins. Davis suggested that Bickel
keep a diary, listing each sighting by number and description, which he did.
Bickel did not embellish in his diary, but listed any witnesses present. Most of
the sightings were what he termed "erratic lights," but a few times he had seen
craftlike shapes.

28. Ibid, pp. 5-6. The meaning of "OEG Representative]" is not known.
29. Letter from Alice Perkins to Ann Druflfel, September 17, 1968.
A L o w WHISTLING SOUND.. 411

Sometime in the 1950s, Bickel said he snapped a photo of one of the first
objects which came close to his cabin. His outdoor shower was framed to one
side, the UFO on the other. He sent the entire roll to the Air Force for analysis,
but the roll was returned with the emulsion scraped off that one frame. All the
other photos on the roll were clear and sharp. Another time he'd taken two pho-
tos of a different daytime sighting "many years ago"—he could not estimate
the date—and had the roll developed in Mojave, one of the larger towns in the
area. When he picked them up, two frames which he expected to show the ob-
ject were missing. He was told that they were "lost." Finally, the clerk admitted
that "the Air Force has told them to cut out any pictures of UFOs or 'flying sau-
cers' and send them to them." 30
By 1969, Bickel had listed 69 sightings in his diary, beginning in 1952.
Most of them were "night lights" (NLs), but still were strange enough to defy
any type of conventional explanation such as planes, missile firings, meteors,
satellites, etc. LANS realized there was little that could be done with these, in
spite of multiple witnesses. The NLs did not interest McDonald either. LANS
sent inquiries to the commanding officers of other nearby military facilities in-
quiring about Bickel's sightings. Those facilities that bothered to answer of-
fered no explanations; the other facilities ignored the queries entirely.
Even though Bickel's camp was essentially surrounded by government
research facilities, that fact alone could not identify the objects as experimen-
tal technology. The more interesting sightings which took the attention of
LANS, NICAP, Alice Perkins, Dr. Neil Davis and other researchers, includ-
ing McDonald, were seen low over Bickel's camp or against the background
of nearby hills, which were about two miles away. According to the witness-
es, some of the objects were seen apparently "landing" behind these low
hills, but in front of hills farther away in the distance. It was not logical to
suppose that objects coming from nearby military installations would de-
scend into small valleys.
LANS tried to find sources that could set up an all-sky camera or a meteor-
tracking camera at Bickel's camp, but these efforts came to naught.
Even a referral from Dr. John A. Russell, Chairman of the Astronomy De-
partment of the University of Southern California to Lee F. Humiston, a scientist
based at NOTS, failed to interest them. McDonald remained skeptical of the ma-
jority of Bickel's sightings; Bickel saw so many! He realized, however, that a

30. From my interview with a reliable source, who has requested anonymity. This woman went
with a group o f Southern California researchers, including Neil Davis, to Bickel's camp, on
Sept. 2 2 , 1 9 6 8 , and reported back what Walt Bickel had told her about his experiences with
UFO photos. Documentation in my files.
412 FIRESTORM

witness living in a dark, isolated area, who took time to look at the sky, would
logically have a better chance of seeing UFOs than an ordinary citizen who rare-
ly looked up. His main interest in Bickel was that he lived close to China Lake,
where unidentified objects were reported by technically trained Navy personnel.
He was also impressed with the reliable, corollary witnesses, especially Dr. Neil
Davis. Davis kept in touch with McDonald, particularly in regard to Bickel's
sketches of close, craftlike objects seen in the daytime.
Bickel's Case #67 caught McDonald's interest because it involved E-M
effects, animal reaction, an unusual odor (often associated with UFOs) and a
possible element of "missing time."31 Although McDonald did not publicly
discuss cases of missing time in his talks and papers, such as the case of Barney
and Betty Hill, or sightings in which apparent UFO occupants were reported,
he was curious about them. Many of the witnesses were solid, reliable people
and other UFO researchers, such as Aime Michel, J. Allen Hynek, and Jacques
Vallee, gave them credence. McDonald's open-minded attitude would not per-
mit him to exclude such cases, and when well-investigated data on occupant
cases and "missing time" came to his attention he would take careful notes and
gather other information on them in his files.
Missing-time cases—involving witnesses who experienced memory laps-
es after being close to a UFO-type object— were rare in 1969. The Hill case
was the best known of this type (see Chapter 10), but a few others had begun
to surface, particularly in the U.S. McDonald had received initial reports on
Bickel's "missing time" experience from LANS and at his request Dr. Davis
interviewed Bickel on-site about it.
The facts of Bickel's "Case #67" were bizarre: He was asleep one night
in his cabin when a warning buzzer sounded, part of a security system he'd
set up in his camp. He heard several of his pet cats screaming frantically. He
sat up and listened about ten seconds. Abruptly, a time lapse occurred, and
he inexplicably found himself hurrying toward the door. He held a flashlight
which was not turned on; his finger was nowhere near the switch. Another
time lapse occurred, and then the flashlight was lit; he had no memory of
turning it on. The security buzzer was now silent. All of his cats were still
screaming, and he smelled a strong odor.
Usually when one of his cats screamed, it was because a bobcat had come
near the camp. Bickel had, on occasion, shot a marauding animal that was
threatening his pets. This evening, there was no bobcat to be seen and no other
apparent cause of the cats' behavior. He thought the strong odor might be

31. Dr. Neil Davis gave me a tape recording which he made while reading Bickel's diary, plus
an interview with Bickel, a copy of which is in my files.
A L o w WHISTLING SOUND.. 413

ozone, because lightning sometimes struck near his camp during thunder-
storms. Yet he had never smelled ozone that strong before. It seemed to have
a bit of methane mixed in it. "It had an awfully funny smell," Bickel told Davis,
"and the more I smelled of it, the more I thought about it. No! It had to be a
heavy ozone there." He went outside.
"Everything is peculiar about the way it happened," Bickel related, "the
cats screaming so much, their hair standing up, their tails as big as a baseball
bat.... When I yelled at them they slinked away...." 32 He was doubly alarmed
to see his cabin surrounded by some type of smoke or fog, the like of which he
had never seen before. "There was some kind of smoke with it. Must have
been, 'cause ozone doesn't have smoke," Bickel related. "It's just in the atmo-
sphere and it's clear. So this is why I couldn't decide if it had ozone or methane
mixed with it."
Bickel had never before experienced a fog like that at his cabin site. "Fog,
when it lays in here in the wintertime, is after a snow, and it's warming up, or
after a rain and early in the morning it will come up," he explained. "But it's
usually over in the valley on the mesa south of here. The valley's all clear, just
a little bit scattered here and there. And it usually hangs about 20 feet above
the valley." Yet there was no rain or snow that evening, only clear skies, except
for the whitish "smoke" or "fog." He described it precisely to Davis, including
the thickness of the layer and the way it encapsulated his camp to the exclusion
of everything else.
When I first seen it down there in the driveway, looking back in it,
it didn't look like it was any higher than those hills right here by
the house. And it wasn't east of here more than a hundred feet and
down there fifty or sixty feet in front of the house and over around
the garage.... That's the only place it was.33
He shone his flashlight up and down the canyon. Everything was clear;
he could see a long way with the powerful beam. Bickel was shaken. He went
back into the house. Although the ozone odor was also in the house, there
was no hint of the "fog" inside. He began to wonder if a "flying saucer" had
possibly come through the canyon; it was the only thing he could think of that
would explain his cats' reaction and leave an ozone-like odor. After a few
minutes, he again went into the yard. The foglike haze had risen to about
head high and was thinning out. After another few minutes, he checked out-
side around the cabin and could see everything about ten feet high; the fog

32. From transcript of taped interview with Walt Bickel by Dr. Neil Davis.
33 .Ibid.
414 FIRESTORM

was thinning out and dispersing straight up into the sky. Within a half hour,
the fog and the odor were gone." 34
McDonald was intrigued by Bickel's report. Time did not permit him to
visit Bickel's camp during his China Lake visit, but he retained a vivid interest
in the occurrence and welcomed reports on happenings at the Bickel campsite
from LANS and Davis for months afterwards.
During McDonald's May 27, 1969, visit to China Lake, after investigating
on-site the Kirkpatrick, McArtor, and Lamson-Pingel sightings and collecting
information on several others—the afternoon was gone. That night he gave a talk
at the NWC Community Center. Speaking before a large, energetic RESA/AMS
audience, he stressed U.S. Navy and NOTS/NWC cases but did not give details
of the sightings he'd collected that afternoon because of the need for confidenti-
ality and follow-up investigations. Plenty of other published cases had occurred
in the vicinity, of which the NWC/NOTS audience was not aware.
The subsequent Q & A session finished late. Lyman van Buskirk then took
him home; they talked until midnight over a glass or two of beer, discussing an
electrostatic propulsion concept. The next day, McDonald flew to Sacramento to
give a talk to the AIAA section and to consult with Paul Cerny and Gary Lee of
the local NICAP Affiliate. He also discussed nuclear rockets with Paul Rowe.
Later, he boarded a flight in early evening, which stopped first at LAX. He then
changed planes to RW917, with continued service to Tucson.
Flight 917 had a half-hour stopover. McDonald never liked to waste
time; he decided to call Idabel Epperson at LANS. He did not take his brief-
case with him; instead, he put a paperback book he'd been reading in the side
pocket and tucked the briefcase well back under the seat. It was heavy and
cumbersome, and was, as usual, loaded with sensitive materials. It was not a
squarish briefcase in common use today, but an older type, the size of a piece
of luggage, with a fold-over top and straps which buckled to keep the con-
tents in place. He got off the plane and went into the airport to chat about cur-
rent UFO happenings with Epperson.
"If he was working a particular case, he'd call up and ask her if she had
any information on it," relates Idabel's daughter, Marilyn Epperson, who was
also a LANS member. "Or they'd discuss UFOs in general, or he'd call to find
out if anything new was happening."36

34. Ibid.
35. Letter from McDonald to author, dated April 15, 1969.
36. Interview with Marilyn Epperson and David Branch, 11 February 1994. Also personal
knowledge o f author.
A L o w WHISTLING SOUND.. 415

McDonald spent 15 minutes filling Epperson in on what had happened dur-

ing his China Lake trip and receiving an update of on-going Los Angeles cases.
When he returned to the aircraft, his briefcase was missing.37 The flight atten-
dants tried to find it, unsuccessfully. There was nothing he could do but get off
Flight 917 and hunt in the airport, in case his briefcase had been mistakenly re-
moved for some reason. He inquired of all possible airline personnel who could
help him find his briefcase, with no results. He called Idabel Epperson and both
she and Marilyn offered to come down to LAX to help him search or, at the very
least, keep him company while he looked. He did not want to inconvenience
them; the only resource left was to contact the airline desk, inquire about luggage
which might have been turned in and ask at the "check-in" desk, although he had
not checked it; it was a carry-on which did not require a luggage tag. The airline
had no record of it anywhere.

McDonald was troubled. The briefcase contained several tapes of inter-

views he'd conducted on the three China Lake cases, as well as sketches, notes
and calculations which had been made on-site. It also contained taped inter-
views from his Pt. Mugu and Vandenberg AFB trips, for he had been trying to
find a link between the October 6, 1967, Vandenberg "carrier craft" sighting
and the China Lake naval aviator sighting of the same date (see above). In ad-
dition to these priceless papers and tapes, he had confidential notes concerning
radar-visual cases at NWC and NOTS that he did not write up in his "China
Lake" file, possibly including information about that very elusive NWC naval
aviator sighting!
McDonald was aware that his confidential sources might be compro-
mised if the briefcase fell into the wrong hands. The China Lake cases he'd
investigated and written about in his "China Lake Notes" file apparently did
not go against governmental regulations regarding the release of UFO infor-
mation, for he wrote many pages of notes on these, accompanied by sketches
and other documentation, which have been found in his "China Lake file."
The confidential cases, however, were another matter.
He had no evidence that someone stole the briefcase deliberately in order to
compromise his confidential witnesses, and he was not convinced that a govern-
ment cover-up existed. Idabel and Marilyn Epperson and other LANS personnel
were more inclined to accept the government cover-up theory. Idabel suggested
to McDonald that the briefcase might had been taken deliberately, so that "some-
one" could check up on data he was uncovering, especially any sensitive material
from China Lake, Pt. Mugu and Vandenberg AFB. McDonald did not agree it
had been taken intentionally, but he remained very concerned.

37 .Ibid.
416 FIRESTORM

About 9:30 that evening, failing to find his luggage in spite of the efforts
of airport personnel, he boarded another plane to Tucson, arriving home at
11:00. About midnight, a messenger abruptly delivered his briefcase to his
door, leaving immediately before McDonald had a chance to ask him any ques-
tions.38 Opening it, McDonald realized the contents had been rifled through.
Although nothing seemed to be missing, one side pocket zipper was pulled
apart. Also, the contents were not in the precise order he had placed them.
Strangest of all, the briefcase had a valid LAX luggage tag on it, indicat-
ing that it had come through on Flight 917, the very flight he'd gotten off
temporarily to call Epperson and to which he'd returned to find the luggage
missing. McDonald could not understand this. He had not checked the brief-
case because he had carried it on the plane; therefore, it could not have a lug-
gage tag on it by his own action. Who had taken it from its place under his
seat? And why hadn't the perpetrators, whoever they were, simply returned
it under his seat? It seemed apparent that they wanted to keep the briefcase
longer than the half hour he was gone talking with Idabel Epperson on the
airport phone. What had they done with it during the four hours it was miss-
ing? Why did it have a Flight 917 tag on it, instead of a later flight tag? Had
the unknown thieves, after rifling through the contents, somehow had an er-
satz Flight 917 tag put on it?
The lack of logic disturbed him. He inquired at several official sources at
Tucson Airport and LAX, asking them if they could explain the discrepancies.
None could give him a satisfactory answer although he spent several hours on
the phone with airline officials. He was finally told that there was no way they
knew of, that his briefcase could have been taken from the plane and then later
checked on Flight 917, after it departed. The fact that McDonald could not
solve the mystery irritated him so much that he wrote to a couple of trusted col-
leagues, including Epperson and Jim Hughes, describing the event in detail.39
To Idabel Epperson, and to other colleagues in the UFO field, the event was
not so mysterious. She agreed that the manner in which the briefcase had been
taken and returned was as mysterious as McDonald thought, but she was able
to hypothesize why it had happened (see Appendix Item 15-A, page 572).
The cases from the naval facilities at China Lake had never before been
investigated by an outside researcher, much less a prominent scientist. There
was the possibility, too, that McDonald had also investigated an extremely sen-

38. Interview with Mrs. Betsy McDonald.

39. Letter from McDonald to Idabel Epperson, dated June 4, 1969. In this letter McDonald
stated that the "luggage was at the Tucson terminal when I reached there." Perhaps he was
merely condensing the events which led to his receiving the luggage at his home from an
airport messenger, as Betsy McDonald recalls.
A L o w WHISTLING SOUND.. 417

sitive radar-visual case at one of the China Lake Navy facilities on the 27th but
did not make handwritten notes on this for his open "China Lake" folder. A
logical candidate for such a case would be the naval aviator's sighting with its
possible correlation with the Vandenberg AFB sighting of October 6, 1967.
Marilyn Epperson remembers that, on the occasion of the missing briefcase,
McDonald had very sensitive interview tapes and other private papers concern-
ing such an important radar-visual case. None of the China Lake cases—Kirk-
patrick, McArtor, Lamson-Pingel—were of this type. However, Marilyn
Epperson states emphatically:
"He interviewed some of the military, plus the civilians, the radar opera-
tors.... It was a humdinger! They all trusted him. They spilled their guts to
him! That's what scared the heck out of us. Plus it was a case where he was
going to have to keep the source a secret. He probably would have sat on that
case for years." Asked if it was a Blue Book case, Epperson replied, "No, they
didn't know anything about it."
But an even more ominous aspect of the mystery was that McDonald real-
ized the briefcase had been rifled through. Marilyn Epperson describes what
McDonald told them later: "He opened it and looked inside.... He knew exactly
how he had placed everything. And whoever had gone through it hadn't put it
back that way, some things were not in the same places. So he figured they had
been looked over. He said it was all there, but there were interview tapes and
notes. They could copy the whole thing! Somebody had to send it back."
After his initial puzzlement, during which he shared the event in detail
with several UFO colleagues, McDonald gave no further sign that the incident
worried him excessively. His description of the event in his journal is typically
straightforward and brief:
Lost luggage at LAXfrom RW 917 when stopped off to phone Idabel for
15 min. Had been under seat & was gone. Elected get off & hunt. Got to
TUS c. 2300 & bag there [delivered to home], valid baggage check on
it & came on 917. Several inquiries to[airlines] led to no clarification.40
The answer to this mystery might be simply that someone on the airliner
found the briefcase and took it off the plane to the luggage counter. But why?
And if so, why was McDonald not told it was there when he inquired at LAX?
During the time he searched for the briefcase, both on and off Flight 917, he
alerted the airline's personnel to be on the lookout for the briefcase and at their
suggestion even inquired at the luggage check-in counter. To the UFO col-
leagues he told about it, there was a simple answer: Someone stole the briefcase

40. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 42.

418 FIRESTORM

to check up on what he had learned at China Lake and, perhaps, at Vandenberg

AFB or Pt. Mugu.
McDonald found it difficult to accept this explanation, at least openly. If
he ever had any suspicions that someone was monitoring his activities, he
seems to have kept them strictly to himself, for he realized that, in order to
maintain credibility within the scientific community, he must avoid all sus-
picion of paranoid thinking. To his scientific peers he must present a straight-
forward scientific approach.
The briefcase was missing for four hours, enough time for the perpetrator
to copy at least some of the contents— interview tapes, sketches and other ma-
terials. Was the perpetrator interested in everything, or something particularly
sensitive? The NWC aviator's sighting which (possibly) correlated with the
Vandenberg AFB event? Mack's photo case which possibly correlated with the
puzzling 1945 sighting by the emigre scientists? The reported "landing" on
China Lake? The addresses of Dr. Plum and Dr. Dost? Or perhaps, data on
some other sensitive cases not mentioned in McDonald's files, notes or jour-
nals and about which the research field knows nothing?
Incidents of lost luggage and of luggage rifled through continued to plague
McDonald. Occasionally in his journal he had written the cryptic note, "Lug-
gage lost" even before the Los Angeles briefcase incident, but it was always
returned by the airlines soon afterwards. Perhaps these other incidents were no
different from those experienced by frequent flyers. But they seemed to happen
more often, and his luggage would sometimes be returned to him rifled
through. He did not speak often about these events, but every once in a while
he confided to a UFO colleague that unexplained things were happening, ap-
parently choosing to tell one colleague about one event and describing another
event to someone else. To his colleagues at the university he said nothing, pos-
sibly because it would intensify their aversion to the UFO subject. The only ex-
ception seems to be the incident of the missing briefcase. He spoke of this to
some IAP colleagues while he was trying to figure it out, probably because the
luggage tag was physical evidence of a curious happening which even the air-
line could not explain.
"I was worried about him...I thought he was getting into something that
might re-bound on him," relates Marty Lore. "I had asked him how he felt
about it, especially that time with the briefcase disappearing, and other things,
but he said, 'I'm just getting used to it. That's the way it is.' And 'It's normal,
it happens all the time.' He didn't like it.... He didn't lose anything, essential-
ly, but he knew that something was going on. But he didn't seem to be partic-
ularly worried about it, at least when he was around me. It was going on up to
the last time I saw him. I guess it had been going on for...more than a year."41
A L o w WHISTLING SOUND.. 419

It was not only his luggage and briefcase that were disappearing. Some un-
known person stole his UFO slides from the projector carousel after one of his
talks to the AMS. This was before the briefcase incident; he merely noted the
event in his journal as, "Lost slides," even though he had been inconvenienced
in a rather major way. 42
Shortly after McDonald returned to Tucson from his 1969 China Lake trip,
he began to notice that unusual cars were following him around town. He still
rode his bike to and from the campus whenever possible, but he used the family
car for other errands, including UFO-related work. The cars which followed him
were of the plain Jane variety, the type often associated with undercover or sur-
veillance activity. The strangest thing about these cars, as far as McDonald was
concerned, was that they had no license plates back or front. He considered this
strange because ordinarily a car without any plates would be stopped by police
at some point in its journey.
From time to time, the McDonalds, especially Betsy, had been followed by
police or sheriffs cars, particularly when she was engaged in activist causes,
such as the visit of the Black Panthers (see Chapter 13). She and James were well
acquainted with law-enforcement surveillance automobiles, however, and took
them in stride. Betsy McDonald laughs as she describes two surveillance cars
which waited outside the home, parked near the driveway when the two Black
Panthers were in Tucson in 1969 and stayed overnight at the McDonald home.
The law enforcement surveillance cars were apparently trailing the Panthers and
Tucsonans who assisted them. Betsy left early that evening to set up the audio
equipment, flyers, and other material for the Panthers' public talk. As she pulled
her car out of the driveway, one of the cars followed, not even trying to hide the
fact that it was tailing her. Later, when the Panthers left to give their speech in
their own car, the second law enforcement car followed them. McDonald did not
attend the talk. He had learned all he wished about the Panther movement chat-
ting with them for hours!
Betsy has a sense of humor about it all. "The surveillance car was so
open, just so blatant," says Betsy. "At our driveway, there would be our car,
and there would be a car up here and a car right here. This was part of two
days and a night."
These official surveillance cars, however, had license plates with particu-
lar symbols or markings, which were readily visible. The cars which followed
McDonald around Tucson had no license plates at all. Puzzling about it, he
sought Idabel Epperson's input, asking if she had ever heard of any incident of

41. Interview with Marty and Gordon Lore, 11 September 1993.

42. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 3.
420 FIRESTORM

a person involved in UFO research being followed around by cars without li-
cense plates or other identifiable symbols.43 The question troubled her; she had
heard of similar events happening to a couple of other researchers in the field,
but knew of none first-hand. McDonald seemed to accept her answer but gave
no sign that he was troubled or worried about the situation. Marilyn Epperson
and researcher David Branch, a member of LANS, recalled the incident:
"They didn't have license plates, and some friend he told it to told him
he'd better get himself a gun." Branch confirmed, "I remember that. A friend
told him to get a gun. The briefcase incident was around the same time as the
thing about the cars. That's all I know."
Marilyn Epperson does not know about any occupants McDonald might
have seen in the cars. "Just a car," she relates. "And obviously it was more than
one time." She has a ready answer for those who deny that cars, official or not,
can drive around town without license plates. "Even people who rob banks
cover up their license or take it off and then when they get someplace [safe]
they put it back on. This is an old gag...to remove the license plates."44
So far as McDonald himself was concerned, there was nothing he could do
about the situation. He accepted the strange cars into his life and continued on.

43. Communication from Idabel Epperson to author, June 1969.

44. Interview with David Branch and Marilyn Epperson, 11 Feb. 1994.
CHAPTER 16

Strange Happenings

Andfrom the plains of royal Meath

Strong men came hurrying through,
While Britannia's sons, with their long-range guns
Sailed in from the foggy dew....
—from "The Foggy Dew"

If you take the king's shilling, you must fight the king's battles.
—Author unknown

S ome scientists who had begun to re-think the UFO problem took
the Condon Report at face value, and their interest fell off sharply,
giving McDonald added impetus to rebut it. Project Blue Book
also folded at the same time, citing Condon's findings. Its closure dis-
mayed McDonald, who'd hoped that it would be upgraded into a full sci-
entific study. Instead, the only official place where the public could report
sightings no longer existed.
He kept up his talks all over the country, often speaking two or three
times a week, and juggling these with his ONR, Navy Stormfury and
NAS-POWACM responsibilities. All this was in addition to his 40-hour
work week at the IAP. His fourth journal details his schedules and con-
tacts, both with professional colleagues and UFO researchers. He realized
he was not succeeding as fast as he'd expected, yet he kept his sense of hu-
mor. He collected cartoons which showed the amusing side of the UFO
puzzle, and had some made into slides to add a little merriment to his talks.
Still, troubling events continued to plague him.
In August 1969 he traveled to Denver, Colo., to participate in an NAA
symposium on "Science & UFOs." Six speakers were on the agenda, in-
cluding J. Allen Hynek. At an evening press conference, McDonald was
asked what he thought was responsible for the widespread neglect of the
UFO question. "The scientific community is basically responsible for the
neglect this problem has suffered during the past 20 years," he replied.

Firestorm - Ann Drujfel

422 FIRESTORM

"They are the ones who should have been paying attention and studying it seri-
ously all this time...." It was at this conference that J. Allen Hynek made the mis-
take of remarking to the reporters present that McDonald "was finally coming
around to my point of view!" (see Chapter 5.)
McDonald's talks were still received with wide interest by his scientific
colleagues, and his persuasive data on Condon's cases slowly began to win
many of them over. His university colleagues still listened with interest to his
descriptions of intriguing UFO cases he was working on, but none of them,
with the exception of Dr. Ben Herman, had ever participated actively in the re-
search. They maintained simply a willingness to listen, acknowledging that he
was the best judge of what to do with his time. The UFO community, by con-
trast, valued his contributions keenly. There was an unspoken hope that his
unique combination of talents, contacts, and persistence would bring about a
breakthrough. This appreciation is not what kept him going; his own convic-
tion that UFOs were a serious scientific question drove him. The camaraderie
of his numerous UFO associates provided a certain buoyancy, however, which
he appreciated, while he hid his deepening troubles from them.
He slowly accepted the fact that scientists like Robert M. Wood of Mc-
Donnell-Douglas were not free to speak out publicly. Their corporations de-
pended largely on military contracts, and the military (Air Force) had
announced that UFOs were nonsense. McDonald heard from other academ-
ics who were experiencing repercussions. One of these was Stan Seers of the
physics department at the University at Brisbane. Seers, whom McDonald
had met during his 1967 trip "down under," had been particularly helpful in
the cases involving the "Tully nests," those circular matted patches of lagoon
reeds apparently caused by UFOs (see page 186).
In a long letter, Seers informed him about a color UFO photo that had
been stolen from his Queensland UFO group by a Kodak employee and end-
ed up in the Australian Department of the Interior.1 Seers had urged UFO in-
vestigator Vince Mele to hand the matter over to the State Police as a clear-
cut case of theft. Many weeks passed; eventually the detective assigned to the
case met with Mele and, in strict confidence, told him that the film was in
government hands and that there was not the slightest chance of getting it
back. He advised Mele to forget the whole thing. Mele, a volatile Italian,
broke the detective's confidence and told Seers what had happened. Seers
elicited the help of a local member of the Commonwealth Government, Colin
Bennett, who was somewhat of a political rebel, and he took up the cudgel
on Seers' behalf.

1. Letter from Stan Seers to McDonald, dated 28 February 1969.

STRANGE HAPPENINGS 423

The net result of all this was a blank denial from the Minister for Air
(which was no more than we expected), the demotion of one poor un-
fortunate detective, now pounding a beat in uniform and avoiding
Vince Mele like the bubonic plague; and of course, NO FILM!2
Seers and his wife had motored up to Tully in September, 1968, and spent
ten days interviewing all available witnesses and documenting the events at the
UFO landing sites—the "Tully nests." Albert Pennesi, the owner of the prop-
erty, was a wealthy sugarcane farmer, with several hundred acres of land. The
uncultivated portion of his property was dense jungle which included a two-
acre wide, five-foot deep lagoon about a mile from Pennesi's house. In the la-
goon, Seers viewed the still-existent marks of the "UFO landing"—perfectly
circular masses of rotted vegetation just below the water's surface.
Pennesi himself was so mystified by the goings-on that he was inspecting
the site almost daily in the hopes of seeing one of the UFOs himself. With Seers's
encouragement, he'd set up a "UFO detector," a device which emitted a signal
when activated by any unusual electromagnetic disturbance at the lagoon.3 Dur-
ing these frequent trips, the lagoon was always devoid of bird life, most unusual
for that area. On Saturday, February 8, 1969, the UFO detector went off, and
Pennesi, hurrying down to the lagoon, found a brand-new "nest" among the
reeds, which measured 29' in diameter. Seers flew down and examined the site:
About 15' above the ground, the limb of a tree which protruded out
from the main mass of jungle had unmistakable signs of what I can
only describe as severe scorching, the leaves being curled and crisp
when first examined, at 10:00 A.M. on the Monday, and quite brown
and dead on my last inspection early Tuesday morning. The grass,
quite thick and about 12 inches or more tall, below the limb was, and
remained, quite green.4
Seers went into the water of the lagoon to investigate the new nest, the near-
er edge of which was about 15-20' from the bank. The water at the nest's edge
just lapped his nose, standing on flat feet. Directly below the nest, the floor of the
lagoon was quite flat, smooth and firm to the touch, "as if it had been swept with
a giant broom." The nest itself was a two-feet thick mattress of reeds which were
floating on the surface.5

2. Ibid., p. 2.
3. Various types o f UFO detectors, based on this same general concept, were widely used in
the UFO community, starting about 4 0 years ago.
4. Seers, op. cit.
5. /&/<*, p. 4-5.
424 FIRESTORM

Stan Seers and Albert Pennesi took samples of the reeds from inside the
new nest, labeling these Sample A. Control samples of undisturbed vegetation
some distance away were labeled Sample B. Although it included some debris
which naturally collected in the lagoon, the landing trace-sample was at least
95% green and alive when collected. Seers delivered the samples the next day
to Dr. R.N. Langdon of the Department of Botany at the University of Queen-
sland in Brisbane. He gave identical samples to Geb Taylor of the Physics De-
partment, who tested them for residual radiation with negative results.6
Dr. Langdon analyzed the landing-trace vegetation during a two-week pe-
riod, and sent Seers a full report. In Sample A, all the material was dead and in
early states of decomposition except for one living stem. The reeds showed no
evidence of heat damage, nor signs of compression by any heavy object. Some
diffuse brown damage was due to lesions such as Helminthosporium, and there
were well-defined black spots caused by Phyllachora. By contrast, the control
Sample B was still quite green, with roots, stems and leaves intact, although
some leaves bore brown lesions similar to those in Sample A, though no black
lesions typical of Phyllachora.
"Neither Helminthosporium or Phyllachora have been known to kill plants,
and their effects are restricted to small areas adjacent to their points of penetra-
tion," reported Dr. Langdon. "The condition of Specimen A could not be attrib-
uted to disease caused by the micro-organisms seen on the leaves."
These results were intriguing enough, but Dr. Langdon went on to state:
"Specimen B showed that submerged stems tend to root readily and freely at
nodes. Grasses which have this capacity can usually exist for some time, or
even indefinitely, without being rooted in soil or mud. If Specimen A had been
uprooted within a few days of its collection, it would be expected that it would
still be green and alive. However, nearly all of Specimen A is dead grass which
is starting to decompose. There is no botanical evidence to suggest why the
grass of Specimen A died or how long ago it died."7
Discussing the findings with Seers by phone, Langdon emphasized that, in
order to reach the degree of decomposition Sample A displayed, the reeds
would have had to be uprooted, at the very least, 10 days before Sample B. Yet
the reeds were still green when Seers gathered Sample A, and he had gathered
Sample B the same day. Seers made further efforts to persuade University per-
sonnel that the situation at Tully was something that required scientific atten-

6. The negative radiation results are not unusual. It is rare for any residual radiation, beyond
normal background readings, to be detected at UFO landing sites.
7. Dr. R. N. Langdon's report to Stan Seers on grasses taken from Tully nest (see Appendix
Item 16-A, page 573).
STRANGE HAPPENINGS 425

tion, but everyone he approached showed no interest. This in spite of the fact
that Pennesi's constant vigilance, plus the "UFO detection" equipment in
place, made it possible for scientists to investigate new traces almost immedi-
ately after they appeared.
In order to investigate the new "Tully nest," Seers had had to request per-
mission from his physics lab manager, Dr. McNicol, and had been obliged to
fill out a form requesting the two days off. When he returned to work on
Wednesday, he was ordered to McNicol's office and threatened with dismissal
"if it happened again." He was not asked why he had requested the two days'
off, nor where he had gone! His letter to McDonald continues:
I was also informed afterwards by McNicol that my interest in UFOs
had better cease, or else!!! I am afraid I was somewhat rude to him. I
do not expect to be here much longer.8
Seers told McDonald that "nests" were still appearing in Pennesi's lagoon
and enclosed clippings from a Tully paper, as well as one from Brisbane. Even
if local academics and scientists were not interested in "UFO landing sites,"
the media certainly was. Seers's letter did not help McDonald's hidden disqui-
et; he might have wondered if something like this could ever possibly happen
to him. It was apparent from his persistence in the face of uncertainty that he
could not give up.
"That was the unfortunate thing, that he had this tremendous curiosity,"
states his good friend, Dr. A1 Mead. "But he matched it with a tremendous ca-
pacity to find answers, and he'd stay at it until he did find the answers. He
didn't want to quit on things that he felt, if he stayed with them, he would find
the answer."
Some of his colleagues who were very perceptive, like Mead, probably un-
derstood McDonald's personality better than he understood himself, but he did
not discuss his growing disquiet with any of them. Betsy McDonald states that,
on the rare occasions McDonald felt depressed when he was unable to solve a
problem, he would read books on psychology, trying to understand his own
mental reactions, rather than seek any sort of professional help. He still could
not totally accept that his UFO studies could impact negatively on his good
name, his livelihood, and his family.
He did not write in his journal for a full two months after the Denver UFO
Symposium, where he had tangled with Hynek over the "swamp gas" fiasco.
From September to November he was totally absorbed with atmospheric phys-
ics. Around this time, he also researched the U.S.'s use of napalm in Vietnam and

8. Seers, op. cit., p. 6.

426 FIRESTORM

the use of mace by the Tucson police in confrontations with civil activists. The
use of both chemical compounds troubled him deeply. Napalm was killing and
maiming Vietnamese civilians, and mace was jeopardizing the health of U.S. cit-
izens who were exercising their right of free speech, including Betsy and some
of their children. Although he shared his wife's deep feelings about Vietnam and
other causes, his contributions usually took the form of scientific research into
related problems. McDonald's penchant for researching issues on the edge of
science prompts his friend Dr. Richard Kassander to relate:
He was capable of some really important things in the advancement of
the knowledge ofcloud physics and other areas ofmeteorology.... Nev-
ertheless, the criticism about "little green men" and using public
funds for "this sort of thing, " including comments from respected col-
leagues, combined with the tremendous effort he was expending to
keep up with his regular duties, had to take its toll....
Early in November, McDonald received a phone call from Marty and Dick
Hall, Ted Bloecher and Isabel Davis. "We haven't heard from you since June
30th," they told him. "We wondered if you were dead."9 It was meant as a joke,
of course, but McDonald was not up to exchanging quips with these good
friends. Unknown to them, he was wrestling with yet another problem which re-
fused to yield to the strength of his will. On September 2, the McDonalds' oldest
daughter Ronilyn had been raped and almost murdered in the Shady Hill section
of the Harvard campus, where she was working toward a Ph.D. in psychology.
She was severely injured and spent a couple of days in intensive care. As soon
as she was able to travel, she came home to recover. The young felon had taken
her keys and identification and she was fearful that he would be able to enter her
campus housing or office, and "finish the job." Yet Harvard officials refused to
change the locks.
McDonald also began to investigate the incident, because the Harvard
officials showed no concern, and the Cambridge police made little effort to
catch the rapist. There had been four rapes at Harvard within the prior six
weeks, three of them at Shady Hill. Harvard had not alerted its students nor
attempted to secure the Shady Hill area.
"In those days they didn't publish it because they 'didn't want people to
worry,'" relates Betsy McDonald. "But that was Mac's contention, that if Ron-
nie had known about that location, she wouldn't have gone there. He was very
upset when he found that out. He called the President of Harvard, Dr. Nathan
M. Pusey. He was really outraged."

9. McDonald, 4th journal, reverse p. 44.

STRANGE HAPPENINGS 427

On September 12, 1969, McDonald wrote a three-page letter to Pusey. It

read in part:
The safety of women on the campuses of Harvard and Radcliffe is
imperiled by failure to publicize the high risks of sexual assault
there To be quite candid, I am shocked at what Ifound last week
to be Harvard's minimal response to all this No one at Harvard
has even inquired at the hospital about [Ronilyn's] survival, nor
contacted the parents, nor even notified the department head....10
Besides his understandable outrage about the assault on his daughter, he was
also extremely concerned over what he construed as Harvard's attempt to slough
off the problem. He met the same attitude when he contacted the Cambridge Po-
lice Department; the police did not seem to be taking appropriate measures to
solve the crime or to be making any attempts to prevent similar assaults on other
women. McDonald's frustration turned into depression, but he hid it so well that
only Betsy recognized the signs.
For four months he confronted the problem. He loved all his children
equally, but Ronnie had done something only a few months before which had
touched him deeply. She'd written a scholarly thesis as part of her undergrad-
uate studies in psychology at the University of Arizona, titled "Psychological
Aspects of Unidentified Flying Objects." This paper unfortunately remains un-
published, but it is a valuable piece of work. Without mentioning her father's
contributions to the UFO field, she referenced books by NICAP, Richard Hall,
Jacques Vallee, Aime Michel, and Carl Jung, as well as research from clinical
psychologists who held varying views. The paper's main theme was that the
UFO subject should be of special importance to psychologists. It reads in part:
For the psychologist, contrary to the case of most scientists and the
general public, exposure of the reports as arising from some cause
other than the sighting of actual objects would make the subject of al-
most greater interest and importance.... Certainly the tales of trips to
Venus for the benefit of mankind are in the realm of clinical psychol-
ogy.... Should the UFOs prove to be ...extraterrestrial, intelligently
controlled vehicles, psychologists would confront the problem of ana-
lyzing and perhaps helping to shape public reaction to such an un-
precedented revelation ...J1

10. Letter from McDonald to Dr. Pusey, September 12, 1969.

11. McDonald, Ronilyn L., "Psychological Aspects o f Unidentified Flying Objects," submitted
to Dr. Dorothy Marquart, Psychology Department, U. o f A., May 1 5 , 1 9 6 9 , unpublished
manuscript, 103 pp.
428 FIRESTORM

Upset as he was over Ronnie's assault, McDonald was doubly upset that
he was never able to solve the crime. He realized that it was really Harvard's
and the Cambridge Police Department's responsibility, but the crime was nev-
er solved. He mentioned it to a few close colleagues at the university, and to
one or two people in the UFO field, including Idabel Epperson. He always stat-
ed his concern unemotionally, but his inability to help find the attacker, or to
get Harvard to admit they were wrong, hit him hard. It was a type of emotional
stress to which he was not accustomed.
He received one short letter from Harvard President Pusey which expressed
the hope "that the authorities could get to the bottom of this distressing affair."12
Pusey also arranged a medical leave of absence which would permit Ronnie to
continue her doctoral work. Within a few weeks, she journeyed out to California,
where she would be near her brother Kirk and where she planned to continue
doctoral studies at UCLA.
McDonald worked on the case until January 1970. The final mystery came
when Ronnie's three-day hospital bill, which the McDonalds had sent to Blue
Cross to pay, was not paid. Blue Cross claimed they'd never received the bill, yet
they also claimed that they had sent McDonald a letter refusing payment! Sud-
denly, in January, the hospital bill was paid by an unknown source. McDonald,
in spite of concerted effort, was unable to find out who paid it. This left him more
puzzled than ever.' 3
Shortly thereafter, McDonald unexpectedly displayed open anxiety that
the CIA might be monitoring him. Agents monitored the anti-war movements
on university campuses around the country. The name of the CIA agent on the
U. of A. campus was well known to activists and was a subject of subtle jokes.
McDonald and Betsy were aware of this, but he'd never given any sign to any-
one that he felt his own activities were under surveillance. Margaret Sander-
son-Rae, who was now IAP's assistant editor and head secretary, states:
He had some fears about the CIA. This was at a time when he was su-
persensitive. At one point he had lost an address he wanted to send a
letter to, and he was frustrated about it.
"Do you by chance have this address?" he asked Margaret, stopping at her
desk. "I'm sure I do, because I keep a card file on all the people that you write
to," she replied.
"You keep a card file on the people that I write to?" asked McDonald.

12. Letter from Nathan M. Pusey to McDonald, September 22,1969.

13. Letter from JEM to Russell Tomas, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Tucson.
STRANGE HAPPENINGS 429

"Yes, I do," she replied, "So many times when you hand me correspon-
dence you don't have the address on it, and I can get things out for you faster
if I have a card file."
McDonald picked up the card file and flipped through it. "Who are you
working for?" he asked grimly. "Me or the CIA?"
She was taken aback. "I don't work for anyone but you," she assured
him.
"And he seemed to relax, then," she relates. "But he was concerned about
the CIA. I think it had crossed his mind, 'Could I not be working for him acci-
dentally? Could I have been placed there?'"
At that point in American history, the CIA agents on college campuses
monitored all "subversive activities." One of the recommendations in the 1953
Robertson Report, which McDonald had studied in its original form, was that
UFO research organizations might possibly be used for "subversive activities"
(See Chapter 3). It recommended that groups like CSI and APRO be infiltrated
and their activities monitored.14 McDonald's discovery in 1966 that the Rob-
ertson Panel had made that recommendation out of fear that the military's com-
munication channels could be clogged by a massive, hoaxed flood of "UFO
reports" clarified the situation somewhat (see page 362). Generally UFO re-
searchers around the country treated the situation lightly.
Betsy McDonald, however, was very aware of CIA monitoring on cam-
pus. "Agents do monitor strange groups and cultures," she relates. "They don't
want the status quo to change. But that was a big surprise to me, when we were
beginning to learn of all the different levels of surveillance in many branches
of the government. I began to learn that you risked being monitored during the
fifties, and that is when [UFO witnesses] began to bring these stories to Mac."
CIA agents may have been monitoring McDonald's UFO activities as early
as 1958 when he first began investigating reports around Tucson (See Chapter
2), but he never gave a thought to this through those eight years. The stress that
was building up in 1969, however, must have touched a chord deep inside, which
made him confront Sanderson-Rae. It is probably no coincidence that this hap-
pened at the same time he was so upset over Harvard's indifference over the at-
tack on his daughter. This emotional chord was soon struck again. For years,
Sanderson-Rae had sorted and organized his mail during his frequent trips. "I

14. In 1953, NICAP had not yet been formed, therefore was not mentioned in the original Rob-
ertson Report. The recommendations o f the Panel were still in effect for years afterwards,
however, and NICAP and other UFO research organizations which sprang up about this
time were doubtless also monitored.
430 FIRESTORM

knew who was important and who wasn't," she explains. "I stacked the impor-
tant things in one box and the next level in another box, all the way down to the
ads. When he'd come back from a trip, it was all organized."
Throughout the years, McDonald always expressed appreciation for her
organizational ability. In late summer of 1969, however, Sanderson-Rae no-
ticed a change. The handouts which she prepared for his talks around the coun-
try were not getting done. Always before he'd write a paper and give it to her
to type and duplicate; now he would finish only a section at a time, the hand-
outs would not get finished, and he was forced to go off without them.
"Also, his office became extremely chaotic," she continues. "He always
had a lot of things in there that he was working on, but now it was different."
Betsy McDonald also noticed this change in his organizational behavior, but
she realized that it was due to his four-month preoccupation with the situation
at Harvard.
During those four months, Sanderson-Rae was given an urgent assignment
by the Institute's Director which took her away from the secretarial office for
two months. "I had to put Mac's things aside," she explains. "We had an assis-
tant secretary who had misrepresented herself when she came to me. I was too
busy and checked none of [her] references.... Dr. McDonald had to accept her
as his helper for this period of time... During this period, he went on several
trips. I told her what to do about organizing his mail. Dr. McDonald was very
busy at this time, taking trips one after the other in the course of his work. His
new secretary left the Institute after working only a short period, and, since he
was due to return, I went to his office to straighten things up. I have never seen
anything like it in my life....mail unopened underneath his desk, underneath his
chair, unopened mail between his file cabinet and his desk. It was a total disas-
ter, and I blamed myself because he'd had an inexperienced assistant. I spent
a full day in there getting things together.... I was blaming myself for it, be-
cause she hadn't done the job for him, which probably made it impossible for
him to open the mail. He got back from his trip...went to his office, came out
to the secretarial office and in front of everyone, he said to me, 'What were you
trying to find in my office?'"
She looked at him. "I wasn't trying to find anything."
"You were snooping all over my office while I was gone," he said.
"No, sir," she answered. "I was organizing your mail as I always do. I
didn't open anything."
"You are never, under any circumstances, to set foot in my office again,"
he said.
STRANGE HAPPENINGS 431

They went through a two-year strained period where he would bring things
out for her to do, and when she was through, she put them in his office mailbox,
with very little discussion between them. This lasted until the beginning of
1971. Sanderson-Rae didn't have a clue why the situation had changed, but
Betsy McDonald realized that it was the beginning of a depression. She'd seen
the same thing during the Titan controversy; he was working too hard and ex-
periencing inability to solve problems he tackled.
The November call from his NICAP colleagues helped revive McDonald's
spirits, and he returned to the UFO field with full strength. The UFO Symposium
of the AAAS was coming up at the end of December. It was the symposium that
Condon had succeeded in postponing in 1968, on the excuse that his work should
not be the subject of criticism before the Final Report was out. "Not that that was
the real reason, of course," Hynek had remarked at the time to McDonald.15
The Condon Report had been out for almost a year and had damaged
chances for broad, interdisciplinary study of the problem. Scientists in the field
who continued actively to study the UFO problem were determined that the
symposium be held. Condon, who thought he'd killed it entirely, was outraged
and tried to stop it again. He wrote to Vice President Spiro Agnew, complain-
ing that discussion of UFOs in a scientific meeting was nonsense. Agnew, to
his credit, didn't interfere, and plans for the symposium went ahead. Hynek
and McDonald, among others, were invited to speak.
Condon's outrage increased. In September, he wrote to the Chairman of the
AAAS, Dr. Walter Orr Roberts, bitterly expressing his objections:
Some will argue that the AAAS ought to provide a forum forfair and un-
biased discussion of controversial scientific topics. I would agree if such
afair discussion could be arranged. Butfrom personal knowledge of the
UFO buffs, I know that it cannot. These people in varying degrees insist
that visitors are coming to Earth from other civilizations. Some insist
that this is known to our government and that the truth is being deliber-
ately held backfrom the public. After careful study I conclude that there
is no scientifically valid evidence in support of either proposition.... Nor
do I think the UFO buffs will ever find it.16
Condon's letter did not mention any UFO researchers, scientist or non-
scientist, by name, but he plainly included McDonald among the "UFO
buffs." It was, and still is, true that many "investigators" in the UFO field
lack critical thought-patterns, and some "UFO study groups" are truly bi-

15. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 26.

16. Letter from Condon to Dr. Roberts, AAAS, 4 September 1969.
432 FIRESTORM

zaire. This did not apply, however, to competent investigators who had spent
years researching UFO reports. Condon was not only criticizing "UFO
buffs"; he was also ignoring the academic credentials and scientific accom-
plishments of established scientists such as McDonald, Hynek, Vallee, Saun-
ders and Wood. Condon's letter to Dr. Roberts continued:
I am puzzled by the new development of UFO interest in the AAAS. For
nearly twenty years, Science printed essentially nothing on this sub-
ject: a correct policy. But...it has not reviewed our report, and now it
is planning to stage a major two-day symposium on the subject. Why
this foolish behavior?.... Include me out.
Months before the 1969 AAAS symposium took place, McDonald had dil-
igently tracked down witnesses on several radar-visual cases which had been
tucked deep in the text of the Condon Report, some of which were previously
unknown to the UFO field. As early as April 1969, McDonald, under the im-
pression that all of the Condon Committee files were to be kept in the Univer-
sity of Colorado library, called Dave Saunders in Boulder and inquired about
them. Saunders, on the other hand, had heard that Condon had taken all the
files to his own home. He told McDonald he'd check. McDonald made it clear
that he wasn't interested in the personal correspondence or (with a touch of hu-
mor) memos. He only needed the Project Blue Book reports that had been giv-
en to the Condon staff.
McDonald had also tried to inquire directly about these files from Blue
Book, but got no answer, since Project Blue book was closed up tight. He
asked his Congressman "Mo" Udall to help, who followed through. The Air
Force informed Udall that McDonald could come down to Maxwell AFB in
Alabama, where the Blue Book files were archived, but that he would be
charged 250 per page for photocopy fees. It would cost McDonald $75 to copy
the 17 reports which were vital to continue his rebuttal of the Condon Report,
plus personal travel expenses, which he simply didn't have. Since none of his
professional trips would bring him near Alabama in the near future, the Blue
Book files seemed inaccessible.
In fact, Condon had quietly released the files to the library, but clearly
wanted to restrict access to them. No one was aware of this who was available
to help McDonald gain access to them directly. Dave Saunders tried on his be-
half, but he wasn't able to shake the Condon files loose, either. So McDonald
called the Librarian directly:

\l.Ibid.
STRANGE HAPPENINGS 433

4/14/69 Called Dr. Ralph Ellsworth, Librarian, C U. Case files are

now in Western History Collection, Jack Brennan, Curator.... Said one
has to get Ed Condon's permission to get at some of it.... Said Condon
promised to send him a letter stating conditions for access to it, but
hasn 't done it. Said he 'dget after Condon....18
McDonald tried to contact Condon directly but got no satisfaction. A series
of letters passed between them, each letter irritating McDonald more, as he slow-
ly realized that nothing he could say or do would make Condon change his mind.
Finally, on June 6, 1969, McDonald received a letter from Condon enclosing a
draft of an article which Condon had written for a prominent scientific journal.
The article criticized a certain "atmospheric physicist" for his views about
UFOs; apparently Condon was finding a strange sort of delight in "sticking it to
him." McDonald responded:
Thank you for the copy of your APS draft.... If as seems almost cer-
tain, that I am the "atmospheric physicist" you cite, you misrepre-
sent my position.... If you wish clarification, let me know.... Enclosed
are copies of a number of summaries of recent talks in which I have
criticized your Report. Your conclusion does not at all seem to be
supported by the Report's contents.... Iam unable to understand how
you approached the task as you did.... In giving the Academy such a
Report, I believe you did science a direct disservice. That the Acad-
emy processes could lead to endorsement is disturbing. (See Appen-
dix Item 16-B, page 574.)
This letter infuriated Condon. He fired back a two-sentence note:
Sir: I have received your letter of 6 June with enclosures. Be advised
that this terminates correspondence between us.
Sincerely, (s) E. U. Condon
While these exchanges were sizzling through the mails, McDonald waited
to hear from the U. of Colorado library; many months passed without any an-
swer. Finally, he phoned Prof. John A. Brennan, the curator of the Western His-
torical Collections, explaining that he just needed to take notes on the files which
the Air Force had sent the Condon Committee.
"All that material is still in boxes, just as it came from the Condon
Project," Brennan told him. "I've not touched them."
"That's valuable historical material," said McDonald. "If it's in your
Western Collection, isn't it available to researchers?"

18. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 37.

434 FIRESTORM

"Well," said Brennan, a little hesitantly. "Dr. Condon extracted a solemn

promise that no one would be permitted to touch anything in the files without
his okay. So we've just kept 'hands off.'"
In spite of all the difficulties and setbacks, McDonald succeeded in investi-
gating in depth four of the most intriguing radar-visual cases he had found deep
in the Condon Report. They included the Haneda, Japan, sighting (see Chapter
15) and the Lakenheath case of August 13-14, 1956, in England. The title of his
talk gave no quarter: "Science in Default: 22 Years of Inadequate UFO Investiga-
tion." He finished his AAAS paper and handout on time for his talk in Boston.
Margaret Sanderson-Rae typed them, flawlessly as usual, and had the handout du-
plicated in the university printing office. A furious snowstorm was sweeping over
the entire northeastern section of the countiy. McDonald set off for the Boston
Symposium nevertheless, determined that nothing was going to keep him away.
McDonald's journey from Tucson to Boston was fraught with appalling
difficulties which we would never know about from his journal. He merely
wrote: "12/26/69 AAAS UFO Symp. Boston. Arrived 13 hrs late by bus,
missed first session."19 It was one of his typical understatements. Actually, we
are indebted to J. Allen Hynek for vivid details of the obstacles McDonald en-
countered. The snowstorm was the heaviest on record for parts of New En-
gland. Airports were closed all over the Northeast, including O'Hare in
Chicago20, which was a short stopover on McDonald's itinerary. Unable to fly
to Boston by way of Chicago, or even directly to Boston because that airport,
too, was closed, he traveled on to Washington, D.C., and made his way up
slowly to Beantown by train. Arriving in Boston in the middle of the snow-
storm, he completed the trip to the symposium by bus!
He was not the only one hampered by the weather. On the opening day
of the Symposium there was serious consideration of canceling it because of
the slight attendance. The next day, the opening papers were given to very
small audiences. When McDonald arrived in time to give his paper, the au-
diences were still not large, but the attendees were fascinated by the talks
given by Hynek, McDonald, Hartmann, Sagan, Robert Hall and others.
Donald Menzel was also slated to speak but was too ill to attend. He gave his
paper to Dr. Walter Orr Roberts, who read it as objectively as he could—a
difficult task, since Menzel had written into it many personal slurs against
McDonald, as well as lesser criticisms of Hynek. When the time came to re-
spond to Menzel's paper, Hynek declined, but McDonald, taking advantage

\9.Ibid., p. 45
20. Hynek, J. Allen, "Commentary on the A A A S Symposium," Flying Saucer Review, London,
Val. 16, No. 2, March/April 1970.
STRANGE HAPPENINGS 435

of the opportunity, answered each of the personal attacks from Menzel, all
in strictly scientific terms.
McDonald had prepared his own paper with great care. A large part of it
concerned the Lakenheath-Bentwaters case, which was a remarkable exam-
ple of the type of solid radar-visual sightings he'd been seeking. The UFO
field would never have known about it if retired USAF Sgt. Forrest D. Per-
kins, who had been based at the time at a USAF facility in England, hadn't
written a letter to Condon, describing the incident.21 Condon had shuffled
through the Sergeant's four-page letter but, tiring of it, brought it out to his
staff, threw it down one of the desks and said, "Let's put it in the report as an
example of the kind of crap we get!" 22
It quickly became evident to objective staff members that the Lakenheath
Blue Book file was a solid report. When Gordon Thayer was writing his sec-
tion on radar-visual UFO cases for the Condon Report, he had the foresight to
include it, in abbreviated form. 23 McDonald regarded the Lakenheath case as
a good illustration of serious shortcomings of Condon Committee investiga-
tions. He also recognized it as an intriguing UFO report that had lain in Blue
Book files for years without the knowledge of the scientific community. He
was eager to share it with the AAAS Symposium attendees.
He had written Lt. Marano at the Maxwell AFB Blue Book archives and
requested a copy for 250 a page. When he finally received it, all names of
military personnel involved were neatly cut out, rendering it impossible for
him to interview the witnesses. There was no indication that anyone on the
Condon Project had interviewed them, either, even though some of their
names might have been left in the copy the Committee's staff had received.
Some of the names of localities were also deleted in the Condon Report,
which created more confusion, since three distinct RAF stations figured in
the incident and Sgt. Perkins had inadvertently confused the names of two of
those stations in his letter to Condon. McDonald was able to straighten mat-
ters out, but remarked that "other reportorial deficiencies in [Condon's] pre-
sentation of the Lakenheath case... will almost certainly have concealed its
real significance from most readers...." 24

21. McDonald, "Some Illustrative UFO Cases," AAAS Symposium 24-page summary,/hand-
out, Boston, Dec. 27, 1969.
22. McDonald's fourth journal, p. 45.
23. Thayer, Gordon D., "Optical and Radar Analyses of Field Cases," Scientific Study of Uni-
dentified Flying Objects, New York, Toronto, London, Bantam Books, 1969, pp. 163-64.
24. McDonald, James E., "UFOs Over Lakenheath in 1956," Flying Saucer Review, London,
Vol. 16, No. 2, March/April 1970, pp. 9-17,29.
436 FIRESTORM

The Lakenheath case comprised seven pages of McDonald's 24-page

AAAS handout. His copy arrived from Lt. Marano early in December, giving
him only three weeks to launch a limited investigation. Some of the pages had
so many cut-outs that the effect was like Swiss cheese, but he did not let his
mutilated copy hinder him. The first thing he did was to verify that all the in-
formation contained in the Condon Report was in his copy. It was, and much
more! He began to study the thirty pages, but immediately ran into another
stumbling block—all the pages in his copy were out of order. Methodically, he
corrected this, and after doing so, wrote a note on the first page: "On December
7,1969,1 disassembled this, reorganized it into chronological order, & re-sta-
pled. Thus, the sheet numbers that Lt. Marano must have entered in the file
sheets don't now read in order."25 His summary of the Lakenheath case, pre-
pared for his AAAS talk, read:

Lakenheath and Bentwater RAF-USAF units; England, August 13-

14, 1956. Brief summary: Observations of unidentified object by
USAF and RAF personnel, extending over 5 hours, and involving
ground-radar, airborne-radar, ground-visual and airborne-visual
sightings of high-speed unconventionally maneuvering objects in the
vicinity of two RAF stations at night. It is Case 2 in the Condon Re-
port and is there conceded to be unexplained.26
He listed four reasons why the Lakenheath case was important:
1. It illustrated the fact that many scientifically intriguing UFO reports lay in
USAF/Blue Book files for years without the knowledge of scientists;
2. It represented a large subset of cases in which all of the observations stemmed
from military sources and which could have been very thoroughly investigated
while the information was fresh, had there been competent scientific interest oper-
ating in Project Blue Book;
3. When comparing the original Blue Book file to the discussion in the Condon
Report, it illustrated that report's shortcomings in the presentation of many cases;
4. It was an example of those cases, conceded to be unexplainable by the Condon
Report, which argued the need for extensive scientific investigation of the UFO
problem.27
The Lakenheath sightings occurred in east-central England, chiefly in Suf-
folk. The first reports centered around Bentwaters RAF Station, near the coast,

25. Handwritten note by JEM on cover page of Lakenheath-Bentwaters Blue Book Xerox. In
McDonald Personal Collection, Library, U. of Arizona, Tucson.
26. McDonald, "Some Illustrative UFO Cases," A A A S UFO Symposium summary/handout for
JEM talk, Boston, Dec. 27, 1969,24 pp.
27. McDonald, "UFOs Over Lakenheath in 1956," FSR, op. cit., p. 10.
STRANGE HAPPENINGS 437

while much of the subsequent action centered around Lakenheath RAF Station,
located about 20 miles northeast of Cambridge. To a minor extent, Sculthorpe
RAF Station also was involved. Figure 31 shows the three RAF stations in-
volved, as taken from a sketch from McDonald's article in FSR.
Sgt. Perkins, who first alerted Condon to the 1956 Lakenheath events, was
the watch supervisor on duty at Lakenheath Radar Air Traffic Control Center
(RTCC) unit that evening. The Condon Report commented on the accuracy of
the account of the witness, apparently written from memory 12 years after the
incident. This did not surprise McDonald; many witnesses in UFO cases have
vivid and accurate recollections, in multi-witness sightings particularly; the
more inexplicable the events, the better witnesses remember them.

KEY:

1. Cromer
7. Great Yarmouth
3. Lowestoft
4. Kings Lynn

Norwich 5. Ely

LAKENHEATH 6. Thetford
• *6 T. Bury St. Edmunds
WATERBEACHB t. Aldeburgh
.7
Cambridge ® BENTWATERS• 9. Felixstowe
10. Colchester

FIGURE 31. Three RAF stations involved in the Lakenheath sightings.

In spite of the roadblocks put in his way by Condon and Blue Book,
James McDonald uncovered much more about the Lakenheath events than
Condon's investigators had. While researching another radar case at Kinch-
eloe AFB, he'd discovered that a radar operator there had previously been
stationed with the USAF detachment at Lakenheath. This airman knew of the
1956 Lakenheath events second-hand, because they were still being dis-
cussed when he arrived there many months later, yet civilian researchers had
no hint of them. The following description is taken from McDonald's ac-
count that was printed in the English research journal FSR. His original de-
438 FIRESTORM

scription of the Lakenheath case, delivered at the AAAS Symposium, was

incomplete; he later obtained more bits of information about it.
The sightings commenced when three significant radar-sightings were
made by Bentwaters ground-controlled radar prior to their alerting the Laken-
heath station. These three sightings were not even mentioned in the Condon
Report—an omission that annoyed McDonald. At 9:30 P.M. Bentwaters had
picked up a target 25-30 miles ESE, traveling at least 4,000 m.p.h., as estimat-
ed by the sweep time of the GCA radar. It gave a strong radar echo, comparable
to typical aircraft. The speed, however, was not compatible with any conven-
tional aircraft.
A few minutes later, a group of 12-15 objects were picked up on the same
radar, about eight miles SW of the station. They appeared as normal targets.
Checks were made to determine possible malfunctions of the radar, but nothing
was found wrong. The objects moved at speeds ranging from 80 to 125 m.p.h.,
and were preceded by three other objects in a triangular formation.
These two groups of objects gave consistent returns on Bentwaters radar for
25 minutes. After traveling into the NE, they converged into a single radar echo,
the intensity of which Air Force personnel described as several times larger than
a B-36. The large object stopped and remained stationary for 10-15 minutes. It
resumed motion, stopped again for 3-5 minutes, and then moved northward and
disappeared off the scope. Five minutes later, another unidentified target ap-
peared on the Bentwaters GCA radar, moving rapidly westward. There, it disap-
peared off the scope "at speeds in excess of4,000 m.p.h." McDonald made his
own calculations from the instrumented data and estimated that object was going
about 12,000 m.p.h.!
A T-33 jet fighter was vectored in at 9:30 P.M. to search for the group of
objects being tracked. It had no airborne radar, but searched the area for 45 min-
utes. No sightings, visual or otherwise, were obtained by this aircraft, other than
a bright star in the east and a coastal beacon. The Blue Book report stated that the
objects could not be sighted visually, except in the form of "bright stars." It also
virtually ignored the three puzzling Bentwaters radar detections, except to stress
they went in divergent directions, intimating that this somehow put them in the
category of anomalous propagation (AP).
Through his knowledge of meteorology and precise data on the winds in
the areas involved, McDonald was able to demonstrate that none of these three
radar sightings exhibited any feature typical of AP echoes. Furthermore, he
pointed out, the strength of the individual echoes, the merging of the group into

28. Ibid. pp. 9-17.

STRANGE HAPPENINGS 439

a single echo, the long intervals during which this huge blip remained station-
ary, and its final motion off-scope at a direction about 45° from its initial mo-
tion, could not be explained in terms of AP. The high-speed westward motion
of single targets detected that evening was even further from any known radar-
anomaly associated with AP. Neither could they be explained by internal elec-
tronic or interference phenomena of any kind. Unstated by McDonald, but un-
doubtedly present in his mind, was the knowledge that the converging targets
were typical of the behavior of the type of UFO which French researcher Aime
Michel and other competent investigators worldwide termed "cloud-cigars" or
"carrier-craft" (see Chapter 15).
These three unexplained radar sightings were only a prelude to subsequent
events. They had, however, been communicated to Blue Book by Capt. Edward
L. Holt of the Bentwaters 81st Fighter-Bomber Wing, in a Report dated 31 Au-
gust 1956. All subsequent events, now known in UFO literature as "the Laken-
heath sightings" (or "the Lakenheath-Bentwaters sightings"), were
communicated in an earlier, lengthy teletype transmission. This was the basic
data that the Condon Report used.
It irritated McDonald that the Lakenheath sightings were described by the
Condon Report in such a confused manner that most readers would be unable to
derive even basic information about this startling set of English UFO incidents
by reading the report! This might sound impossible, but McDonald, through
close association with NICAP, had studied the various reporting forms that mil-
itary personnel were obliged to use in submitting UFO sightings. The regular
Blue Book UFO reporting form, AFR 200-2—a copy of which was included in
the Condon Report's Appendix in an updated form, AFR 80-17—was the key to
enabling the reader to understand the confusing array of answers without ques-
tions that comprised an integral part of the Lakenheath text. The average reader
would not know this, for the Condon Report did not explain which questions
from which version of the reporting form were being answered in the Laken-
heath text! McDonald described the conundrum:
That confusion, unfortunately, does not wholly disappear upon la-
boriously matching questions with answers, for it has long been
one of the salient deficiencies of the USAF program of UFO report-
collection that the format of AFR 200-2 (or its sequel AFR 80-17)
is usually only barely adequate and...often entirely incapable of af-
fording the reporting office enough scope to set out clearly and in
proper chronological order all of the events that may be of poten-
tial scientific significance.29

29. Ibid, p. 11.

440 FIRESTORM

We can be thankful that McDonald took the time to straighten out the text
of the Lakenheath sightings, for it remains an important classic case. His de-
scription of the bizarre events continues:
At 10:55 P.M., about 15 minutes after the large object (into which the
10-15 objects had converged) moved off the radar scope, another fast-
moving object was picked up going East to West directly over the Bent-
waters station, at estimated speed of 2,000-4,000 m.p.h. The radar-
tracking of this latest object was matched by concurrent visual observa-
tions of an anomalous light that was blurred, apparently, by its high ve-
locity. Significantly, the light was witnessed by personnel on the ground
looking up and simultaneously by personnel in an airborne C-47 look-
ing down. As the C-47 was flying at only 4,000', the altitude of the un-
known object was bracketed within rather narrow bounds.30
The object produced no sonic boom, but as McDonald described in his pa-
per, "The total number of seemingly quite credible reports of UFOs moving at
speeds far above sonic values and yet not emitting booms is so large that it is
counted as just one more instance of many currently inexplicable phenomena as-
sociated with the UFO problem."31 The object could not be a meteor, McDonald
demonstrated, due to its slower speed, its flat low-altitude trajectory, and the ab-
sence of shock wave.
Immediately afterwards, Bentwaters alerted GCA Lakenheath that another
luminous object was coming in, at an estimated altitude of 2,000'-2,500' on a
SW heading. Lakenheath personnel saw a luminous object come out of the NE
at low altitude, stop, and take off again at a high speed, disappearing into the
east. Two RAF bases were now involved, and a "tracking-system," using both
sophisticated technology and eyewitnesses, was in full play. What happened
subsequently was a striking example of the scientific data which could be gath-
ered if the U.S. and other nations would admit to the reality of UFOs.
Soon afterwards, the Lakenheath station saw two moving white lights. Ac-
cording to the Blue Book intelligence report, "ground observers stated one
white light joined up with another and both disappeared together."32 These lu-
minous objects, like the others, had no discernible features. Both ground ob-
servers and radar operators concurred that they traveled at terrific speeds, then
stopped and changed course instantly.33 The Condon Report deleted this im-

30. McDonald, "UFOs Over Lakenheath in 1956," op. cit.

31 .Ibid.
32. Project 10073 Record Card, 4602nd AISS, Blue Book's 31-page intelligence report re the
Bentwaters-Lakenheath sightings 13-14 Aug., 1956.
33 .Ibid.
STRANGE HAPPENINGS 441

portant bit of information, just as it chose to delete the three preliminary radar
sightings at Bentwaters.34
McDonald noted all the ways the Condon Report tried to hide or confuse
Lakenheath data and was so irritated that he pointed out the problem twice in
his FSR article.
In spite of the Condon Report's shoddy job of reporting the Lakenheath
sightings, their value was clear to McDonald, who took enough time to push
past the confusion and reach the heart of the data. He was eager to share with
the worldwide UFO field the significance of the Lakenheath sightings—the
fact that here were a multitude of expert observations, backed by state-of-the-
art technology, which described many anomalous objects maneuvering in in-
explicable ways.
Because the date of the Lakenheath sightings coincided with the annual Per-
seid meteor shower, it was logical to ask: Were any part of the visual observa-
tions due to Perseids? The ground observers stated there was an "unusual amount
of shooting stars in sky" but that the objects described in the Air Force report
were definitely not shooting stars, as there were no trails, as are usual with such
meteors. Besides, the stopping and course reversals were entirely incompatible
with meteoric activity.
The objects, as seen over Lakenheath and Bentwaters, were of an unusu-
ally large apparent size and brightness. One observer likened one object, ini-
tially, to "the size of a golf ball." 35 "Even allowing for the usual inaccuracies
in such estimates, this further rules out Perseids," wrote McDonald, "since
that shower yields only meteors of quite low luminosity." Summarizing
this English case for his FSR readers, McDonald wrote:
It appears that three ground observers at Lakenheath saw at least two lu-
minous objects, saw these over an extended time period, saw them execute
sharp course-changes, saw them remain motionless at least once, saw two
objects merge into a single luminous object at one juncture, and reported
motions in general accord with concurrent radar observations.... Neither
astronomical nor aeronautical explanations, nor any meteorological-op-
tical explanations, match well those reported phenomena 37
These UFO events continued into the early morning hours of August 14.
At 3:30 A.M., the Lakenheath radar observed an object 17 miles east of the sta-

34 .Ibid.
iS. Ibid.
36. McDonald, FSR, op. cit.
37. Ibid.
442 FIRESTORM

tion making a rectangular pattern in the sky. "This manoeuvre38 [consisted of]
right angles at speeds of 600-800 m.p.h. Object would stop and start with
amazing rapidity.... [T]he controllers are experienced and technical skills were
used in attempts to determine just what the objects were. When the target
would stop on the scope, the MTI was used; however, the target still appeared
on the scope."39
Moving Target Indication (MTI) is a standard feature on search or surveil-
lance radars that eliminates ground returns from large buildings and other mo-
tionless objects. McDonald was intrigued by the MTI results. They added
strong argument against the Blue Book explanation of "anomalous propaga-
tion." By this time, he had done a thorough study of radar and was an expert
on the subject. He seized upon the MTI data and wrote: "It was as if the uni-
dentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually undergoing
small-amplitude but high-speed jittering motion to yield a scope-displayed re-
turn despite the MTI. Since such "jittery" motion has been reported in many
visual UFO sightings on many occasions, and since the coarse resolution of
[the radar equipment] would not permit radar-detection of such motion if its
amplitude were below, say, one or two hundred metres, this could conceivably
account for the persistence of the displayed return during the episodes of 'sta-
tionary' hovering."40

The MTI effects so intrigued Sgt. Perkins that he had his radar crew scan
the area with all available radar scopes, set at various ranges 41 Some of Sgt.
Perkins's letter to Condon was printed in the body of the Condon Report, but
was not listed in the index. The only index reference to Lakenheath was listed
under the misspelling, "Lackenheath," and referred to a short reference on a
couple of pages, not to Thayer's more lengthy description. No reference at all
to "Bentwaters" was in the Index. This was not the only case so obscured; it
was by means of such "mistakes" and "omissions" that much valuable material
contained in the report was effectively hidden or presented in an incomplete,
confused state.
Sgt. Perkins' letter to Condon was incomplete. However, McDonald ob-
tained a full copy of this four-page letter from an unidentified source (see Ap-
pendix Item 16-C, page 575). It describes in detail the most startling event of

38. Ibid. (Because McDonald's paper was published in an English journal, the spelling of some
words is somewhat different from the American spelling, but are reproduced as the FSR text
contained them.)
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. "Project 10073 Record Card, 4602nd AISS," op. cit.
STRANGE HAPPENINGS 443

August 13-14—a British pilot's airborne encounter with one of the UFOs. 42
This amazing event began when an English radar station noticed a stationary
target about 20-25 miles to the station's SW and informed Watch Supervisor
Perkins at Lakenheath RTCC. It was watched on all Lakenheath scopes for
several minutes and the target was confirmed at the same geographical loca-
tion. The Sergeant's letter continues:
As we watched, the stationary target started moving at a speed of 400
to 600 m.p.h. in a north-northeast direction until it reached a point of
about 20 miles north-northwest of Lakenheath. There was no slow
start or build-up to this speed—it was constant from the second it
started to move until it stopped [4i
Sgt. Perkins and his crew were mystified. He reported the facts to a com-
mand post, the identity of which remains censored. He also hooked in, by
switchboard, to his local commanding officer, his unit commander (AFCS
Communications Squadron), the 7th Air Division, and the 3rd Air Force.
"There could have been others hooked in that I was not aware of," he stated.44
He continued to give a detailed report on the object's movements and lo-
cation. It made several changes in location, always on a straight line, always at
600 m.p.h., always from a stationary point to the next stop at constant speed.
The changes in location varied from 8-12 miles with no set pattern and the sta-
tionary stops were estimated from 3-6 minutes. The time periods were "possi-
bly even longer," as Perkins "was busy answering questions, listening to
theories, guesses, etc., that the conference line people were saying."45
After about 45 minutes, an unidentified source (name censored but probably
the 3rd Air Force) decided to scramble two interceptors. The RAF was called,
which decided to scramble one fighter; this interceptor took off from an RAF sta-
tion near London. Radio and radar contact was established by Lakenheath when
the jet was about 30-35 miles away. The pilot was briefed in flight regarding the
object toward which he was being vectored.
The Lakenheath GCA could not determine the exact altitude of the UFO,
but it was judged to be above 15,000' according to the operational characteris-
tics of the radar in use. The object was stationary at the time, and its precise
geographical location was ascertained in relationship to earth terrain. It is im-

42. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, p. 249.

43. This ability of UFOs to start and stop abruptly, of course, is contrary to known laws of
physics, and comprises one of the scientific puzzles of their behavior which intrigued scien-
tists like McDonald, as well as the witnesses.
44. Perkins's letter to E.U. Condon (see Appendix Item I6-C, page 575).
4 5 .Ibid.
444 FIRESTORM

portant to realize here that both the UFO and the interceptor gave off solid blips
on the radar. Shortly afterward, the following dialogue took place between the
radarmen and the pilot:
"You are now one-half mile from the UFO, and it is 12:00 from your po-
sition." Lakenheath stated.
"Roger," the pilot replied. "I've got my guns (radar) locked on him." A
pause. "Where did he go? Do you still have him?" inquired the pilot in a puz-
zled voice.
"Roger. It appears he got behind you, and he's still there," Bentwaters re-
plied, equally puzzled.
There were now two moving targets on the radar, one behind the other.
They were progressing at the speed of the RAF jet. Although very close togeth-
er, the two blips were unmistakably separate. The change of position of the
UFO was accomplished at a remarkably swift speed but was detected by the
radar operators. The pilot confirmed that the UFO was now behind him.
"I'll try to shake the UFO and try it again," said the pilot. Perkins's letter
continues:
He tried everything—he climbed, dived, circled, etc., but the UFO act-
ed like it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very
close, but we always had two distinct targets.46
Perkins indicated that the UFO and the interceptor were 200'-600' apart.
For about ten minutes the pilot tried to shake the UFO, transmitting comments
occasionally over his radio. "We could tell...that he was getting worried, ex-
cited, and also pretty scared."
"I'm returning to Lakenheath," the pilot finally reported. "Let me know if
he follows me. I'm getting low on petrol." The UFO followed him a short dis-
tance, then stopped and remained stationary. Bentwaters told the pilot the UFO
had stopped following him. Almost immediately, a second RAF interceptor,
who had been sent up in the meanwhile, radioed in on the same frequency. He
was some distance from Lakenheath and didn't yet show on their scopes. The
following dialogue between the two jet pilots was heard over the radio.
"Did you see anything?" Number Two pilot asked. "I saw something, but
I'll be damned if I know what it was," the first pilot replied.
"What happened?" asked Number Two.

46. Ibid
STRANGE HAPPENINGS 445

"He got behind me and I did everything I could to get behind him, and I
couldn't," replied Number One. "It's the damnedest thing I've ever seen. I had
my radar locked on whatever it was for just a few seconds, so there was some-
thing there that was solid." He then switched radio frequency to return to his
home base.
"We expect to have you on the scope shortly," the second pilot was as-
sured. "Then we can vector you in toward the target." The second pilot delayed
answering for some seconds, then stated that he was returning to his base. "My
engine is malfunctioning," he said. Abruptly, he changed frequencies to his
home station, and Bentwaters lost contact with him.
Throughout all of this, Perkins kept all the agencies on line informed of
everything that happened. "Every aspect, every word that was said, every-
thing," his letter to Condon stated.
"What action do you want us to take?" Bentwaters asked on the conference
line. There was no reply for some time.
Finally they told us to just keep watching the target and let them know
if anything else happened. The target made a couple more short moves
and then left our radar coverage—speed still about 600 m.p.h. We lost
target outbound to the north about 50 or 60 miles which is normal if
aircraft or target is at an altitude below 5,000' (because of the radia-
tion lobe of that type radar.) We notified 7th Air Division Command
Post and they said they 'd tell everybody for us.47
Perkins made out a detailed report for the commissioned officers at the
Bentwaters USAF facility. He was told that he would be contacted later if there
was any need, but he heard no more. His lengthy report was not part of the
packet received by McDonald, nor were additional details of the thwarted in-
terceptions by the two RAF pilots. The only mention in the Blue Book report
of jets being sent aloft during the five-hour period of the multiple radar-visual
sightings was the following:
Visual Airborne: The two AFpilots who were vectored to search the
area, remained aloftfor 45 minutes. Both stated that a very bright star
was observed near the horizon to the East, which, quoting
JO
these pilots,
"could be mistaken for a UFO by visual observers.
Project Blue Book made additional references to witnesses who had seen
the planet Mars; an early report that evening concerned a stationary "amber"

4 7 .Ibid.
48. "Project 10073 Record Card, 4602nd AISS," op. cit.
446 FIRESTORM

object near the eastern horizon, which could have been Mars. However, the
rest of the sightings during that five-hour period concerned round, white,
"blurry" objects which maneuvered in extraordinary ways. Even Blue Book
personnel could not relate these to meteors, Mars, aircraft or other convention-
al phenomena. The official Blue Book "explanation" was anomalous propaga-
tion. McDonald circled this "explanation" and wrote "AP!" in red ink.
He noted, also, that J. Allen Hynek, who was Blue Book consultant in as-
tronomy, had been requested to examine, evaluate and comment on the inci-
dents. Hynek regretted that the Blue Book report "did not contain more factual
material on which to base an evaluation." This remark, in itself, seems to indi-
cate that Hynek was not aware that Project Blue Book was simply a public re-
lations scheme and not a truly scientific unit receiving the best of the UFO data.
Air Force investigator Capt. George T. Gregory, performed the actual field
work on-site.
According to FOIA documents which UFO researchers have since ob-
tained, the 1125th and the 1126th Field Activities Groups had been incorporat-
ed into the 1127th. Among its responsibilities was investigation of UFO
reports and the recovery of space objects. The 1127th was inextricably linked
with Ft. Belvoir (see Chapter 12). It is not known how much Hynek knew
about UFO data that was being investigated secretly within the 1127th.
Hynek's official report on the Lakenheath sightings was fairly objective for the
most part, considering the fact that Blue Book only received part of the data.
He indicated that it would be of "extreme value to have independent statements
from the various observers both at Bentwaters and Lakenheath." He also point-
ed out the lack of data regarding stellar magnitude of the visual sightings and
the angular rate of motion of the various objects. He also wrote that it was un-
likely that the objects were meteors.
Hynek had discussed the Lakenheath incidents at length with Dr. Fred
Whipple, a prominent scientist noted for his expertise in radar and anoma-
lous propagation. Whipple stated that, as far as the (incomplete) Blue Book
report at hand was concerned, no obvious physical solution was suggested.
He and Hynek talked at length about the advisability of setting up a tracking
network for a limited time, which would be an actual sky patrol by photo-
graphic and visual means of precisely those areas from which the maximum
UFO reports originate. In fact, in Whipple's opinion, the Air Force should do
. . . . 4 0
more than continue its passive investigations.

49. Ibid., "Evaluation of Lakenheath Reports," by J. Allen Hynek, 170ctober 1956, p. 21 (as
re-paginated by McDonald).
STRANGE HAPPENINGS 447

Hynek had concurred with Whipple's suggestion of the value of a limited

tracking system, stating in his "Evaluation" that "it might be of considerable
potential use to the Air Force to be able to state, at some future time, that a care-
ful patrol of an area 'rich in UFO reports' had been patrolled and nothing of a
mysterious character photographed. This would be especially true if, during
the time of patrol, UFO reports from untrained observers continued to come in
from that area," Hynek specified. His Lakenheath report ended with a curious
statement which renewed McDonald's irritation with him:
The Lakenheath report could constitute a source of embarrassment
to the Air Force, and should the facts, as so far reported, get into the
public domain, it is not necessary to point out what excellent use the
several dozen UFO societies and other 'publicity artists' would
make of such an incident. It is, therefore, of great importance that
further information on the technical aspects of the original observa-
tions be obtained, without loss of time from the original observers.50
Apparently Hynek had not been informed about the encounter of the
British interceptor with one of the Lakenheath UFOs. However, one of the
telexes which flashed between England and the United States during the time
of the investigation, gave a vivid account. A poor copy of that particular telex
was included in the Blue Book file which McDonald received. This telex dis-
guised the identities of the receivers and senders in coded sets of letters and
numbers. However, the acronym ADC [Air Defense Command] and the lo-
cation, Colorado Springs, Colo., is plainly seen, and showed without a doubt
that Blue Book was not the only agency investigating UFOs, as the American
public and UFO researchers, including McDonald, were led to believe. This
telex is barely readable from McDonald's copy and would not reproduce sat-
isfactorily for purposes of this book. Therefore, a two-page typed duplicate
is included as Appendix Item 16-D, page 576.
The fact that a telex from a US AF base in England to the ADC in Colorado
was included in McDonald's copy is doubly surprising, because the official
Blue Book version of the Lakenheath report gives no mention of any intercep-
tion. The telex also discounted the possibility of Mars, bright stars, meteors or
anomalous propagation being responsible for the sightings. The telex gives no
clue as to what happened to the briefing data obtained from ground observa-
tions (both radar and visual) and from the two RAF jet interceptor pilots."51
Returning to the Condon Report's Lakenheath coveryage, we know from
McDonald's files that Robert Low sent Sgt. Perkins's letter to Dr. Donald

50. Ibid.
51. "Project 10073 Record Card, 4602nd AISS," op. tit., p. 4 (as repaginated by McDonald).
448 FIRESTORM

Menzel, asking for his input. Menzel dismissed the case with vague referenc-
es to "reflections," "turbulence," "after-image effects" and "ground returns."
It is to Gordon Thayer's credit that he specifically disagreed with Blue
Book's "AP" explanation, which seems to have been spawned by Capt. Gre-
gory. Thayer took open issue with Gregory, and stated in his "Radar Sec-
tion":
The probability that anomalous propagation of radar signals may
have been involved...seems to be small.... [TJhere was "little or no
traffic or targets on scope, " which is not at all suggestive of AP con-
ditions. The "tailing" of the RAFfighter, taken alone, seems to indi-
cate a possible ghost image, but this does notjibe with the report that
the UFO stopped following the fighter ...and went off in a different
direction.... Visual mirage at Bentwaters seems to be out of the ques-
tion because of the combined ground and airborne observations; the
C-47pilot apparently saw the UFO below him....52
In his "Conclusions" Thayer added a sentence or two which made the Lak-
enheath case one of the hidden "treasures" in the Condon Report:
In summary, this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the [Condon
Committee] radar-visual files. The apparently rational, intelligent be-
havior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as
the most probable explanation....53
Of extreme historical interest is that the Lakenheath Blue Book Report
was issued from the 4602nd AISS (See Appendix Item 16-E, page 577). In
1953, the 4602nd was given the responsibility of investigating UFO reports se-
cretly, aside from the more public Project Blue Book, and was the forerunner
of the 1127th, which was based at Ft. Belvoir, Va. (see Chapter 12). Where are
Perkins's detailed report and RAF pilots' debriefing transcripts now? Are they
stuffed in that deep, dark hole in which the best of the UFO data is imprisoned,
guarded by a "silence group," far from the inquiring eyes of American science?
McDonald did his best with the Lakenheath-Bentwaters data available to
him, and made order out of the jumbled state it was in when the Air Force and
the Condon Report presented it. He was never able to obtain all the facts, but he
was able to clarify the case and point up its importance. Even though he did not
have all the data, his version of the Lakenheath-Bentwater events was detailed
enough to convince any objective reader that something very strange had hap-
pened over English skies.

52. Thayer, Gordon D., op. cit., pp. 163-64.

53. Ibid., p. 164.
CHAPTER 17

Predators in the Shadows

Andyou to whom adversity has dealt the final blow,

With smiling bastards lying to you everywhere you go.
Turn to, andput out all your strength of charm, andheart, andbrain
And, like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again!"
—from "The Mary Ellen Carter"

III fares the land, to galloping fears a prey,

Where gobbledeygook accumulates, and words decay.
—Thurber

W
hile McDonald was putting continuous effort into rebutting
the Condon Report, NICAP was working on its own separate
rebuttal. The Report had set the entire UFO field on its ear.
Condon's duplicity was diminishing the flow of inquiries from the public
as well as from some scientists. However, both NICAP and McDonald
fully expected that they would have enough rebuttal data in a year or two
so that complete books could be written, pointing out the Air Force's (and
Condon's) failure.
In McDonald's file is a handwritten note which sums up his private
thoughts about Condon. Apparently a rough draft, the writing is much
larger than his usually precise handwriting, and the content is more emo-
tional; it gives us a private peek into his mind.
Dr. Condon's actions are scientifically shocking and unprece-
dented. Who ever heard of a scientist going to the Vice President
of the U.S. in an attempt to block scientific discussion of a contro-
versial subject? ... He [Condon] deserves the strongest of scien-
tific censure for this attempt to stop that Symposium, and I shall
definitely protest in AAAS channels.1

1. Handwritten note in McDonald's copy of "AAAS UFO Symposium, 27-28 Dec.

1969" file.

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

450 FIRESTORM

His outrage sprang mainly from Condon's "transparent effort to suppress

scientific criticism of the content and conclusions of his own Air Force-spon-
sored UFO study." Condon was unwilling to defend those conclusions himself
in an open exchange, and McDonald could not tolerate such an attitude. The
NICAP staff, including Keyhoe, the Halls, Lore, Isabel Davis, and Ted Rloech-
er shared McDonald's outrage over Condon's actions. NICAP members had
worked for 12 years side by side toward a common goal, but now the headquar-
ters staff was slowly changing and being rent apart by internal controversies
and disagreements. At least one government intelligence agent was secretly
working on the NICAP's Board of Directors, and a brand-new staff member
was subtly at work causing dissension.

Donald Keyhoe had been secretly monitored by government intelligence

agencies before. According to a Confidential memorandum obtained by re-
searcher William L. Moore through the FOIA, Capt. William H. Sullivan of
the Office of Special Investigations of the Air Force investigated a charge
against Keyhoe in June 1960 (see Appendix Item 17-A, page 578). This
memo stated that Pentagon Secret and Top Secret documents were being sur-
reptitiously removed and reproduced, before being returned, and that "Major
Donald E. Keyhoe, USMC, Ret." was alleged to have been present when
such documents were displayed.
The Confidential memorandum is heavily censored; however, enigmatic
information about Keyhoe's alleged involvement with an enterprise termed
"Mercury, Inc." was not blacked out. The memo states that several persons
connected with AFIN denied that any Top Secret UFO documents were at the
Pentagon, but that the charges should be brought to the attention of "the Bu-
reau." The FBI was the government agency to which Sullivan's memorandum
was sent. The name of the generating agency (FBI) is blacked out, but J. Edgar
Hoover's signature was not! It is now common knowledge that the FBI was in-
volved in UFO investigation, as demonstrated by its involvement in the Socor-
ro case in New Mexico, among others (see Chapter 9).
Just why government agencies should feel obliged to monitor Don Key-
hoe, who was a patriotic citizen whose NICAP files were open to anyone, is
disturbing, but the 1960 covert investigation seems to prove that Keyhoe was
right—that there was an official government cover-up.
"In cases such as this, it seems to me the FBI was doing exactly the job
they're paid to do," states Jacques Vallee. "The military regards UFOs within a
much larger context than UFOlogists do. Over the years, nuclear blasts, Russian
submarines, Soviet prototypes and even our own classified planes, e.g., U-2s,
were reported by witnesses who thought they were seeing UFOs. The military
had a need to filter such observations and keep control of them. They still do."-
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 451

The memo states that on June 10,1960, Maj. Lawrence J. Tacker, identified
as "Chief of the Magazine and Book Branch, Secretary of the Air Force, Office
of Information (SAFOI 3-D)," advised that allegations against Keyhoe had been
made to him. The name of the person accusing Keyhoe is blacked out, but he pre-
sented himself as "an American citizen in industrial relations" with an office next
to Mercury, Inc., at 1?25 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. (the second
digit of the address being obscured.) NICAP's address was 1536 Connecticut
Avenue. Keyhoe's accuser claimed to be a former colonel in the British Army,
serving with the Australian Government as an Assistant Liaison Officer for
North America. He also claimed to have served with British Internal Security.
Capt. Sullivan checked out the accuser's name with Capt. Leavitt Shertzer of
AFCIN and was told that he was thoroughly reliable.3 The unknown accuser told
Tacker that he was shown photostats of documents marked Secret and Top Se-
cret which "they gloated over and which they said they had obtained from sourc-
es in the Pentagon," and that on several of these occasions Donald E. Keyhoe
was present at these meetings.

According to the accuser, the documents were taken to an unidentified lo-

cation he referred to as "the listening post," reproduced there and delivered to
Mercury, Inc., while the originals were presumably returned to the Pentagon.
He did not know who took the documents from the Pentagon in the first place.
Even though Tacker had just retired as head of Blue Book, that agency was
apparently not informed of the alleged thefts. This seems curious, since the
charge referred to theft of UFO documents, and Blue Book was widely touted
by the Air Force as being the only agency investigating UFOs.
The document also revealed that, two weeks before Tacker's meeting with
the prattling informer, two writers presented themselves to Maj. Ben Fern,
Chief of the Magazine and Book Branch, in the Office of the Secretary of De-
fense (OSD). They claimed they had just written an article for the June 1960
issue of Argosy Magazine, which gave NICAP's viewpoint, and wished to
write another from the Air Force point of view.4 Tacker arranged for these two
writers to make a trip to Blue Book. He is then quoted as saying that (censored)

2. Letter from Jacques Vallee to author, 25 January 1996.

3. One cannot help but wonder about an unidentified Scottish colonel, spreading allegations
about UFO data. See Chp. 14 regarding "Col. Robert Crawford" and alleged UFO photos.
4. Actually, this itself is an inaccuracy. The only UFO article in the June 1960 Argosy is cred-
ited to Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe as told to Harold Salkin. Our thanks to John C. Anderson of
Franconia, Va., for tracking down a copy of this article in his voluminous files. Curiously,
the number of letters in the writers' two last names, as blacked out in the FOIA-secured
document, do not match Salkin's.
452 FIRESTORM

described Mercury Inc. as a promotional organization set up to sell stories,

scripts, and articles based about space exploration and technology.
If we read accurately between the cut-out portions of the document, one of
the two UFO writers falsely represented himself as a USAF Reserve officer.
This matter was also referred to the FBI, which investigated. Apparently things
transpired which the FBI didn't wish to disclose, for at this point a large section
of text is neatly cut from the document!
Tacker investigated the claim that the Pentagon had UFO documents, but
no one in the five-sided monolith admitted that Top Secret documents were
housed there, but some Secret documents had been seen there. Pentagon offi-
cials continued to insist that all UFO files were maintained at ATIC Headquar-
ters at Wright-Patterson AFB (Project Blue Book) and at the 1127th F.A.G. at
Ft. Belvoir. Here, unexpectedly, in unrazored print, is further confirmation that
UFO investigations were being conducted at Ft. Belvoir (See Chapter 12).
Pentagon officials admitted they often received cabled reports of UFOs
sightings by "AFCIN-2, AFCIN-3, and AFCIN-4," but these were usually un-
classified or in rare instances Confidential. Tacker ostensibly made a concerted
effort to comb "the Files" to verify the existence of Mercury Enterprises, but
came up empty. "The Files," however, revealed something sensitive, for anoth-
er large section is blacked out at this point. Enough was left, however, to indi-
cate that both of the writers were associated with NICAP, and that one claimed
to be a former major in Army Combat Intelligence.
A mention was made, also, of a UFO newsletter called The Little Listening
Post, which was printed on an irregular schedule "whenever the news boiled
over," by a woman in the Washington area who corresponded with people in the
UFO community. Tacker disclosed that the April-May-June 1960 issue of "The
Little Listening Post" referred to Keyhoe's book Flying Saucers: Top Secret and
also to Mercury Enterprises, but Tacker didn't state if one had anything to do
with the other. Other sections of Tacker's search of "the Files" were similarly
blacked out.
The last two pages of this strange document leave no doubt that it was the
FBI who generated it, for "John Edgar Hoover, Director" sent it to the O/SI,
"Attention Chief, Counterintelligence division." Its "subject" is partially
blacked out, but the name "Donald E. Keyhoe" and the phrase "alleged unau-
thorized disclosure of Classified Information: Espionage I" are visible. Hoover
concluded, "This Bureau is taking no action in this matter in the absence of in-
formation indicating a violation of a federal statute within our jurisdiction."
To return to 1969, McDonald was being kept informed by members of
NICAP's staff about the controversies and disagreements; he was fully aware
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 453

that the vital research organization was slowly being torn apart. Besides be-
ing overextended financially and bogged down in paperwork, its member-
ship had plunged from its previous high of 15,000, partially because of the
negative "findings" of the Condon Committee. NICAP subcommittee and af-
filiate members in various states remained loyal, although they knew some-
thing disturbing was going on. Some of them, such as Idabel Epperson of
LANS, confided their concerns to McDonald. Privy to information from all
sides, he was bombarded with differing opinions throughout 1969. He lis-
tened carefully to all concerns but wisely gave no direct advice.
In June 1968, he had learned just how deep NICAP's financial troubles
were. Ever since 1957, when Keyhoe had taken over the directorship, the re-
search organization had forged ahead more or less hand-to-mouth, keeping a
small staff working long hours for minimum wages out of sheer devotion to the
cause. NICAP had limped along, with the assistance of its members, who from
time to time gave extra contributions whenever Don Keyhoe would explain the
need for added funds in special Bulletins or in NICAP's newsletter, The UFO
Investigator. However, by June 1968, the recurrent financial difficulties were
disturbing members of the staff.
On the evening of June 20, 1968, McDonald had gone over to NICAP
headquarters, after spending most of the day on professional work which had
brought him to Washington. He had also spent part of the day contacting Con-
gressional officials, who would later be instrumental in bringing about the
long-sought Congressional open UFO hearing. Ted Bloecher, Isabel Davis,
and Stuart Nixon, the newest staff member, took him to dinner.
Sometime in mid-1968 Stuart Nixon had joined the staff. He was a bright,
young writer whom Isabel Davis took under her wing, being fond not only of cats
but of young people just starting out. At first, Nixon blended in well. He seemed
to be an agreeable, energetic assistant in the voluminous tasks of research and
writing. His name first appears in McDonald's journal on the occasion of the
UFO Congressional hearing when someone, whom Stuart Nixon identified as
coming from the Center for Naval Analysis, queried McDonald afterwards. This
unnamed person seemed interested in McDonald's contacts with the RAND
Corporation, and asked him about the talks he had given there. Seemingly satis-
fied, the gentleman told McDonald that he wanted him to address his "Washing-
ton Science Group." He did not give him details at the time, and McDonald
merely noted the encounter, together with Nixon's name, in his journal.
Stuart Nixon seemed at ease among the many governmental and scientific
people who expressed an interest in the UFO question. He also agreed with
Keyhoe and the others about Condon, the Air Force, and the importance of
UFO research in general. At Isabel Davis's on June 20, 1968, the three NICAP
454 FIRESTORM

staff members and McDonald engaged in a lengthy discussion of the Heflin

photos for Stuart's benefit, since he was still new to NICAP and still finding
his way among the important cases. As usual, they also got into the coverup/
grand foul-up controversy.
Ted Bloecher then told McDonald frankly that he was worried about
NICAP's future, because of the recurrent financial straits it experienced. He
laid the blame squarely at Keyhoe's feet, protesting the way Keyhoe was run-
ning the place, particularly the finances. He revealed that NICAP was recently
on the very edge of being unable to pay its bills, but they had received an anon-
ymous $5,000 gift. "That had salvaged another month," McDonald wrote in his
journal.5 But already, conflicts among its formerly compatible staff previewed
NICAP's downfall, although none of the experienced staff recognized fully
what was happening.
Slowly, as 1969 ground on, controversy began to build within NICAP about
the importance of rebutting the Condon Report. A few days before McDonald
came to Washington on June 10, 1969, for a special "NICAP evening," at which
he would be the main speaker, Ted Bloecher phoned him. The latest UFO Inves-
tigator had just been put to bed, and Bloecher had a few spare minutes to talk with
McDonald about the title for his talk, "UFOs Unsolved: A Scientific Challenge."
"I'd like the title to at least mention the Condon Report, and the necessity
of rebutting it," McDonald told Bloecher.
"I agree with you that that's important," answered Bloecher. "But we're
getting so many letters from members saying, 'Let's forget about Condon.' I
think it's wise to omit that from the title. We'd get a better turnout for your talk.
Then you could speak about Condon and specific cases in the report, anything,
just as you wish."
"I didn't argue," wrote McDonald in his journal. "But it is unreasonable to
think we will go right along without strong Condon rebuttal," In brackets, he
added: "I trust NICAP Headquarters agrees."6
Gordon Lore also got on the phone that afternoon, to tell McDonald about
the May 10 NICAP Board of Governors' meeting. Lore was pleased, for the
meeting had seemed very successful. Its members were continuing to show re-
newed interest in NICAP affairs, in spite of the blow the field had received
from Condon's negative conclusions and the Air Force closure of Blue Book.
Lore's news for McDonald was not all positive however. He told him that
some members of the NICAP staff were beginning to feel that Keyhoe was

5. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 5.

6. Ibid., p. 41.
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 455

"touchy," "suspicious," and feeling that some "staff members were possibly
plotting against him."7
In the past, Keyhoe had asked McDonald if he would be willing to serve
as a member of the Board of Governors, but McDonald had reluctantly de-
clined. He felt he could best serve the UFO field without becoming too in-
volved in the everyday affairs of NICAP, and preferred to continue his close,
but informal, cooperation with the organization in any other way he could. He
had recently suggested to Keyhoe, however, that he would serve as scientific
advisor to the board if Keyhoe wished, but for reasons unknown, Keyhoe did
not accept his offer.
"Keyhoe seems worried about your offer," Lore told McDonald. "He held
up that issue by foot dragging."
McDonald was puzzled by his old friend's attitude. It is not known wheth-
er he talked with Keyhoe about this. He took some action however, for in his
journal he wrote, "See note in pocket notebook."8
In the meantime, Stuart Nixon became more and more an essential part of
NICAP's staff. On June 12, he drove over to the Halls' home, where McDonald
was spending a couple of days after his talk at the June 10 NICAP evening. He
was eager to show McDonald the result of the previous evening's photo-analysis
session on a certain UFO photo.
"We were too shot to drive in from the Halls," wrote McDonald in collo-
quial terms. There were other people at the Halls that day, all discussing UFOs
with McDonald, including a "D. Sheldon," "Jacobs from Raytheon," and an
unidentified Naval official.9 By this time, the missing briefcase incident had
occurred, and Dick Hall was also aware that the NICAP office phones, and the
Halls' home phone, were apparently tapped. All this was discussed openly,
with Stuart Nixon listening.
Nixon also shared in the conversations on other matters which were on
McDonald's mind. Before his May 25 talk at the Edison conference, he'd had
a deep discussion at lunch with Henry Eyring, who told him that he thought he
"was on the right track," so far as the delving into the question in a purely sci-
entific manner was concerned. However, he expressed open doubt regarding
the extraterrestrial hypothesis.
"What's your main objection to the ETH?" inquired McDonald.

7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid., reverse p. 43.
456 FIRESTORM

"Well, mostly it's the question of 'Why no contact?'" responded Eyring.

"Why would extraterrestrial space travelers bother to come all that distance, take
all that time getting here, and then not contact us openly?"
Also present that afternoon was another colleague, A1 Cameron, who
joined McDonald in rebutting Eyring's objection.
"Look, Henry," said Cameron. "Can you conceive of anthropologists go-
ing to some still-untouched South Sea island and using the most advanced
techniques available to gather data on the Stone Age natives there, without
their realizing what was going on?"

Cameron did not develop this concept much more than that, but his state-
ment struck McDonald as a relevant idea.
"Even in the past 100 years we've learned to be less disruptive in our an-
thropologizing," McDonald elaborated. "So maybe really advanced civiliza-
tions are far more enlightened." Following this discussion with his
professional colleagues, he wrote later in his journal:
One could today visualize use of electronic bugging, tape-recording
conversations, use of closed-circuit TV, concealed cameras, etc., to
gather data discreetly & clandestinely, as means of avoiding distur-
bance of the primitive culture.10
It was ideas such as this that McDonald discussed freely in private con-
versation with trusted colleagues in meteorology and atmospheric physics,
and he voiced them even more speculatively with trusted associates in the
UFO field. 11 As a result, Stuart Nixon became aware of McDonald's most
private thoughts regarding the UFO mystery. And all of McDonald's most
sensitive materials, which he shared with his NICAP friends, became avail-
able to Nixon, as well.
Nothing should have cast a pall over NICAP's "special evening," but an
event which Marty Lore recounts in an interview for this book continued to
puzzle her for over 30 years. When she lived in Carderock Springs, Jim came
to lecture at the Clubhouse. They were calling around, trying to see how many

\0.Ibid., p. 42.
11. In a letter (op. cit.) to me, Vallee counters, "Re. discussions about absence of contact possi-
bly being caused by an advanced civilization being careful not to disrupt ours, this is an
argument one keeps hearing from UFOIogists, and it makes no sense at all. It contradicts the
fact that UFOs have been much more intrusive than a technical survey would need to be,
teasing our radars and our jets, landing and leaving traces, terrorizing people needlessly....
This is not an unobtrusive operation, whatever it is!"
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 457

people would come, and Marty happened to get a fellow who told her he could
not attend.
"Why not? she asked.
"Because I used to be 'involved' before."
"Involved?" she queried.
"You know, government, UFOs. 'Involved.' You know what I mean," in-
sisted the man. "I'm not involved anymore, but I used to be."
"But that was before," said Marty. "What's that got to do with now?"
"Well, if I even showed up at McDonald's talk, I would be in big trouble.
I can't even show my face," the man replied. "Even though I'm no longer with
'those people,' I can't come."' 2
Marty knew better than to pursue the issue further. From his manner, she
knew that by "involved" he meant that he had been part of some intelligence
service—CIA, FBI, whatever. Marty's experience was not unique. When
shown this passage, Dr. Robert M. Wood remarked cryptically, "One of
many, no doubt!" Many other UFOlogists have encountered this reluctance
on the part of ex-government agents to discuss UFOs. For example, a friend
of mine, who must remain anonymous for obvious reasons, is prevented to
this day from displaying any public interest in the UFO question because he
was involved in the analysis of 55 UFO photos for the Air Force, the CIA and
"one other agency" which he has never felt free to name. The only reason he
felt free to tell me in the 1970s was because of the 1969 USAF declaration
that no UFO data was classified.
By mid-December 1969, NICAP's financial troubles, as well as its inter-
nal conflicts, seemed unsolvable. McDonald called Dick Hall on December
14 and was given a complete update. Col. Joseph Bryan, III, and J.B. Har-
tranft, Jr., who were both on the Board of Governors, had "taken over," Hall
told McDonald. In an unprecedented three-man Executive Committee action,
both Keyhoe and Lore had been summarily fired from their respective posi-
tions as Director and Assistant Director. McDonald described the incident on
page 45 of his fourth journal. This outrageous action took place during a
clandestine three-hour meeting, which was held at the offices of Wald,
Harkrader, and Rockefeller, in Washington, D.C. Present were the Chairman
of the Board of Governors, Bryan, and Hartranfit. Maj. D.J. Fournet, another
high-profile member of NICAP Board, was present by proxy, with the writ-
ten statement that the others could use his vote as they pleased. These three

12. Interview with Marty and Gordon Lore, 11 September 1993.

458 FIRESTORM

constituted all the members of the Executive Committee. Also present was
Thomas C. Matthews, Jr., NICAP's counsel who acted as secretary—and
Stuart Nixon.
The "Minutes of Meeting of Board of Governors' Executive Committee,
December 3, 1969" reveal that Col. Joseph Bryan, III, presided and reported
on studies and investigations into the operational and fiscal affairs of NICAP
(see Appendix Item 17-B, page 579). Among the 14 resolutions passed were:
1. The termination of Keyhoe's presidency and his active participation in any capac-
ity;
2. That Keyhoe would be paid his salary ($7,500 per annum) through December 31.
All 1969 arrears of salary, or a lump severance sum, would be paid if and when
N I C A P had the funds to d o so;
3. The termination of Gordon Lore's service as vice president and secretary-treasurer,
and from any active participation in N I C A P ' s affairs. He was also placed on indefi-
nite leave without pay, under the same conditions as above.

Pending the search for a new president, Bryan was temporarily named to
that post. NICAP checks could only be co-signed by J. B. Hartranft, Jr., and/or
Albert H. Bailer (another board member), and Thomas C. Matthews.
Stuart Nixon was appointed acting secretary-treasurer and made custo-
dian of all papers, records and property of NICAP. He promptly made the
files inaccessible to any local NICAP personnel who might want to see them.
NICAP's checking account was closed, and all funds were deposited in a new
account. Another bank account was opened to receive funds from the first ac-
count, to be drawn out in NICAP's name by Stuart Nixon.
Hartranft was appointed chairman of the board and was given responsibil-
ity to "revise the membership rule of NICAP," in accord with the general out-
line of a letter he'd written to Fournet in November. This meant that the
Executive Committee's action had been secretly planned without Keyhoe's
knowledge or that of any loyal member of his staff.
"Much of what you read about the breakup of NICAP may not have been
directly attributable to Keyhoe," states Gordon Lore. "It wasn't until a couple
of years later that I discovered, through Just Cause, that Joseph Bryan, who
was the chairman of the board when I was ousted, was an active CIA agent at
the time." 13
In order to unseat Don Keyhoe—using as an excuse his financial inexper-
tise—the board had decided that they would have to fire Lore also, to "smooth

13 .Ibid.
P R E D A T O R S IN T H E S H A D O W S 459

over" the Keyhoe firing. NICAP was experiencing severe financial straits, due
to a fall-off of membership which was related to the Condon Report's negative
attitude toward the UFO problem. Major Dewey Fournet had been notified by
telephone at his home in Baton Rouge and concurred in the board's actions. He
agreed to notify Keyhoe promptly, and Col. Hartranft agreed to notify Gordon
Lore. Apparently Hartranft did not have the guts to call Lore personally. In-
stead, he chose to notify him by telegram!

4MB

F I G U R E 32. James E. McDonald (right) and Gordon Lore (left) at an academic

UFO panel sometime around 1969. Lore was Assistant Director of
NICAP.

Strangely, 48 hours before Lore was given his "pink slip," he had been
summoned to Hartranft's Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association office in Be-
thesda and wined and dined at a lunch. Hartranft told him that some "important
changes were imminent," but he led Lore to believe that his position was se-
cure. Dewey Fournet had also assured Lore of this.
To add to the shock of the dismissals, both Lore and Keyhoe were locked
out of their offices, the keys were changed on the doors, and various members
of the Executive Committee went through the personal effects in their desks
McDonald was dismayed when he was informed about what had happened,
for he appreciated Keyhoe's research talent, his objectivity, and his numerous
important contributions to the UFO research field and knew that Lore had devot-
ed his life to NICAP for several years. He regarded Lore as a fine researcher-ed-
460 FIRESTORM

itor, who had worked effectively with the other loyal members of the staff and
with McDonald himself (see Figures 32 and 33). Together with Keyhoe and
Lore, McDonald trusted Dick and Marty Hall, Isabel Davis and Ted Bloecher
implicitly. He had been aware that NICAP had financial difficulties in the past
but had always managed to pull itself out. Don Keyhoe, Gordon Lore, and Rich-
ard Hall freely admitted that they were researchers, not financial geniuses. The
majority of NICAP's loyal membership down through the years probably ac-
cepted these shortcomings, but Lore had talked with more than one member, in-
cluding a gentleman who donated $5,000 at one point to keep NICAP afloat, who
said their own support, both financial and otherwise, was waning because of
NICAP's inability to get on a sound financial basis.

FIGURE 33. Full view of photo from which the enlargement, Figure 32, was
made. The other panel participants are unidentified.

This brings up the question as to whether or not NICAP would have floun-
dered even if there had been no CIA involvement. Gordon Lore thinks this is
probable, because of the problem in establishing firm financial footing. But
this problem certainly made it much easier for an agency like the CIA to step
in and take over. If NICAP had been on a sound financial footing all along, this
may have been highly unlikely.
As for McDonald's reaction to the firing, he was dismayed at Keyhoe and
Lore's sudden dismissal, but there was nothing he could do about it, not being a
part of the official N I C A P "family." He continued contact with N I C A P , howev-
er, for it was still ostensibly the major research organization in the UFO field. He
had no reason to distrust Stuart Nixon or any of the board members. McDonald
maintained contact with Donald Keyhoe and Gordon Lore; even though they
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 461

were no longer associated with NICAP, they were still active in the UFO field.
It was not in his nature to drop a good colleague, even though the individual col-
leagues had ceased working with each other.
McDonald also kept close contact with Dick Hall. On Sunday, April 26,
1970, he flew into Washington, D.C., for a professional meeting at the NSF. In
his luggage he carried hiking clothes, for he needed some exercise, having
been deprived of his regular excursions into the Tucson mountains with his
IAP colleagues, due to pressure of work.
Feeling the need of a little tranquility, he'd written Hall a few days before,
suggesting a short hiking trip. When he arrived at Washington National Airport,
he found that his baggage had been "misshipped" to Dulles Airport. The result-
ing inconvenience and loss of precious time meant that he and the Halls were
able to hike for only one hour in Rock Creek Park. With these good friends, he
also exercised his mind, discussing rationalism vs. empiricism, as related to the
theory of knowledge. That evening, they went over the outline for Gordon Lore's
new book, which concerned the century-old mystery of repeated sightings of
"airships" over the U.S. in 1896-97. McDonald valued contact with good friends
like these, for he knew that they held keys to objective knowledge of the UFO
phenomenon—in past cases which they had documented together, and in current
cases where investigation was on-going.
Juggling his contacts between NICAP colleagues, now widely separated,
McDonald also continued a heavy schedule of talks. He concentrated on the
task of rebutting the Condon Report before academics and scientists. In mid-
March 1970 he spoke at the University of North Carolina, Space Sciences Sec-
tion; the talk was NASA-supported. McDonald wrote in his journal: "Largest
turnout they'd had. They brought in chairs, but still there were people sitting
on the floor. Shows interest is not all gone." 14
Without Keyhoe at the helm, NICAP limped on. Stuart Nixon was now act-
ing director, having been appointed by the board. Late in April 1970, McDonald
was again in the Washington area on professional business. He met with Isabel
Davis and Stuart at her walk-up apartment and took them to dinner. Nixon began
to denounce Keyhoe, Hall and Lore. McDonald listened. Nixon continued, ex-
pounding his theory of how NICAP "should get new scientific advice and brain-
storm its way out of the UFO quandary." McDonald said little. That night he
wrote in his journal, "Nixon... Very naive."15

14. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 46.

15. Ibid, p. 46.
462 FIRESTORM

He gave no sign to Nixon that he was thinking this, however. Back at Isa-
bel's apartment, the conversation continued far into the night, with the three
discussing cases on which NICAP and McDonald were working separately.
McDonald was pursuing the Flora Evans case, involving a woman witness who
had reportedly been burned during close proximity with a UFO in February
1958. The case was in NICAP's files and had taken McDonald's fancy, for it
was in such cases that physical evidence might potentially be gathered. He had,
in fact, interviewed Evans that prior week. Stuart Nixon obligingly agreed to
send copies of the entire Evans case from NICAP files; with the same obliging
manner he drove him to his hotel, the Park Central, at midnight. He was insin-
uating himself into McDonald's life, trying to take over the area that Keyhoe,
Hall, and Lore had been forced to abandon.

Before Keyhoe and Lore were fired, and he was hearing from Lore of Key-
hoe's suspicions about the loyalty of the NICAP staff, McDonald must have
wondered why Keyhoe felt this way. Now, almost four decades after the fact,
Gordon Lore offers some clarification:
"Concerning the CIA connection, I had begun to suspect as early as late
1968, or maybe early 1969," states Lore. "Stuart told us that [NICAP's] pho-
tographic adviser—his name was Bill Mclntyre—had been shot down in Viet-
nam. He was on a secret mission...and had to be rescued in the middle of a
river. Then Stuart quickly shut up about it." 16
"Oh, Bill Mclntyre was based there?" Lore had asked Nixon.
"Oh, Bill goes on these secret missions all over the world," Nixon replied.
"What was he doing in Vietnam?" Lore asked.
"I don't know. Maybe he was with the CIA," Nixon replied.
"And that was it," states Lore. In an interview for this book, he pointed out
that Stuart Nixon left the matter of Bill Mclntyre's possible connection with
the CIA hanging in mid-air. Bill Mclntyre supposedly had a photography stu-
dio. "I think it was all mixed in there with Jack Acuff," explains Lore. "I don't
know in what way. 17
John Acuff was a businessman who became head of NICAP in 1970,
shortly after Keyhoe and Lore were ousted and was at the helm when Stuart
Nixon began dismantling its investigative subcommittees and affiliates. As a
result, NICAP lost the rest of its influence, its remarkable list of scientific con-
sultants, its hard-working investigators and public relations arms. Although

16. Lore interview, op. cit.

17 .Ibid.
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 463

AcufFtook on the directorship on the pretense that his business expertise could
save NICAP, he was later proven to be a covert FBI agent.18 In the late 1970s,
when researchers began seeking out the truth about NICAP's downfall, Bill
Mclntyre also admitted he was a former covert CIA agent.19
But what of Maj. Dewey J. Fournet and J. B. Hartranft, Jr., who were also
involved in the clandestine Executive Committee meeting which had ousted
Keyhoe and Lore? Fournet knew about the secret meeting and approved of the
action taken, for he sent a formal "Proxy vote" for J. B. Hartranft's use at that
meeting. (See Appendix Item 17-C, page 580.) He also knew Hartranft was
planning to "revise the membership rule of NICAP," because Hartranft had
written him a letter about it November 24, 1969. Keyhoe had considered Four-
net a good personal friend, but it was Fournet who helped persuade Keyhoe not
to fire Stuart Nixon when Nixon was causing friction in office affairs. Nixon
was attempting at every opportunity to block publication of the next (and last)
book which would be put out by NICAP, titled UFOs: A New look20 for which
Gordon Lore was the chief researcher and writer. Lore describes how Nixon
interfered with its publication:

"It had some occupant cases in it," states Gordon Lore. "This was the first
time NICAP really published anything on the occupant cases. Stuart Nixon
fought like hell to repress that. He didn't want that to be published at all. It finally
was, but it was also cut down about half. Stuart said he didn't think NICAP
should delve into such 'way out fringe areas.'"
By this time, even pristinely scientific McDonald was taking seriously
"occupant" cases such as Fr. Gill's in Papua, New Guinea (see Chapter 8)
which had multiple credible witnesses. Jacques Vallee, also, had compiled and
written his seminal work, Passport to Magonia,21 which established the need
to include "occupant cases" if an understanding of UFO phenomena was ever
to come about. "I had more landing cases from the Air Force than from
NICAP!" Vallee says. The books of French researcher Aime Michel recog-
nized occupant cases and were also making an impact.
As a result of changing scientific attitudes, Keyhoe had decided to give
cautious credence to a few of the more thoroughly documented cases, such as
the Zamora case in Socorro, N.M. Even Hynek and other Air Force investiga-

18. UFO Research Newsletter, Los Angeles, Calif., Gordon I. R. Lore, Jr., ed., Vol. VI, No. 6,
June/July 1979.
19. Ibid.
20. UFOs: A New Look, Keyhoe, Donald, and Gordon I. Lore, eds., Washington, D.C., NICAP,
47 pp., 1969.
21. Vallee, Jacques, Passport to Magonia,Chicago:, III.: Henry Regnery Co., 1969.
464 FIRESTORM

tors could not explain this case—occupants and all—and it is listed as "Uni-
dentified" in the Blue Book archives to this day (see Chapters 9 and 12). With
the help of his colleague, Professor Charles R. Moore of Socorro, McDonald
had concluded that Zamora was reliably reporting that two small humanoid
passengers were associated with the landing of a strange, unidentified oval-
shaped object. As a result, a few sightings like Fr. Gill's and Zamora's were
included in UFOs: A New Look.22 It also included a preliminary six-page re-
buttal of the Condon Report, containing several cases which McDonald had in-
vestigated. The major points brought out by the scientific panel at the July
1968 Congressional hearing were also included.
"Stuart tried to do everything to really block certain areas we were trying
to go into," states Lore. "But you see, they're clever. They'll go only so far.
And Stuart Nixon was the same way. He was the gadfly there in the office,
about not touching occupant reports, not touching anything that wasn't an air-
line pilot or something like that, that the Air Force could easily explain away."
It slowly occurred to Lore that something was wrong. Early in 1969, he
talked privately with Maj. Keyhoe.
"Don," Lore said, "I don't know about Stuart Nixon. I know he's been
talking with Philip Klass."
"Why would he do that?" inquired Keyhoe.
"I don't know," replied Lore. "But we know he has." I also know he's been
meeting on the sly with certain Board members, in particular, J. B. Hartranfit."
"Why?" inquired Keyhoe. "That's not part of his job."
When interviewed for this book, Philip Klass confirmed that he talked
with Nixon several times during this period, but that their discussions did not
constitute "covert meetings." "I recall he phoned me to discuss a sighting of a
'squadron' of hydroplane-shaped UFOs near St. Louis on June 5,1969," Klass
discloses. "Because of my position as a senior editor with A W&ST magazine,
he assumed I would know if such aircraft had been developed... [Stuart Nixon]
and I had a friendly relationship, as I had earlier with Dick Hall when he was
running NICAP headquarters operation, and with Gordon Lore."
Lore agrees, to a point. "I agree with Klass that he was friendly with us all,
essentially, but I believe that we all, except Stuart, separated that from his anti-
UFO stance."

22. UFOs: A New Look, op. cit.

P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 465

A few weeks later, Lore got thoroughly fed up with Nixon's continued in-
terference about publishing UFOs: A New Look and went again to Keyhoe to
discuss it.
"Look, Don, there's something funny here," Lore said. "I don't know what
it is, but this guy's really trying to impede our progress."
"Well, Gordon, I've been thinking there's something funny going on," re-
sponded Keyhoe. He paused a moment, then decided to confide. "As a matter
of fact, I'm going to get rid of him."
"Then weeks and some months passed and nothing more was said about
it," states Lore. "I think it was Don Berliner and myself, we went to Keyhoe
about Stuart. But there was something strong there that was preventing Keyhoe
from acting, whether it was Dewey Fournet or whoever, who was saying to
Keyhoe, 'No, let's keep Stuart on.'
"Keyhoe wanted to get rid of him. He was that far from firing him, more
than once," continues Lore, demonstrating a half-inch's width with his fingers.
"Then all of a sudden, when we thought he was going to do it, it's, 'Oh, no,
let's give him another chance' type of thing. Somebody got to him, for Key-
hoe's not like that. I've seen him boot people out the door without thinking
twice about it, if he really thought they needed to be ousted, for whatever rea-
son. And I asked Keyhoe about it again later, and he said, 'Well I thought about
it, and I almost fired him, but I decided to...give him another chance.'" 23
Donald Keyhoe, in spite of his brisk, sometimes explosive nature, was a
good and fair man. McDonald recognized these traits in him from the begin-
ning. His frequent references to Keyhoe's books and NICAP's work, in his
public talks, and in his journals, were invariably in complimentary, positive
terms. In fact, he had written to J. Allen Hynek:
I think when the facts are all set forth, Don Keyhoe will appear, in the
deeper sense of the term, a far better scientist than you, when your re-
spective contributions to progress in the UFO area are finally toted
up. Keyhoe will get praise and you '11 get some of the criticisms you've
feltfree to aim in his general direction over the years of your Air Force
consultancy\
As the years went by, and NICAP slipped from prominence, Gordon Lore
continued to wonder. In 1973, when Donald Keyhoe's last book, Aliens From
Space, had been published, and Keyhoe was promoting it at a conference in

23. Interview with Gordon Lore, 4 December 1993.

24. Letter from McDonald to Hynek, dated July 1970. Polished draft with handwritten revi-
sions, in McDonald's files (See Appendix Item 4-A, page 532).
466 FIRESTORM

Washington, D.C., Lore met with him. During their discussion, Lore asked him
outright if he thought Stuart Nixon might have been some kind of a govern-
ment plant.
Keyhoe thought it over a bit. "No," he answered. "Stuart just isn't the type
to be a spy."
Before Keyhoe and Lore's ouster, however, various members of the orig-
inal NICAP staff spoke rather openly to McDonald about their suspicions of
possible monitoring by CIA moles. He always listened carefully to them but
never took direct action. The main reason was due to the fact that he had a dif-
ferent "take" altogether on the CIA. He knew that anti-war and civil rights
movements, which the government might possibly regard as "subversive"
were closely monitored on all university campuses. At the same time, the day-
to-day academic work of the university was involved with the CIA in an open,
mutually beneficial manner.
"The CIA is a very misunderstood organization," says Dr. A. Richard Kas-
sander. There are a lot of people who work for the CIA who would never have
anything to do with covert activities. In fact, one of our IAP graduate students
went to work every summer with the CIA, and so did others. It was a badly kept
secret that all of Lou Battan's research into the status of Soviet cloud physics was
supported by the CIA. A condition of his accepting the CIA support was that the
unique and scientifically important insights that might be in his annual reports
could be reported, uncensored, in the regular scientific literature. That condition
was unhesitatingly and unconditionally given, [but] Lou made it clear that he
wouldn't necessarily tell who was supporting it.... [M]ost people would judge
this to be an acceptable and proper way of using taxpayers' funds. Unfortunately,
the days of academic freedom like this seem to have vanished—the CIA is now
able to slap a Classified stamp on the work of academics and private business-
men alike who have any involvement with this agency, however patriotic or sci-
entific their motives and results."25
Dr. Kassander agrees that Air Force military intelligence might have been
giving McDonald trouble. He had personally seen the difficulty McDonald had
in getting data from Davis-Monthan AFB in the early days of his UFO research

25.1 have met this situation personally in attempting to invoke the FOIA for the release of 55
UFO photos, which were analyzed for the CIA and "other agencies" by a scientist of my
acquaintance who requests anonymity. The agencies involved contend that the "UFO photos
themselves are not classified, but that the circumstances under which they were taken
involved national security" and use this excuse to withhold them from being released by
FOIA action. In view of the practice of blacking out and razor-blading information in gov-
ernment documents, I do not believe that this "explanation" for non-release is truthful.
—Ann Druffel
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 467

(see Chapter 2). "The very fact that the Air Force made it so difficult to get in-
formation would indicate that certainly they had instructions from some level in
which security was involved, not to discuss these matters with him," Kassander
says. "There were certainly speculations at the time that what people were seeing
were some sort of experimental aircraft of a type that the Air Force would not
want revealed."
McDonald had studied the experimental-aircraft hypothesis carefully. It
was his feeling that some UFO sightings might be explained in this way, but,
because of the phenomenal speeds and seeming violations of the laws of phys-
ics—e.g., 90° turns, apparent materialization and de-materialization, immedi-
ate stops and starts, etc.—it seemed that some unexplained type of non-
terrestrial technology was involved in the basic UFO phenomenon.
While all this was going on, a sizable scientific investigation of UFOs was
in progress, financed by Douglas Aircraft Corporation and led by Dr. Robert M.
Wood. The project was company confidential and involved sophisticated equip-
ment. Both McDonald and J. Allen Hynek had been apprised of this, and both
scientists had suggested equipment that might be incorporated into an instru-
mented van which ostensibly was searching for data on the ball-lightning phe-
nomenon. Whether or not the CIA also had been "apprised" of the project is
uncertain. Dr. Wood states that he does not think so, while Vallee is of the opin-
ion that the Agency monitored the project very closely. Nuclear physicist Stan-
ton Friedman also joined the team, the only one hired on the basis of his
knowledge of the UFO subject; his role was focused on reading the UFO litera-
ture to get clues into areas the team might explore. (Friedman adhered for de-
cades to the confidential agreement he made with the team.) Wood kept
McDonald up-to-date on the progress of the project. As recounted in an earlier
chapter, the "ball lightning" van failed to produce any definite results (See Chap-
ter 10). Information on the project is slowly surfacing.26
To return to the difficulties NICAP was experiencing, toward the end of
March 1969, McDonald received a telephone call from Dick Hall, Ted Bloech-
er and Gordon Lore. They explained that the crisis at NICAP had grown so des-
perate that the Halls, Lore, Bloecher, and Davis had confronted Don Keyhoe.
Some had threatened to resign unless Keyhoe could put the organization on a
sound financial footing. McDonald made complete phone notes and tucked
them in his "Hall" file, satisfied for the time that Keyhoe had made broad con-
cessions and that the matter would be straightened out.

26. Wood, Robert M., "A Little Physics...A Little Friction: A Close Encounter with the Condon
Committee," International UFO Reporter; July/August 1993, Chicago, III, J. Allen Hynek
Center for UFO Studies. Also letter from Jacques Vallee to author, dated 25 January 1996
and communications with Robert M. Wood, same time period.
468 FIRESTORM

The unprecedented action by Keyhoe's long-time colleagues had been

brought about by the fact that, although Keyhoe was an excellent investigator
and writer, he was not a businessman and did not know how to run a financially
successful organization. Nevertheless, he had brought the UFO question to
public attention and was widely considered the "Dean of UFOlogy." He had
gathered together scientific consultants and other influential persons to back
the cause of scientifically oriented UFO research. At NICAP's height, it had
about 15,000 members, many of whom voluntarily investigated UFO sightings
in their own localities. NICAP's eight-page bulletin UFO Investigator and its
other book-size publications were filled with the most objective data obtain-
able. Since 1957, Keyhoe had consistently informed the public about the seri-
ous nature of the UFO question in a vivid and understandable manner.

But NICAP's efforts were expensive. Frequent appeals went out to its
membership over the years, asking for help with financial emergencies.
NICAP headquarters were in a brownstone building in the heart of Washing-
ton, and only a couple of the staff were volunteers—comparatively high over-
head. There were other problems, too, which lay strictly in the area of how
organizations like NICAP should be run.
Keyhoe's "broad concessions" were basic to assure a smooth-running
business. NICAP had never kept a set of books, had never had more than one
person sign checks, and had never followed a fiscal year. Dick Hall had tried
to improve this situation, and Gordon Lore continued trying to improve it after
he succeeded Hall as assistant director. Lore also recognized the need for
NICAP to attempt to secure tax-exempt status long before his dismissal, par-
ticularly in view of the many donations that had come in over the years. For
months, Keyhoe resisted these changes. After his loyal staff threatened to re-
sign, however, he allowed Lore to consult a lawyer.
NICAP was required to have a board meeting twice a year but hadn't had
one for years. Gordon Lore insisted that the Board of Governors, which included
about a dozen influential persons, such as Congressman Edward Roush, be
brought together for a Board meeting. While he was setting things up, Lore again
had to threaten to resign, when he met continued opposition from Keyhoe.
"I said, 'Look, Don, if NICAP is going to be saved at all, we've got to get
on a good footing,"' Lore says, describing this frustrating period.27 By June
1969 the tax-exempt status had been achieved. Even after some of the corpo-
rate problems were solved, however, strange things continued to happen. The
phones were bugged. This was especially noticeable when the staff talked with
Keyhoe about important cases. Keyhoe did a lot of his NICAP work from his

27. Interview with Gordon Lore, 4 Dec. 1993.

P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 469

home in Luray, Virginia, where he could be close to his wife Helen, who was
not in the best of health. Luray was some 100 miles from Washington, D.C.,
so Keyhoe was not regularly at his NICAP headquarters desk. Much of the dai-
ly work activity was therefore conducted by telephone. Lore's home phone in
Bethesda, Md., was also tapped.
"I remember we were in the middle of talking with Maj. Keyhoe," recalls
Gordon Lore, "when all of a sudden this loud electronic buzzing [occurred],
and then the connection was broken. I had to call Keyhoe back, and we dis-
cussed the phone being tapped. Then there were a couple of other times—it
was always when we were talking about UFOs to someone in the field, which
is kind of weird, because even then they had more sophisticated bugging de-
vices than that.
"Once at NICAP I was on the phone to Keyhoe and all of a sudden there was
a voice in the background which said, 'Major Quintanilla, this is Don Keyhoe's
outfit.' And then a click, and a buzz, and then the phone was disconnected."
The bugged phones were an inconvenience, but much more serious prob-
lems existed. Board members Hartranft, Bryan and Fournet, with the aid of
Stuart Nixon, and possibly also attorney Matthews, must have been planning
their clandestine meeting of the three-man Executive Committee, which led di-
rectly to NICAP's destruction. Who were these men, and what were their back-
grounds that led to their becoming NICAP board members?
We start the revelation with a former board member, Rear Admiral Roscoe
Hillenkoetter, who had been ostensibly devoted to NICAP but who had been in-
strumental in destroying the anticipated plans for a Congressional UFO hearing
in 1962 by stating publicly that "the Air Force had done its best to solve the UFO
problem," that "NICAP's investigation had gone as far as possible," and that he
"believed neither NICAP nor the Congress should continue to criticize the Air
Force investigations" (see Chapter 10). He resigned from the board right after
that and ceased displaying public UFO interest. Hillenkoetter was listed as a
member of that "silence group," the so-called "MJ-12" (see Chapter 14).
Donald Keyhoe, being a canny and intelligent man, privately wondered
about Hillenkoetter's inexplicable turnaround and, in particular, suspected
that some intelligence agency must have been in back of the furtive Execu-
tive Committee meeting which brought about his ouster. His suspicions—
and those of numerous NICAP members—remained unconfirmed until an
FOIA lawsuit, filed in September 1977 by Ground Saucer Watch (GSW), an
Arizona-based research organization, succeeded in wresting loose approxi-
mately 900 pages of CIA files through a suit filed in U.S. District Court,
Washington, D.C. Among these 900 pages was a document proving that Hil-
lenkoetter had, in fact, been pressured by the CIA, at the behest of the Air
470 FIRESTORM

Force. 28 After the initial release of these CIA documents, Brad Sparks, di-
rector of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS) determined that over 200
additional CIA documents were directly referenced in the material released.
He attempted to pry these loose as well. The CIA denied their existence, stat-
ing that they "couldn't find" them. The CIA later informed CAUS that "the
Agency had just located 1,000 additional pages of UFO material in the CIA's
OSI files," but were not released because they were not described in the orig-
inal court order! (This, of course, is standard procedure.)
"There are very serious questions remaining about the validity of the
CIA's alleged search of files," stated a 1979 Just Cause newsletter. When
GSW attempted to tap the CIA, and two other agencies, for additional docu-
ments, it was informed that the FOIA "did not apply to matters that are specif-
ically exempted from disclosure by statute." This entangled wording means
that UFO data which the government has obtained under conditions involving
situations of "national security" can be held back and not released.
The CIA had been interested in NICAP activities from its inception. When
scientist T. Townsend Brown founded NICAP in October 1956, at least two CIA
agents worked themselves into important positions within the organization. One,
"Count" Nicholas de Rochefort, was in the CIA's Psychological Warfare Staff.29
The other was Bernard J.O. Carvalho, a Lisbon native and go-between for certain
CIA-secretly-owned companies such as Fairway Corporation, a charter airline
utilized by CIA executives. He managed to get appointed chairman of the mem-
bership subcommittee, a key position.30
In 1965, following a flap of sightings in and around Washington, the CIA's
O/SI asked the Domestic Contact Service office to contact NICAP. An agent by
the name of A1 Coleman phoned NICAP and, in Keyhoe's absence, saw Dick
Hall by appointment. At his request, Hall lent him a few files on the 1964-65
Washington, D.C., flap, on which he expressed particular interest; he later re-
turned them without comment. This meeting was reported in CIA documents re-
leased through the FOIA.31
FOIA documents also revealed facts about the three-man Executive Com-
mittee which so callously dismissed Keyhoe and Lore. Col. Joseph Bryan III,
was founder and Chief of the CIA's Psychological Warfare Staff from 1947
through 1953. Until CAUS uncovered Bryan's covert employment with the

28 .Just Cause, Official Newsletter of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS), Inc., Larry
Bryan, Administrator, Vol. 1, No. 7, January 1979.
29. Ibid, p. 5.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid., p. 3.
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 471

CIA, during the course of interviews with former CIA employees, very few
people were aware that Bryan had CIA connections. Dick Hall confirms Bry-
an's covert link. "Col. Bryan...was not an Air Force Colonel," he states. "He
was a Naval officer, and the 'Air Force Reserve Colonelcy,' we learned belat-
edly, was a cover story for the CIA." 32
Bryan first approached Keyhoe in 1959 and expressed interest in seeing
some of NICAP's "really hot cases." He presented himself as an Air Force of-
ficer, and Keyhoe was rightfully cautious, suspecting an attempt by the Air
Force to infiltrate NICAP. However, Bryan, like Hillenkoetter, allowed Key-
hoe to quote him in the UFO Investigator in these words: "The UFOs are in-
terplanetary devices systematically observing the Earth.... Information on
UFOs has been officially withheld. This policy is dangerous." Bryan was sub-
sequently invited to serve on NICAP's Board of Governors. In 1969 he showed
his true colors by presiding at the Executive Committee which ousted Keyhoe
and Lore, beginning NICAP's slide into oblivion.

In a 1979 interview with Brad Sparks of CAUS, Bryan confirmed his former
covert employment with the CIA, but denied any association or communication
with the CIA during the period he had served on the NICAP Board. When it was
pointed out to Bryan that two CIA covert agents had penetrated NICAP in 1956,
he remarked. "Penetrated! Good God! What do you want to penetrate NICAP
for? There's nothing to penetrate—it was all overt, the whole thing!"34
Yet it was not all overt. NICAP's publications and most of its case files were
out in the open, but there was an integral part of NICAP which could not be
overt. Certain cases had to be kept confidential, for many military men and other
witnesses employed in classified government positions gave UFO reports on
condition that their sightings be kept anonymous. Since McDonald seems to
have been monitored also, and was receiving confidential sightings from military
personnel and scientists, any covert agents who might be sniffing around would
be curious to know just what McDonald was sharing with Keyhoe.
Another former briefing officer for the CIA, Karl Pflock, was chairman of
NICAP's Washington, D.C., subcommittee in the late sixties and early seventies.
He is also suspected by some researchers of helping to bring about NICAP's
downfall. Like Bryan, he has denied this, giving the same reason Bryan did, that
"NICAP did not have to be penetrated."35 Pflock is still active in the UFO field,

32. UFO Research Newsletter. A Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, Los Angeles, Calif.,
Edited by Gordon I. R. Lore, Jr., Vol. VI, No. 6, June/July 1979.
33 .Just Cause, op. cit.
34. Ibid, pp. 7-8.
35. Lore, UFO Research Newsletter, op. cit., p. 1.
472 FIRESTORM

particularly in the controversy about the "Roswell crash." He defends the Mogul-
balloon theory for the debris field found near Roswell, N.M., in July 1947, which
was initially regarded by local Air Force personnel as a crashed UFO.
And what about Stuart Nixon? Could he have been a covert agent also?
Gordon Lore considers the prospect likely, but has no hard proof. "Early on,
Nixon told me that he hoped 'nobody would be too upset' by what he intend-
ed 'to accomplish at NICAP,'" says Lore. "I pressed him [to explain], but he
clammed up. Later, he began downgrading certain potentially excellent UFO
reports, especially the photographic cases, for which he was responsible. He
labeled as 'hoaxed' numerous reports that looked good to the rest of the
staff," 36 and he interfered persistently with NICAP's last major publication,
UFOs: A New Look (see page 463).
In late 1973, long after Keyhoe and Lore were gone from NICAP, and Stu-
art Nixon was running the show with Acuff as a figurehead "president," Lore
again asked Keyhoe, "Do you think Stuart Nixon was a CIA plant?"
"No," replied Keyhoe. "He's not smart enough." He paused, then added
forcefully, "But you know, Gordon, the biggest mistake I ever made was not
firing him!" 37
Complete notes of the Executive Committee meeting, and certain events
which led up to it, have been found in NICAP files. They prove that Bryan
had, after the executive meeting, written and distributed a memo in which he
called Keyhoe "inept." A Just Cause Newsletter states: "Evidently, this
memo, coming from the Chairman of the Board, helped convince an other-
wise loyal-to-Keyhoe panel to approve his firing."38
In the same NICAP file containing Bryan's critical memo is a note written
by Stuart Nixon, in which he questions "the propriety of Bryan's remark in light
of the plan to placate Keyhoe with some sort of Research Director's appoint-
ment." In other words, NICAP subcommittees would find it "incongruous," if
Keyhoe was to remain in any capacity if the Chairman of the Board considered
him "inept"!39 NICAP records also reveal that, since mid-1968, Stuart Nixon

36. Including the Yorba Linda photo, which LANS had investigated for four years, this author
being the primary investigator. Four photogrammetrists pronounced the photo "most proba-
bly genuine" and could not find any evidence it had been hoaxed, but Stuart Nixon, who
was put in charge of UFO photo cases at NICAP Headquarters, promptly pronounced it
fraudulent. Nixon was not even a photo analyst but most probably sought advice from Bill
Mclntyre, a NICAP photographic analyst. Mclntyre, unknown to NICAP, was a CIA agent!
37. UFO Research Newsletter: A Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, op. cit., p. 2.
38. Just Cause, op cit., p. 8.
39. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 473

had been meeting with another player, Jack Acuff, who, after Keyhoe and Lore
were fired, was appointed president of NICAP out of the blue. Acuff was head
of the Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers (SPSE), a Washington-
based group which had been the target of many KGB spying attempts. Many of
the SPSE's members were photoanalysts with DOD facilities, as well as the CIA.
In his capacity as SPSE Head, Acuff had been approached by Soviet agents on
several occasions, had reported this to the FBI and subsequently became a dou-
ble agent for the FBI. Acuff was, indeed, a strange choice to replace Keyhoe as
president of NICAP. After he took over the helm, NICAP went even more rap-
idly downhill. A Just Cause Newsletter states:
Since taking over NICAP, Acuff has converted the organization from
being a vocal and persistent critic of the government's UFO policies
to being a rather "passive recipient" of civilian UFO reports. The
group's investigating network, the subcommittees, was disbanded
shortly after Acuff took the job....40
It was at this point that most Subcommittee members quit NICAP. Idabel
Epperson, Chairman of LANS, was one of the first to do so, perceiving, per-
haps instinctively, that NICAP had been taken over by persons whose actions
would dismantle NICAP as an effective research organization. Acuff s ap-
pointment was passed off to the general NICAP membership as a "decision by
the Board to put NICAP on solid financial footing." Acuff was a respected
business man; his covert intelligence activities were not common knowledge.
He achieved financial soundness by promptly firing all full-time NICAP em-
ployees, except for a secretary whose salary was spread between NICAP and
several other non-profit groups which Acuff oversaw. About 3,000 NICAP
members remained loyal for several years, even as the organization slid down-
hill. Under Acuff, NICAP was soon bringing in around $50,000 a year but
about $35,000 of this amount was going to Acuff for "contracting services,"
which included Acuff s and the secretary's salary, plus office expenses. Only
$76.00 was spent on "general research" in one of the early Acuff years!
NICAP's newsletter, UFO Investigator, was not included in these monies
other than the secretary's time for typing it. Instead of the vital information it
previously contained, now the newsletter was a sorry recital of uninvestigated
cases sent in by members. By 1976, Acuff took $34,000 of NICAP's total
$41,690 revenue as salary; that same year, $20 went to "general research!" Fi-
nally, in October 1978 Acuff resigned, claiming that NICAP owed him
$20,000. NICAP's coffers were completely empty, and Acuff kept its invalu-
able files "as ransom," according to a previous member's quip.41 After months

40. Ibid.
474 FIRESTORM

of quibbling, the board appointed Alan N. Hall, a retired CIA employee, as act-
ing director (no relation to Dick Hall). The selection was made at the sugges-
tion of Charles Lombard, a new board member. At the time, Lombard was Sen.
Barry Goldwater's aide. Goldwater himself was now a new Board member; he
had publicly expressed interest in UFOs for years. Lombard was a former CIA
covert employee; it is not known whether Goldwater was aware of this. Alan
N. Hall agreed to fill Acuffs shoes for a six-month trial period on a volunteer
basis, without pay. Very soon after that NICAP was dissolved forever.
The above facts have led many in the UFO community to conclude that
NICAP's effectiveness as a scientifically oriented research organization was
deliberately destroyed by CIA and FBI agents, but documented proof still
eludes them. Its slow destruction was not the only adverse effect, however.
Confidential cases, and even classified UFO documents, which had come in
to Keyhoe before his ouster, continued to come in from anonymous sources
during A c u f f s presidency and there is adequate reason to believe that sensi-
tive information was still flowing in even while Alan Hall was acting as di-
rector. Perhaps even in NICAP's last days, trusting sources were handing
over a classified government UFO document or two, hoping to help break
open the UFO question. Regarding this possibility, the Just Cause Newsletter
from which much of the above has been taken asks the question in black-hu-
mor: "Does [such] document ever see the light of day? Does the source ever
again see the light of day?" 42
It is interesting to compare the amount of yearly salary paid to Jack
Acuff, $35,000, to the $7,600 annual salary which Keyhoe was making. Lore
was being paid the same moderate amount, and both men were owed back
salary at the time of their dismissal. The rest of the loyal staff worked at even
lower salaries, out of sheer devotion to the cause and even then had to forego
paydays when the money simply wasn't there. Dick Hall, in particular, had
so much back salary owed him that he engaged in bitter controversy with
Hartranft and Bryan over their failure to reimburse him.
Most of NICAP's revenues during the 12 years Keyhoe was director
went toward valuable research and distribution of documented UFO case ma-
terial to Congressmen of their acquaintance in the hopes that extended Con-
gressional UFO hearings would be held. Even though Keyhoe was not an
expert in business finance, NICAP was kept running for 12 years on limited
funds, exerting great influence over interested persons in government, the

AX.lbid., p. 11.
42. Ibid., p. 12.
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 475

military, and science. McDonald's close cooperation with NICAP for five
full years was one of the best examples of its prestige.
Members of NICAP's staff who had personally experienced incidents of
apparent phone-monitoring told McDonald, in confidence, that the NICAP
phones were bugged. Some also attempted to tell him of their suspicions about
Stuart Nixon. But McDonald needed proof, and the UFO community had no
proof of government interference until the late 1970s, years after McDonald's
death. He continued meeting with Dick Hall, Gordon Lore, Isabel Davis and
Stuart Nixon, but more or less on an individual basis.
McDonald could not make NICAP's problems his own, because he had
enough problems of his own. Besides the annoying inconveniences, and tragic
occurrences, which occurred in his life since early 1969, he continued to expe-
rience great irritation over what he considered J. Allen Hynek's tendency to
"re-write UFO history." He also was irritated by Hynek's review of the AAAS
Boston Symposium, which had appeared in the English journal, FSR. He took
umbrage particularly to the following passage: "Now that Blue Book has been
terminated, I will be free to discuss some of their 'scientific' methods, and in-
deed a part of the book I am now writing will be devoted to that."43
"Do I understand that you really are going to try to write a book that
makes out Quintanilla, his predecessors, and the 'Establishment' as the male-
factors in this drama?" wrote McDonald, in his July 1970 (unmailed) letter.
"You can make a greater scientific contribution by... opening your own eyes
about what you've done to the UFO problem, rather than [coming] out with
a book that rewrites history...." 44
Some researchers in the UFO field feel that by his on-going conflict
with Hynek, McDonald was losing any chance he might have had to act as
an integrator for all those who wanted to work on the problem scientifical-
ly. 45 But McDonald's intense personality, and his demand for unmitigated
honesty in science, prevented this, so far as his working amicably with
Hynek was concerned.
In spite of the growing pressures, McDonald continued his constant search
for promising cases. In early December he attended a conference at the NCAR
in Boulder, Colo., where several associates privately expressed interest in his
UFO research. He wrote in his journal that, at the office of Dan Rix, Charlie

43. Hynek, J. Allen, "Commentary on the AAAS Symposium," FSR, Vol. 16, No. 2, March/
April 1970, p. 5.
44. McDonald's unposted letter to Hynek, dated July 1970.
45. Communications from Drs. Jacques Vallee and Robert M. Wood to me.
476 FIRESTORM

Palmer told him that he had been asked to relay the information that Dr. Edward
J. Zipser knew of an early multi-witness sighting which had occurred at Line Is-
lands. Zipser had knowledge of the sighting, although he was not a first-hand
witness. McDonald wrote down Zipser's address and phone number, and also
noted that Charlie Palmer promised to send "three pages" of information about
the sighting. He also learned that Dan Rix knew of another event that had oc-
curred in San Diego, Calif., in 1947, although Rix himself had not witnessed it
personally. Rix had written up the San Diego sighting in his diary, accompanied
with a sketch of the object. 46
McDonald also talked with Dr. Gerald P. Anderson, at the NIF Astronomy
Section. Anderson was a professor at Colorado University but had also worked
several years as Donald Menzel's assistant at Harvard. He agreed that Menzel
"could be very careless and that he easily jumped to conclusions." 47 Anderson
had interest in UFOs while at Lockheed and told McDonald that, around 1960,
"he got access to some punch-card UFO cases data at Scott AFB." He came
over to McDonald a bit later and took him aside.
"I'm a little bit afraid I might have violated security considerations in tell-
ing you about the UFO punch-card data," said Anderson quietly.
"I don't want you to violate security," said McDonald. "That's not what
I'm looking for."
"Maybe sometime later I could tell you how it happened that Scott Air
Force Base had UFO data," replied Anderson. "All I can say now is that AWS
had it, and it was related to something that the Eighth Air Force was doing."
"I'd be glad to hear about it when you feel free," said McDonald. He lat-
er received the name of an officer at Scott AFB to contact, Col. R.G. Suggs.
He followed this up quickly, making contact with Col. Suggs, sending him
past papers he'd delivered on UFOs. This resulted in an invitation to speak
on the UFO subject at Scott AFB. Only the bare facts can be gleaned from
his diary, and we are left to wonder whether he was able to receive more in-
formation about the classified punch-card UFO cases data that was related to
"something the Eighth Air Force was doing." Knowing his tenacity, howev-
er, it is possible that he had stumbled onto something too sensitive, and made
contacts too knowledgeable. We do know from his journal that Col. Suggs
expressed great interest in McDonald's contention that the Air Force had
done great harm by telling the public and the scientific community that the

46. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 48 and reverse p. 48. By "Line Islands" McDonald apparently
is referring to Line Islands, Kiribati, in the Pacific which became independent of the UK in
1979.

47. Ibid., reverse p.48

P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 477

best scientific talents were available (and ostensibly being used) by the Air
Force to study the UFO problem. Suggs, to McDonald's surprise, had inter-
preted McDonald's phrase to imply that various civilian scientific bodies
were being consulted, not in-house scientists. McDonald told Col. Suggs that
the thought had never occurred to him—i.e., that the Air Force was (secretly)
tapping scientific talent in the open scientific community. 48
Information like the classified punch-card UFO data at Scott AFB must have
alerted McDonald that the government was holding back much more classified
UFO data than he'd previously been willing to accept. By now, he had four
years' experience behind him in which he'd bucked up against the establishment
and the system. He recognized witnesses' necessity to keep certain information
confidential, since it was classified at the time the witness had encountered it.
However, McDonald saw no logical reason why the U.S. Government should
have to keep UFO data "beyond the pale." In June 1970 he wrote about this quan-
dary in his journal, carefully noting sources he felt could clarify it:

6/20/70...statement on [Bray's] "Science Policy"... good quote on p. 88

re difficulties of fighting the establishment, by D. David Green of U.
Wisconsin re. enzyme research. "It is amazing how difficult it is to reach
the establishment. After all, I, too, have position and authority —still it
is impossible. " From "Scientific Research " 5/13/68 p. 33.49
McDonald had position and authority, too, and this quote about the vagar-
ies of "the establishment" must have impressed him in more ways than one. Al-
though he was making extraordinary efforts to bring the UFO question to the
attention of scientists, he knew he was not being as successful as he needed to
be. His November 1969 Icarus paper had boosted his hopes, but after that his
polished UFO papers were simply not accepted by scientific journals. He con-
tinued his professional atmospheric projects and presented the data before
prestigious scientific groups. But, in general, he lacked the time to hone and
polish these papers to his satisfaction, and subsequently many of them went
unpublished.
These papers constituted important data for science. They included such
titles as "Some Subtleties and Misconceptions Concerning Southern Arizona
Air Pollution"; 50 "Some Arguments Against Operational Seeding of Hurri-
canes"; 5 1 "Revised Draft for the Panel on Weather and Climate Modification
(POWACM)." 52 Although they remained in a "self-published" state, they were

48. Ibid.
49. In McDonald's "Controversies and Unorthodoxies" file.
50. An eight-page paper McDonald presented to the Conference of Mining and Ecology in the
Arid Environment in Tucson on March 26, 1970.
478 FIRESTORM

presented in Navy Stormfury sessions, NAS POWACM meetings, and other

scientific conferences. They were as carefully prepared, so far as research
went, as the dozens and dozens of papers he had published in professional jour-
nals since 194753 and discussed serious topics in meteorology and atmospheric
physics. Because he did not take time to publish them, he began to experience
subtle adverse reaction from his IAP colleagues. The old axiom, "Publish or
perish," continued to trouble him.
McDonald also worried about his frequent, prolonged absences from
home because of UFO-speaking engagements, realizing that he was neglecting
Betsy and the family. Richard Hall describes his state of mind in 1970:
"Often he would say, 'I've got to draw back and patch up things at home
and at the office.' He was worried about how he was neglecting his family,"
states Hall. "Often, when he was writing letters late at night to me, he'd end
them up with the phrase, 'Now I have to go and pay some attention to Betsy
and the kids.' The short vacations he took were for the same reason, trying to
smooth things over at home. 'Patching things up,' he called it." 54
In spite of all his professional and personal pressures, the archived Blue
Book files still called out to him. The two radar-visual files which he'd per-
suaded the recalcitrant Lt. Marano to send him had simply whetted his appe-
tite. When at last his professional schedule permitted an Alabama visit, he
called Dick Olsen, aide to Arizona Rep. "Mo" Udall, and urged him to
"nudge" a "Col. Coleman" (otherwise unidentified in his journal). Olsen
obligingly agreed to call. 55 McDonald had a Navy Stormfury session on file
for May 15, and hoped to get to Maxwell AFB afterwards.
He'd heard rumors that the Air Force planned to destroy all the Blue Book
files; McDonald had hopes of preserving them and getting them into the Na-
tional Archives. If the Air Force could not be persuaded, he wanted to have one
more good look at the files before they were gone forever. His carefully laid
plans succeeded, and on May 18, he was hard at work in the Historical Divi-

51. A 43-page paper McDonald presented to the Project Stormfury Advisory Panel in Washing-
ton, D.C., on May 15,1970.
52. An 85-page, 5-part paper dated August 1, 1970. It examined such crucial atmospheric prob-
lems as the climatic effects of supersonic transports in the stratosphere, the persistence and
unwanted spread of cloud-seeding effects; the difficulties in targeting and delivery of cloud-
seeding agents; adverse downwind effects of cloud modification. The 29-page reference
section is a comprehensive bibliography of weather modification in the late 1960s.
53. Vaughan, Valerie, "Science and Conscience—An Annotated Bibliography of the Writings
of Dr. James E. McDonald," April 30, 1990. See also note 22, page 396.
54. From interview with Richard Hall, 7 May 1994.
55. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 46.
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 479

sion, Aerospace Science Institute at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery, Alabama.

McDonald chose not to write many details of this trip in his journal but instead
jotted the cryptic phrase, "See small notebook for more details" in his fourth
journal. 56 But once he started studying the R-V files, McDonald realized he'd
struck a bonanza.
He spent an extra week there, copying literally hundreds of them. The cost,
for him, was a large sum, $300, but the value of such data was priceless. Great-
ly stimulated, he brought the files home and spent the next two weeks studying
each case, placing each in a neatly labeled folder and anticipating which ones
he should include in the book he planned to write. Two weeks later, he gave a
briefing to a select group of Santa Monica IEEE engineers and scientists, ex-
pressing his delight over what he'd found:
The records that some of us were concerned about are still alive and
well and nestled deep in the archives at the Historical Division at
Maxwell Air Force Base.... I looked at about 400 cases...really signif-
icant cases that to my knowledge, nobody else who had ever followed
the UFO problem has ever heard of before..., structured, solid-look-
ing objects of configuration that just is hard to tag with anything ex-
cept some word like "craft" ...dozens of hypersonic radar tracks with
sharp-angle turns and sudden climb-outs....57
The ETH was still his favored hypothesis, as he carefully explained:
As one who has interviewed 500 or 600 witnesses, I don't see any al-
ternative.... We're dealing...with phenomenology that suggests a
technology.... It doesn 't at all suggest amorphous plasmoids or atmo-
spheric optical effects. It doesn't look like any geoastronomical phe-
nomenon...[but] cases of close-range sightings of structured
objects.... These are not Russian:..or American devices, because the
same things were happening back in 1947.58
After the IEEE briefing, he met with Idabel Epperson and a couple of doz-
en Southern California researchers who shared his eagerness over what he had
found—the former LANS, who were continuing their investigative efforts in
spite of NICAP's upheaval. At the Santa Monica IEEE briefing, McDonald
had made a statement which hints that he was re-considering the logic of an Air

56. Ibid., p. 47.

57. Klinn, Robert B. and Branch, David, "Physicist Cites Startling UFO Reports Buried in
Maxwell AFB Files," The Register (Santa Ana, Calif.), December 6, 1972. From a UFO
briefing held by McDonald before a group of IEEE, Santa Monica, Calif., Miramar Hotel,
June 9,1970.
58. Ibid., tape recorded briefing, June 9, 1970.
480 FIRESTORM

Force "cover-up," and he reiterated it to the LANS group: "Maybe the Air
Force felt, 'Maybe we can get a hunk of the technology ourselves and use it to
military advantage,'" he said. 59 This brought his thinking closer to most of his
UFO colleagues, who theorized that one of the reasons for a "cover-up" was
that the government hoped to unlock the secret of UFO propulsion before any
potential enemy could figure it out.
Around mid-1970, even though McDonald had been heartened and spurred
on by his discoveries at Maxwell AFB, some of his colleagues began to notice
subtle changes in his personality. Dr. Dean Staley of IAP, states: "I guess I saw
some loose ends to him." Staley is referring to an incident which several of his
IAP colleagues recall. It concerned a civilian worker in a meteorology group at
nearby Ft. Huachuca. This young man had learned that McDonald had worked
on a problem related to a project that he was working on. McDonald spent quite
a bit of time with him and showed him some of his (unpublished) results to help
guide the young man in his research.
"Subsequently," relates Dean Staley, "this guy wrote a paper and sub-
mitted it to the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, which is the premier
journal in the field. It was accepted, but it turned out that he'd used great
chunks of McDonald's work...that were things that McDonald himself had
intended to publish, after cleaning up loose ends." 60
When McDonald heard about this, he was upset and talked to colleague
Lou Battan, who was president of the AMS at that time. The young man's pa-
per had already gotten down to galley proofs, but Battan was able to stop the
publication of the article because of McDonald's honest objections. The jour-
nal came out with pages missing, where the article had been "killed."
"What I really want to get at here is Mac's behavior," continues Dean Sta-
ley. "At some point in that whole episode... Ken Barnett, who was head of the
Ft. Huachuca group, came up here with the offending party. McDonald wanted
the whole faculty to attend that could attend. And they went over this stuff, and
it was quite clear what this person had used, that he had plagiarized.... I remem-
ber Ken Barnett saying, 'Well, what more do you want of us? The paper has
been withdrawn.' That's when I first really got to wondering about Mac, be-
cause. . .he seemed to want more detailed admission of not only guilt but of mo-
tivation... and the rest of us...Ben Herman, Bill Sellers, and maybe George
Dawson, we were getting pretty uncomfortable with this.... It's enough for
most of us to have some guy get caught.... I think possibly this person...was
sort of naive about scientific credit for certain work; I don't know that it was

59. Ibid.
60. Interview with Dr. Dean Staley, 28 February 1994.
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 481

necessarily with evil, malicious intent. But McDonald was badgering, as if this
guy were the embodiment of evil and had consciously decided to do this, when
things don't really work this way."61
McDonald was so strictly honest in his own scientific work and with his
dealings with colleagues that it really isn't strange that he wished to know
the young man's motivations. Probably no one had dared to plagiarize any of
his work before, and since his own scientific research projects were so fresh
and new he was never tempted to plagiarize another's work. Probably his
colleagues at the university were surprised because they saw McDonald sub-
tly changing, showing a troubled side they'd not seen before.
In spite of these troubling problems, McDonald continued researching the
radar-visual sightings which had recently surfaced at Maxwell AFB. Besides the
Haneda and Lakenheath sightings (see Chapters 13 & 16) he worked consistently
on the "RB-47 case." He tracked down the six Air Force witnesses personally
and wrote a paper, which included all technical information he was able to glean
on the case. He wrote, "This is one of the most interesting Air Force UFO cases
that I have examined."62
Briefly, it concerned an Air Force surveillance aircraft, with the call sign
"Lacy-17," which was followed by an unidentified flying object for an hour
and one-half on July 17, 1957, as it flew from Mississippi, through Louisiana
and Texas and into Oklahoma. "Lacy 17" was equipped with special electronic
countermeasures (ECM) equipment. The object was seen visually at times as
an intensely bright light, demonstrating extremely rapid maneuvers far beyond
the capacity of Earth technology. The UFO was tracked by both ground-radar
and by the ECM gear aboard the RB-47. Of special interest to McDonald was
the fact that the three types of ECM equipment were not radar and did not emit
a signal. Their functions were to listen passively to incoming radar signals and
perform signature analyses for securing geographical coordinates, pulse char-
acteristics and precise timing. Also of special interest were several instances of
simultaneous appearances and disappearances of the object on three separate
"channels", i.e., visual, ground radar, and airborne ECM gear.
In his RB-47 paper, McDonald stated a facet of UFO research which lies
at the heart of government "cover-up." Without terming it as such, it shows
he was getting to the heart of how government treated important cases:

61 .Ibid.
62. McDonald, James E., "Air Force Observations of an Unidentified Object in the South-Cen-
tral U . S . , " July 17, 1957,26 pp., including graphs of RB-47's flight over several states.
482 FIRESTORM

Actually, the case file for this incident, like that of many other scien-
tifically significant UFO cases, is less than complete. It is quite possi-
ble that some of the original investigative records were sent not to
Project Blue Book, but to Air Defense Command intelligence units, as
several of the RB-47 crew indicated to me.... The men described quite
detailed interrogation.... A number of extremely significant points are
scarcely hinted in the Blue Book case file.63
Perhaps one of the most significant portions of the 1957 Intelligence Re-
port on this case, found by McDonald in the Maxwell AFB archives, was the
statement that the Director of Intelligence of the 55th Strategic Reconnaissance
Wing had no doubt "the electronic D/F's coincided exactly with visual obser-
vations by aircraft commander numerous times, thus indicating positively the
object being the signal source."64
Solid cases like the RB-47 case buoyed McDonald's spirits. He seemed to
be zeroing in on solid data, which could not be covered up with inane Blue Book
explanations. The ADC had been involved, and their "Intelligence Reports" ver-
ified that radar and concurrent sightings by trained observers of unexplained, air-
borne objects, performing maneuvers far beyond the capability of Earth
technology had occurred beyond any doubt. In fact, Project Blue Book did not
even know about the case until it received summary information from the ADC
about two months after the incident! When it finally reached Wright-Patterson
AFB, V.D. Bryant of the Electronics Branch tried to evaluate the RB-47 case:
The electronic data is unusual in that radar signals (presumably em-
anating from the "object")...have all the characteristics of ground-
radar equipment, and are in fact similar to the CPS-6B. This office
knows of no S-band airborne equipment having the characteristics
outlined.... On the other hand, it is difficult to conclude that nothing
was present, in the face of the visual and other data presented.65
In spite of these expert opinions, Blue Book resumed its dirty tricks. Capt.
G.T. Gregory, of Lakenheath "fame", suggested that the "object" was a com-
bination of mistaken, conventional objects passed along the four-state trek, in-
cluding an airliner near Dallas and Ft. Worth, and it is so carried in the official
Blue Book files. The Condon Report, which discussed the RB-47 case in three
different sections (failing to identify each section as related to the others) spec-
ulated that the visual observations were due to oil-well flares near Oklahoma
City, "perhaps" a thin inversion layer causing optical distortion of airliner

63. Ibid., p. 4.
64. Ibid. D/F means Direction Finders.
65. Ibid.
P R E D A T O R S IN THE S H A D O W S 483

headlights, and, the old standby, AP. In spite of this, the RB-47 case was as-
signed to the "Unidentified" category in the Condon Report. The irony of Blue
Book's unsubstantiated "explanation" is that Blue Book received a report that
the very same airliner, American Airline #655, flying 50 miles east of El Paso,
at 3:30 A.M. that same date, almost collided with a "huge green UFO which
appeared out of clear sky without warning."66 Ten passengers were injured
when the pilot violently maneuvered to avoid collision. McDonald summed up
the Blue Book's trickery succinctly: "To try to equate that incident to the com-
plex sequence of events involving the RB-47 is less than reasonable...." 67
McDonald planned to include the RB-47 case in the book he planned to
write, which he hoped would convince the scientific community that the UFO
question must be taken seriously. He included the case in a talk he gave to the
14th Radar Meteorology Conference, which met November 17-20, 1970, in
Tucson. A beautifully prepared handout was distributed to attendees, and his
paper was printed in the Conference "Proceedings." It was his last talk on
UFOs before a scientific gathering. He was already deep in another atmospher-
ic physics research project, which would result in his last appearance before a
Congressional hearing, a hearing which would lead, indirectly, to his death.

66. Ibid, p. 21.

61. Ibid.,?. 23.
CHAPTER 18

The Black Spot of Our Inner Lives...

But now, alas!

the tide has changed, my love she has gone from me,
And winter's frost has touched my heart,
and left its blight upon me...
—from "Flow, sweet river, flow"

The most interesting stage in any investigation is the one in which

people are still struggling to understand what sort of thing they
are dealing with. Once we understand what kind of thing it is, the
further developments follow with a certain predictability.
—John A. O'Keefe in Foreword to Tektites

spite of the concern of close colleagues, McDonald's reputa-

Wl tion survived intact. Carping had come from a few quarters, but
those who criticized him, such as Ratchford and Condon, were
not in a position to hurt him professionally. The entire UFO field felt that
he was making a crucial difference.
McDonald was encouraged by data that were coming to him after
years of trial. Since 1968, he'd tried to track down Art Lundahl, a photo-
grammetrist who knew the inside facts of the government's analysis of the
Newhouse UFO film, which had been photographed by a Navy warrant of-
ficer near Tremonton, Ut., and was a classic in the UFO field. The govern-
ment had made many attempts to prevent the details of their analysis from
becoming public, and McDonald, intrigued by this, spared no effort in pur-
suing it (see Chapters 8 & 10). He tapped several contacts from 1968 to
1970, and finally he and Lundahl met for a confidential talk. His journal
relates unusual aspects of this meeting: "4/28/70 Tuesday noon Art Lun-
dahl picked me up with sandwiches and drove to Lincoln Memorial where
we talked 1.5 hrs."1

1. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 46.

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 485

Sandwiches at the Lincoln Memorial? McDonald customarily planned

lunch and dinner meetings, at times even over breakfast. Never before, in any
of his journals or file notes, was such a public place mentioned for a meeting.
Could it be that Lundahl hesitated to talk about sensitive material in a build-
ing that might be "bugged"? Or was McDonald concerned by now that his
activities were being monitored?
McDonald had also tried for three years to track Newhouse down for a per-
sonal interview; Lundahl brought him two possible addresses. Lundahl did not
know Newhouse personally, but his associate (and later deputy) Capt. Pierre
Sand, knew him well. Newhouse had a good reputation; Pierre Sand had de-
scribed him as "no feather merchant, no mendicant."2 Then McDonald listened
carefully as Lundahl told him how the film had been analyzed. At the time,
Lundahl had been the Assistant Chief Engineer of the U.S. Navy PIC in Ana-
costia. By the time he met with McDonald, he had 4,000 employees working
for him, handling CIA, Air Force and Navy photos.
The Newhouse film had been thoroughly investigated by NICAP and oth-
er researchers. The photographer, Delbert Newhouse, was a totally reliable,
solid citizen and was a career Navy warrant officer at the time of his sighting,
tie was an expert in aircraft recognition, as well as photography, and was ada-
mant that the objects he had photographed were not aircraft.
USAF investigators had come to Newhouse after they heard about his film
and borrowed the original before he could get it copied. In the Newhouse film
today, there are no frames of the objects as he saw and filmed them when the
objects were closest to him. Newhouse was adamant that they were clearly ar-
tificial craft of the classic flying saucer type, that is, like two plates, with their
rims touching. Yet, when the film was returned to him after analysis, the
frames which showed the objects in this aspect had been snipped away. New-
house never saw this portion of the film again. The Air Force returned a copy
to him instead of the original he'd lent them, saying they ran the original so
many times it was worn out!
McDonald queried Lundahl about the interest the Robertson Panel had
shown in the Newhouse film. Even though that panel had "studied" 75 cases dur-
ing its four-day meeting, the USAF and their CIA hosts made available only two
UFO film/photos, one being Newhouse's. Lundahl had sent Lt. R.S. Neasham,
USN and Harry Woo to brief the Robertson Panel. That panel's report, de-clas-
sified in 1975, states that, at Air Force request, the PIC spent about 1,000 man-
hours in the preparation of graph plots of individual frames of the film.

2. Ibid., reverse p. 46.

486 FIRESTORM

Woo and Neasham had emphasized to the panel that, in their professional
opinion, the objects were not birds, balloons or aircraft. Neither were they re-
flections of any kind but self-luminous. The Robertson Panel had been shown
a film of a flock of circling sea gulls photographed in bright sunlight. In spite
of Woo and Neasham's expert testimony, the Panel concluded that the sea
gulls were sufficiently bright that the Newhouse film might also be "circling
sea gulls."
Lundahl told McDonald he was sure that the Robertson Panel had tried to
act responsibly. After all, a major flap of American UFO sightings had clogged
the communication channels of the military and the government during and
immediately after the 1952 D.C. sightings. In the early 1950s, our military
communication channels were capable of being jammed.
Art Lundahl knew Philip G. Strong of the CIA's O/SI, who had been in-
strumental in calling the Robertson Panel together. "Phil Strong was open-
minded regarding UFOs then, in 1953, and he's open-minded now," Lundahl
assured McDonald. "I'm sure he'd not have covered up the UFO subject. But
those who convened the Panel were concerned about the possibility of intelli-
gence machinery being swamped."
McDonald was eager for details of how the Newhouse film was analyzed.
"The Air Force came around rather informally, asking help on the Newhouse
film, after they heard about them and borrowed them," Lundahl told him. "It
was an informal request, with no official orders. Bob Neasham and Harry Woo
of the PIC did the work, mostly in their spare time."3
"The film shows a cluster of objects whirling around at a very fast speed,"
said McDonald. "How did they go about tracking each object's motion in a
swarm like that?"
"They set it up on a device used to evaluate firing accuracy," replied Lun-
dahl. "They decided that the objects were revolving around each other in an ir-
regular fashion, and each object was possibly spinning on its own axis at the
same time. They detected color changes on the objects, too—from red to green
to blue, in no ordered sequence." These were definite colors; there was no ob-
vious Kodachrome explanation. UFO literature mentions only that the whirl-
ing disks, photographed at considerable distance, were "bluish-white" with no
features visible. Were the color changes discernible only in the frames which
had been taken when the objects were closer to the witnesses? And were other
features visible in the closest frames? McDonald's notes on his meeting with

3. Ibid., reverse p. 46.

T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 487

Lundahl end abruptly with the cryptic notation: "Cf. note in pocket notebook
on some of this. I think I'll dictate rest when get home." 4
Lundahl probably told McDonald essentially everything he knew about the
PIC's frame-by-frame study of the Newhouse film, but we may never be sure of
this unless McDonald's "pocket notebooks" are found.
McDonald also asked Lundahl about Secretary of the Navy Kimball and
CNOPS.5 Kimball had sighted a UFO while flying over the North Atlantic.
Lundahl confirmed some information McDonald had on this case and added
that Kimball's sighting had led to an extended UFO study conducted by the
ONR in 1955.6 Lundahl was in a position to know about this. He had person-
ally spotted the Soviet Union missile launcher on Cuba and personally briefed
President John F. Kennedy about it, leading to the explosive Cuban missile cri-
sis. Lundahl was proud of his work with the government. "I'm not killing any-
body," he told McDonald. "I'm just helping to solve problems."
After their meeting, Lundahl drove him back to Park Central and the NSF
session from which he'd played hooky. During his return flight to Tucson that
night, he ran into seven colleagues who worked for Raytheon as well as Tom
Donahue of the University of Pittsburgh. Three other colleagues were also on the
plane, whom McDonald did not name in his journal. From these three, he felt
"cool salutations."
While some of his own colleagues were expressing displeasure toward
him, however, his antagonist Philip Klass was perhaps softening a bit. James
McDonald's good friend, James Hughes, remarks: "Eventually they came to
some kind of an understanding. Philip Klass, I don't know if he came to like
McDonald, or whether he finally figured out he'd bit off more than he could
chew." Klass continued to send him items of mutual interest, taking care al-
ways to mark on the envelope, "Not UFO material." McDonald had not re-
sponded to Klass's letters after their early exchanges, and Klass wondered if
McDonald simply tossed away any mail bearing his name without even
opening it. Actually, in McDonald's files, letters from Klass were neatly
filed and preserved though most were apparently unanswered.

4. Ibid., p. 47.
5. It is not known what CNOPS stands for.
6. Early in 1952, Navy Secretary Dan Kimball was in a plane flying to Hawaii when it was
buzzed by a UFO. Kimball's pilot radioed a second Navy plane, some distance behind and
learned that the UFO had just buzzed that second plane, so swiftly that no one aboard could
make out its shape. Cited by Keyhoe, Donald E., in his second book, Flying Saucers from
Outer Space, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1953, p. 50.
488 FIRESTORM

McDonald received a postcard from Art Lundahl about a month after

their meeting, containing additional information about an ONR-UFO project
Lundahl had mentioned. The name of one project officer involved was Fred
Lowell Thomas, to whom Lundahl had spoken on January 26, 1955. The
ONR-UFO Committee had met in Building T-3, Room 1803 on March 3,
1955. McDonald must have wondered anew why the ONR repeatedly turned
down his requests for funding to study UFOs. If they had studied them se-
cretly in 1955, why not now, when so much more data had surfaced?
Between 1966 and 1970, McDonald naturally had been busy on many things
besides UFOs. Several aspects of the physical and chemical modification of at-
mospheric environments, occurring as a result of human technology, had caught
his attention. Around the time he met with Lundahl, he'd also prepared a re-
search proposal for the NSF, which expressed his growing concern over the in-
crease of carbon dioxide, water vapor emissions, thermal structure changes,
cane-field burning, metallurgical operations, and lead contaminants from auto-
mobiles,7 and had spoken to scientific gatherings on these problems.8-9

About the same time, the aerospace industry was all atwitter over the pos-
sibility that, within a couple of decades, their fleets of subsonic airliners, which
flew at about 35,000', would be outdated and that supersonic transports (SSTs)
which would fly much higher and faster would be available for civilian air
travel. The Boeing Corporation, based in Seattle, Wa., had a government con-
tract to develop a prototype for an American SST; General Electric was devel-
oping the engines for the giant aircraft. Because of growing public concern
about atmospheric pollution, Boeing had sought out McDonald some years pri-
or to clarify a specific question: Would SSTs, flying at the edge of the upper
atmosphere, leave permanent condensation trails? If this was likely to happen,
the SSTs could not be built in large numbers, for permanent clouding would
interfere with the normal action of sunlight on the surface of the Earth.
McDonald had traveled to Seattle to consult with Boeing and took advan-
tage of the opportunity to spend some quality time with his family "We all
went up to Seattle and camped up there while he talked with the Boeing peo-
ple," says Betsy McDonald. "That [SST] question had been around for a while
and, basically, we were opposed to it."

7. McDonald, James E., "Studies of Physical and Chemical Modification of Atmospheric

Environments," unpublished research proposal to NSF September 24, 1969, 15 pp.
8. McDonald, "Some Subtleties and Misconceptions Concerning Southern Arizona Air Pollu-
tion," self-published summary, 8 pp.
9. McDonald, "Airborne Lead: An example of Technological Contamination of the Atmo-
sphere," unpublished manuscript, dated Oct. 2,1969,42 pp.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 489

The activist causes with which she was involved were also concerned
about the growing problem of pollution; McDonald was concerned from a sci-
entific viewpoint. He had researched the question of permanent condensation
trails and had come to the conclusion SSTs would not cause this. He so in-
formed Boeing. The aircraft company's officials were relieved and went ahead
developing their prototype.
"His ecologically minded associates were very disappointed in him, sug-
gesting that he should have said 'yes,' [to the question of permanent conden-
sation trails] because most of them politically opposed the SST," states Betsy
McDonald. "They told him, 'You shouldn't have published the truth, because
you really oppose it.' But they couldn't get him to do it. He and I believed in
the truth, whether we liked it or not. So then, through the years, he wondered
if there was something wrong with the SST, and he began to learn about it on
his own."
He assiduously researched the effects supersonic transport fleets would
have on the upper atmosphere, partially in connection with an NAS POWACM
panel. By August 1970 he'd come to the conclusion that fleets of SSTs, oper-
ating in the stratosphere would possibly act to deplete the ozone layer. He dis-
cussed this in a 85-page paper which he prepared for the NAS Panel.10
McDonald was one of the early pioneers to issue public warnings on this
subject. Few lay people even knew about the fragile "ozone layer" which pro-
tected Earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation. This imminent prob-
lem excited McDonald's scientific interest as well as his public awareness. By
November, his preliminary results were imparted to a meeting of the NAS.
Atypically, his paper comprised only one page but was laden with data. He had
factored in the total rate of (projected) SST emissions and demonstrated major
problems associated with this.11
Many scientists disagreed with his warning. He responded by sending a
23-page letter to Dr. Charles L. Dunham of the NRC. 12 With the scientific con-
troversy in full swing, Congress decided to hold hearings as to whether or not
they should withdraw the government contracts on the SST. McDonald decid-
ed to devote total energy toward this problem and informed his colleagues in
the UFO field that he would not be able to participate in UFO research until
after the Congressional SST hearing set for March 1971.

10. McDonald, "Revised Draft for the Panel on Weather and Climate Modification," self-pub-
lished paper dated August 1, 1970, 85 pp.
11. McDonald, "Atmospheric Modification from SST Operations," self-published summary of
points present at COSPUP meeting, Washington, D.C.
12. Letter from McDonald to Dr. Charles L. Dunham, November 19, 1970, 23 pp.
490 FIRESTORM

By late November, McDonald's research indicated that fleets of SSTs

could damage the ozone layer beyond its ability to repair itself. The resulting
increase in ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth could cause significant in-
creases in skin cancer in the U.S. He researched the epidemiology of skin
cancer, journeying to several major medical facilities to obtain the best pos-
sible data. He then made a strong plea to the NAS panel, urging that Congress
act immediately on the SST question instead of waiting until March, but the
panel dragged its feet. 13 Further pleas did no good, so McDonald went ahead
on his own, refining his data as an independent scientist rather than as a
member of the panel. He was invited to testify at the Congressional hearing
by Rep. Sidney R. Yates of Illinois.

He continued to seek out the world's skin cancer experts: at the University
of Texas, at Temple University, and at Baylor. Once they realized the extent of
this study, he was invited to give lectures on this subject at these institutions.
Even though he was totally immersed in SST research by November, he
took time out to give a talk on UFOs to the Radar Meteorology Conference
which met Nov. 17-20 at Tucson. His talk was printed in that conference's
Proceedings, one of the rare times a UFO paper was published in the scientific
literature. It showed his grasp of radar technology and rebutted the Condon Re-
port's coverage of the Kincheloe AFB case of Sept. 11-12, 1967, involving 17
separate unidentified returns from radar. Gordon Thayer had tentatively iden-
tified these as "anomalous propagation." McDonald, however, had personally
interviewed the senior radar operator on duty during the episode, who gave de-
tails of the case which demonstrated effectively that Thayer's explanation was
false. Kincheloe AFB was one of the cases McDonald intended to include in
the book he planned to write.
At the Radar Meteorology Conference, he also included the RB-47 Gulf of
Mexico case (see Chapter 17), as well as an incident that had occurred October
14,1957, at the Naval Air Station near San Diego, Calif., involving the chase of
a brilliant UFO by a Navy submarine search aircraft. His detailed discussion of
the San Diego case brought out a restriction which had been placed upon him by
the Air Force.14 He'd been forced to sign a written agreement that he would not
publicly use witnesses' names on certain official cases, even though he had
found them in the Maxwell AFB archives and had made copies of them! In his
discussion of the San Diego case, he bluntly challenged this "Air Force stric-
ture."15

13. McDonald, "Tentative Estimate of SST Emissions—Working Assumptions 1985-1990+,"

self-published summary, Nov. 30, 1970, 3 pp.
14. SAFOI letter, 7 August 1970.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 491

Even as he immersed ever deeper into his SST-ozone studies, the UFOs kept
creeping in. In early February, Allen Hynek came to Tucson and asked to see
him. McDonald told Hynek about the radar-visual cases he'd found at Maxwell
AFB. "I found hundreds of really significant cases... objects exhibiting perfor-
mance characteristics that are not in anybody's aeronautical engineering book,"
he told Hynek. "You must have known about some of them, at least!"
"Stop trying to re-write history and take a good, long, hard look at it,"
McDonald further advised Hynek. "You were with Blue Book from 1948
on!' 6 Until you honestly admit that you were part of the problem, why UFOs
have been ignored these past 25 years, you can't be part of the solution no
matter what you do."
Hynek replied, "I'm doing my best now. I've come around to a full accep-
tance that there is a problem, and I'm speaking out openly! What else is needed?"
"I need to know you're not going to try to re-write history," said McDonald.
"That book of yours you're writing had better be an honest account of UFO his-
tory. Because if it's published and it isn't honest, everybody will hear about it,
from me!"
The two men exchanged verbal blows for over two hours, leaving James
McDonald thoroughly galled and Hynek hostile.17 It was to be the last time
they would see each other.
About a month before he was due to testify in March, top-level government
officials reportedly got in touch with McDonald. Just when and where this came
about is unclear; our present knowledge is based on first-hand testimony of per-
sons in the UFO field. Marty Lore relates how she learned that McDonald was
talking with "people at the top."
"It was one of the last times I saw him," Lore describes. "He said he was
meeting with these people—he wouldn't even tell who they were. He was saying
that he was so sorry that he couldn't tell, but that it was so high-up that he wasn't
supposed to tell anyone about it. I think he felt that he was being separated from
the people he was most comfortable with."
If McDonald had, in fact, been contacted by "top people" in government
who were knowledgeable about UFOs, the feeling of separation which Marty
Lore describes would have been disturbing to him. The sharing of information

15. McDonald, James E., "Meteorological Factors in Unidentified Radar Returns," reprinted
from Proceedings 14th Radar Meteorology Conference, November 17-20, 1970. (His hand-
out is included as Appendix Item I8-A,.)
16. McDonald, fourth journal, p. 49.
17. Ibid., reverse p. 49.
492 FIRESTORM

with like-minded colleagues was all-important to him. But in spite of the fact
that McDonald seemed to be experiencing a sense of "separation," his equable
nature still appeared unchanged.
"He had the same unbounded energy, up through the last time I saw him,"
Marty Lore continues. "I never saw any change in Jim—his enthusiasm and that
sort of thing. He was always that way, a very warm and a very sweet man." She
is not the only person whom McDonald told about "being close to the answer."
He also talked to Robert Wood about it when, around the beginning of February
1971, Wood had the chance for a brief stopover at Tucson. McDonald dropped
his SST-ozone study for the afternoon and met him at Tucson Airport, where
they ordered a beer in the airport bar. The conversation started out in the usual
way, the "What's the latest that you've heard?" type of discussion.
"But after we did a little bit of that," relates Wood, "Jim got into a mode
where he seemed to confide in me a bit. An imperceptible change in the way
the conversation was going." He does not remember the exact words that fol-
lowed, but relates the spirit of it.
"Bob," said McDonald. "I think I've got the answer."
"To what?" asked Wood.
"I found out what's behind it," said McDonald. Wood realized from the
change in his manner that McDonald had found out something very important
about the UFO phenomenon. "What is it, Jim?" he inquired.
"I just can't tell you right now," said McDonald. "All I can tell you is, I
think I'm hot on the trail." He paused a moment, then added, "You won't be-
lieve it! I've got to pin it down a little bit more, and then it'll come out."
"And that was it," says Wood. "I just don't remember the details of the rest
of the conversation, but I do know that part really stuck in my mind. I can spec-
ulate, now that I know what I know, about what he might have meant. I think
he found the trail to the classified work...and some documentation that made
it pretty clear that there was a10cover-up going on, that this was the most classi-
fied program in the country.
"The thing that would have made him say, 'you wouldn't believe it'— the
first thing that was 'unbelievable' in that era—is that we had in fact recovered
a craft." Wood refers to the widespread reports that something "unidentified"
may have crashed near Roswell, N.M. Officials at the 509th Army Air Force
Group initially released the report, describing a debris field of unknown types
of metal and other strange structural fragments, but higher Air Force officials

18. Dr. Robert M. Wood interview with author, 21 August 1993.

T H E B L A C K S P O T O F O U R INNER LIVES.., 493

rapidly hushed up the report, claiming the debris was from a high-altitude bal-
loon. The Roswell incident remains a matter of intense controversy within the
UFO community. Of course, if he had found the trail to the classified work, as
Wood puts it, McDonald may have been referring to other documents describ-
ing a government cover-up other than the Roswell incident.
Another unusual fact about McDonald's conversation with Wood that day
was that McDonald did not discuss the perennial question of foul-up vs. cover-
up which he invariably brought up at their prior meetings. This compounds
Wood's conviction that McDonald had somehow stumbled upon, or been led
to, government documents which contained proof of UFO reality.19
Other things changed in McDonald's life about the same time he was con-
fiding to Robert Wood. In the late winter months of 1970-71, he walked into
the office of IAP's head secretary, Margaret Sanderson-Rae. "Margaret, you
and I had a falling-out a couple of years ago, and I told you never to come into
my office again," he said. "You tried to explain to me what was going on, and
I wouldn't listen. I'm listening now. Would you like to tell me?"
"I wasn't just doing a routine organization of your office, like I did all
those years," Sanderson-Rae told him. "I was getting your mail ready for you
when you came back from that trip. I had to assign you a secretary those couple
of months who didn't know how to sort your mail. I had gone in there after she
was dismissed, and re-organized everything. I didn't intend any intrusion into
your private affairs."
"I know that now," said McDonald. "I'm sorry for the way I acted. I was
under a lot of stress at the time."
"Only Dr. McDonald would have done that," Sanderson-Rae relates. "I have
been grateful so many times that he was good enough to come to me and ask for
that explanation and apologize—before the end."
During the time McDonald was studying the link between ozone damage
and skin cancer, he often discussed problems of continuing pollution of the
upper atmosphere with Dr. A1 Mead, head of the zoology department.
"He would be riding his bicycle on the campus and.. .would call to me and
straddle his bicycle," says Mead. "I walked to school, so we would stand there
and he would indicate what his thinking was...new aspects, and new ideas he

19. Interview cited above, and adjunct phone interview with Dr. Robert M. Wood, 28 March
1997. The phrase, "You wouldn't believe it" seems like an echo of Arthur Richards's state-
ment to Duane Mack, an NWC employee who had imparted Richards's "landing case"
experience to McDonald some months before. Could McDonald have been successful in
following up this case? (See Chapter 15.)
494 FIRESTORM

had.... His main concern was the chemistry of the upper atmosphere, and what
it was doing to the radiation that we get from the sun. His fear was that we were
upsetting the very delicately balanced upper atmosphere to such an extent that
it would endanger human life.... I had been working on the economic aspects
of my research animals, and somehow that transferred into his assuming that I
would be interested, which I was. [All of us] had such good faith in his predic-
tions about the atmospheric disturbances, because we knew he could take a
problem and get to it.... We would respect his answers."
In talking with many scientists and researchers who were interviewed for
this book, a remarkable aspect of McDonald's life comes to light. Over and
over again, they slip easily from the past tense into the present tense while
speaking about him: the man they knew and worked with is still powerful in
their minds. Dr. Mead continues in this vein:
"I appreciated that mind—that he would pick things up, and mull them
over...and penetrate the question deeper. That's just like him. Well, you're
working with a very, very interesting man, who's left a definite mark in his
field He'd get interested in anything he touched."
Mead was interested in all forms of life, and currently is researching the
evolutionary patterns of giant African land snails. 20 Regarding McDonald's
concern that atmospheric contamination could possibly wipe out all human
life, he says:
"Yes, the whole of life...because he knows that there are catastrophic
events in the past—he knew there were," Mead corrects the verb tense. "The
paleontological history shows that there were great destructions of life. He
knew those things, and he could see an impending serious situation developing
here, that could be controlled by [human beings] if they would."
Around this same time, McDonald met another researcher who is able to
add valuable insight into what was going on in his mind. Stephan A.
Schwartz was director and chairman of the Mobius Society, a (formerly) Los
Angeles-based research organization which conducted scientific inquiries
into the nature of human consciousness, field research projects in intuitive
criminology and psychic archeology.21 He had heard from Dr. David R.
Saunders about McDonald's UFO research and realized he had possibly the
most complete files of anyone in the country, including government docu-

20. A recently published article by Dr. Mead, who is now Professor Emeritus in the Department
of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology of the University of Arizona at Tucson, is: Mead,
Albert R., "Anatomical studies reveal new phylogenetic interpretations in Lissachatina
(Pulmonata: Achatinidae)," Journal Of Molluscan Studies, 61 (2): 257-273, 27 figs., May
1995.
T H E B L A C K S P O T O F O U R INNER LIVES.., 495

ments, as well as a large library of UFO books. Schwartz had also met
Donald E. Keyhoe in the 1950s.
In the course of working as a civilian special assistant to the Office of Na-
val Operations (ONO), Schwartz had come across a once-secret project which
involved UFO-related propulsion technology He was anxious to discuss this
with McDonald, since no one else in the UFO field seemed to know about it.
He'd been given an introduction to McDonald by a mutual friend, Frank Woid-
ich, an oncologist researcher who was also interested in UFOs. On a business
trip in late winter 1971, Schwartz stopped over in Tucson to meet with another
old friend. He'd never been in Tucson before, but he liked used-book stores.
He happened upon The Book Stop and started looking through the UFO sec-
tion. It happened to be the very book shop where McDonald bought his own
UFO books.

"There was a guy in the shelves.. .a very nice, scientific-looking guy," says
Schwartz. "We started talking without introducing ourselves." They discussed
their mutual interest in the UFO subject for a little while.
"Oh, I'm supposed to meet this guy, McDonald," Schwartz told him. "I
have this introduction to him. He lives here, somewhere in town. Do you know
him?"
"Well, that's who I am," replied McDonald.
"Oh," said Schwartz. "I understand you've got these tremendously great
UFO files."
"I've been studying the question," said McDonald.
"I'm only in town for a very short space of time," continued Schwartz. "I'd
like very much to see your files. I'm interested in whether or not you've hap-
pened to stumble upon Project Winterhaven?"
"What is Project Winterhaven?" asked McDonald.
"It was a project that T. Townsend Brown did for Admiral Radford, who
was then head of Naval Research," replied Schwartz. "Brown apparently had
made a small flying saucer and flew it."
"How did you know about that?" asked McDonald.

21. For information on the Mobius Society and/or Stephan A. Schwartz, access www.irva.org
or stephanaschwartz.com. For one example of the ample, popular literature describing the
Mobius Society's work, see Druffel, Ann, "The Psychic Laboratory of the Mobius Society,
Parts I and II," Fate Magazine, June-July 1989.
496 FIRESTORM

"Well, I had security clearances with my work for the Navy," explained
Schwartz.
"I don't really know that much about T. Townsend Brown," said McDonald.
"Though I've heard bits and pieces that are intriguing. Don Keyhoe told me
about him."
"He made a UFO model six to nine feet across, one that actually flew,"
said Schwartz, "and [Admiral] Radford said, 'We're going to do it,' and never
did it."
"Where did you learn this?" inquired McDonald.
"Believe it or not, I got it out of some guy's attic," replied Schwartz, tell-
ing McDonald the name in confidence. "He had been one of the scientists on
the project and kept a copy of the report."
"I'd be extremely interested in meeting with you and chatting about all
this," said McDonald. "However, I have to go out of town today on business
and just can't do it right now." They stayed there a few more minutes, chatting,
and made plans to meet at a later date, whenever they could arrange to have
their paths cross again. When they met a few weeks later, it would be in Wash-
ington, D.C., and their conversation would revolve around troubling events.
In spite of his intense concentration on his SST/ozone study, UFOs still
tapped at McDonald's mind. As the time grew near for the hearing, he added
items to his "Controversies and Unorthodoxies" file:
3/30/70 Tonite re-read last section of Tyrrell's "Personality of Man "
& am a bit shocked now to see how closely scientific response to
UFO's parallels his remarks re closed-mind attitude re paranormal.
His discussion very good.
He looked forward to resuming UFO research and writing his book rebutting
the Condon Report. Plans were firming up as early as July 1970:
6/15 to 7/4/70. Spent most of time getting all my MfaxwellJ AFB Xe-
roxes in order... Real bonanza there. Plan to do paper at Nov/70 IAP
Wea Radar Conf... Hope to then expand that into book as per conver-
sation with Rod Hastings [history professor, U.A.] c. 6/20 + or- in his
office. Afrizona] Press looks fair bet, faster now.23
But his book had to wait until after the SST hearing. On March 2, 1971,
McDonald appeared as a witness before a subcommittee of the House Appro-

22. McDonald, "Controversies and Unorthodoxies" file.

23. McDonald, fourth journal, reverse p. 47.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 497

priations Committee conducting the "Civil Supersonic Aircraft Development

SST" hearings. His basic testimony was contained in a 29-page "Statement"
and expressed his indebtedness to many other scientific colleagues in a variety
of different fields, who had offered advice and critique, including those on the
NAS Panel where he had begun his study.24
It is impossible to give his full testimony here, but he began by explaining
the difference between the troposphere (the layers of atmosphere closest to the
Earth) and the stratosphere, or upper layers of the atmosphere, emphasizing
that the stratosphere was about 100 times more sensitive to pollution than the
troposphere. Military supersonic jets already flew in the stratosphere, where
the projected SST fleets would cruise at about 65,000'. The total number of
military flight hours per year was small, however, compared with the opera-
tional levels projected for commercial SSTs. Eloquently, he described the ba-
sic problem:
[T]he stratosphere...has no cloud-and-rain washout mechanisms
comparable to those that are effective in our troposphere. Instead,
gases or particulates emitted into the stratosphere find themselves in
an extremely stable region in which removal hinges upon slow trans-
port and downward mixing... where rain scavenging can complete the
removal process. For the lower stratosphere, where the proposed
SSTs wouldfly, the average turnover time...[is] about two years....25
Without belligerence, McDonald remarked that the American aircraft in-
dustry was thinking first of efficient fuel consumption and decreased flight-
times. In view of the money profit, he suggested, they were not taking enough
time to study the possible damage the atmosphere would sustain. On the sub-
committee were certain congressmen backed by business interests; among
these was Rep. Silvio O. Conte of Massachusetts, who sat quietly listening.
In his testimony, McDonald covered all the complexities of the problem. Al-
though much was already known about the stratosphere, high-altitude technolo-
gies could cause problems that science was barely beginning to understand.
Using graphs and other visuals, he demonstrated how water-vapor emissions

24. McDonald, "Statement: Submitted for the record by Dr. James E. McDonald, Institute of
Atmospheric Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., at Hearings before the House
Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations, March 2,1971, concerning the Supersonic
Transport Program," p. 2. Transcripts of the entire hearings are contained in "Civil Super-
sonic Aircraft Development (SST): Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-second Congress, First Session, Subcom-
mittee on Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, John J.
McFall, Calif., chairman," Government Printing Office, 648 pp.
25. Ibid., p. 3.
498 FIRESTORM

from fleets of SSTs would allow excessive ultra-violet radiation to strike the
Earth's surface. He conservatively presented a "round-number estimate near
10,000 new [skin-cancer] cases per year:"
/ can fully understand why some persons might... think that such a sug-
gestion sounded ridiculous. But though there may well be errors in my
analyses ofthe various parts of this problem...the water vapor concen-
trations could lead to just such modest ozone changes.26
He added a chilling statement, reflecting his concern for all life on
Earth:
Finally, the purely biological and evolutionary evidence that we, as
well as all other life forms, have evolved in ways leaving us only mar-
ginally protectedfrom highly adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation is
essentially incontrovertible
In November, while still on the NAS panel, McDonald had made a plea to
the DoT advising that Congress should be informed immediately of the danger
of the ozone damage-skin cancer link. Even though many scientists on that NAS
panel had backed him up, the DoT had dragged its feet. In referring to this, Reps.
Jackson and Magruder had called the skin-cancer concern "kooky" and "nutty."
McDonald answered that charge in plain English: "It is not 'kooky,' it is not nut-
ty, it is not ecological extremism. It is physics and chemistry, photochemistry,
cell biochemistry, atmospheric physics."2
Boeing's officials had calculated that water vapor emission from SSTs
would decrease the ozone layer by 4%, which they considered an "acceptable"
figure. A group from MIT had used a 2% calculation, derived by British scien-
tist Dr. Julius London. McDonald was talking about a 1% reduction, a very
conservative figure, but enough to cause greatly increased skin-cancer rates on
the American continent, the rates dependent on varying climate, latitude, ele-
vation, sun angles and particularly on the ancestry of Americans concerned.
People of Celtic stock, particularly Americans of Irish descent, would be most
susceptible because of their generally fair coloring, but most Americans of Eu-
ropean ancestry would be endangered. By contrast, Americans of darker skin
color would not be affected in such great numbers, for they would be biologi-
cally protected. His conclusions were documented by data from other parts of
the world. 29

26. Ibid., p. 309.

27. Ibid.
2&.Ibid., p. 319.
29. Ibid., p. 321.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER L I V E S . . 499

James McDonald's testimony brought high praise from the subcommit-

tee's chairman, John J. McFall of California. Rep. Yates also remarked, "Dr.
McDonald is testifying at my request. I must say...that somebody told me
about Dr. McDonald's skin-cancer theory, and immediately I shrank, be-
cause most people would think that this is one of those mad scientists.... I
checked with the NAS...and with other scientists, and I said, 'Who is this fel-
low McDonald and what are his credentials?' and without exception they all
said he was a very fine scientist." 30

At this point, Rep. Conte started questioning McDonald in a rather folksy

manner, saying that he could appreciate his concern about "those ozones and
skin cancer.... I rode pretty hard on William Ruckelshaus yesterday, the ad-
ministrator of the EPA, because he couldn't give me any timetable when they
would make some tests regarding ozone and other problems...," Conte contin-
ued. "With all the years that they've been kicking this SST around I felt that
some studies should have been made."
"I have to agree very strongly," replied McDonald.
"On the other hand.. .1 have to ask this because no doubt it will be brought
up in debate...," continued Conte, with a disarming gesture. "I have been told
that you are an expert on unidentified flying objects, or flying saucers. Do you
think that these flying objects are extraterrestrial probes, vehicles or products,
of some technology other than our own?"
McDonald, as well as many of the committeemen, were taken aback, but
Conte continued rapidly. "I recall that you did testify before the Congress that
you believe the power failures in New York in the mid-sixties were caused by
these flying saucers—"
McDonald tried to interrupt, but Conte hammered ahead. "I also recall that
the FPC found that the cause was due to a relay being set too low for the load
which the line was carrying. I think it is very, very important to this hearing to
determine how you came to that conclusion."
McDonald heard a murmur of laughter from the audience. "I didn't come
to that conclusion," he objected. "Congressman Ryan asked me a question on
that and he worded it in the following way: 'Did I think there was enough cor-
relative evidence of UFO sightings at the same time as power failures to raise
a major investigation?' My answer was essentially negative, but enough of a
correlation to be a little bit disturbing. That was the answer I gave to the House
Committee."

30. Ibid., p. 330.

500 FIRESTORM

"Why would you think it would be disturbing?" pursued Conte. "I want
this for my own edification, because it is going to be bandied around and I
think we ought to know."
"Why would power failures be disturbing?" James McDonald asked.
"Oh, not power failures," replied Conte. "Rather, UFOs causing power
failures." By now some of the audience and Congressmen were openly laugh-
ing.
"You asked a question which I am prepared to talk about in far more detail
than I am prepared to talk about the things you have just heard me discuss,"
said McDonald. "The reason for that [1969] hearing was that the Committee
on Science and Astronautics wanted to get an evaluation from some scientists
who had seriously examined the problem, and scientists from Northwestern
and various places discussed the problem. I am very seriously considering the
UFO problem, above all, after three weeks of careful study of Maxwell Air
Force Base archives in Montgomery, Ala., the content of which was to me sim-
ply astonishing. The number of Air Force radar cases, some of which have
been in conjunction with power failures, to come back to your point, is really
disturbingly large.... My answer is very forthright, that this is a problem which
has been scientifically ignored by persons who know practically nothing about
it. But a close examination of the Air Force files and the kinds of detailed in-
vestigation that I have done on the problem leads one to be quite scientifically
concerned about it."

"Have your views in connection with unidentified flying objects tended to

open up a credibility gap in the scientific community?" asked one of the other
Congressmen.
"I don't think so, not that I am aware of," replied McDonald. "I have dis-
cussed that problem with a very large number of scientific groups around the
country. I suppose I have had plenty of chance to encounter answers to that
question and, no, I think not. I think I have looked at that problem with about
the same attempt to keep an open mind and go at it diligently as I have on this
one. I have a feeling that scientists have in fact, many of them, become quite
concerned about the problem as a result of my attacking it." He saw the chance
to get back to the subject. "But it is not entirely clear that there is a relationship
between SSTs and UFOs." The audience chuckled more softly, appreciating
his deftness.
"I think there is a relationship," insisted Conte, boring in. "I voted against
the SST last year. I am not certain now how I am going to vote on it, but I am
probing everyone who comes before us. Certainly, if you come up with a theory,
and assuming I oppose the SST and use you as an expert, it would be thrown
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 501

against me on the floor of the House, and I must know whether your theory on
'flying saucers' has held up and whether it did have any connection with the
power failure in New York."
Conte's emphasis on the words "flying saucers" caused many in the room
to laugh anew. McDonald controlled his reaction. "I have answered that ques-
tion, of course," he replied.
"Do you understand my point?" said Conte, pretending to plead for under-
standing. "That is the relationship."
"To some extent, yes," said McDonald, more wary now. "But take a look
at the total block of testimony in that hearing which was mine, about an 80-
page inserted statement in the House document that grew out of that. You
would have no difficulty finding a large number of scientists who know a great
deal about my examination of that problem, who could give you a good reading
on how thoroughly I have dug into it and why in the end I am concerned about
that as a scientific problem. Yes, there is a connection, in that sense. But are
we talking about a nut? You used the term 'flying saucers.' You used the term
'believe.' I don't use those terms."
Conte tried to insist he'd used the term "unidentified flying objects."
McDonald didn't quibble and instead suggested that Conte take his own look
at the Maxwell Air Force archives. Conte wiggled out of the exchange, say-
ing that he wished he "had the time."
Conte then got back on the subject at hand—the SST—and asked James
McDonald for referrals to other scientists who would back up his skin cancer
theory. McDonald told him about English scientific studies on ultraviolet
carcinogenesis, but pointed out that the link between the SST, ozone damage
and increased skin cancer rates had only newly surfaced because of his own
research. Conte then dropped the subject abruptly, and Rep. William E. Min-
shall of Ohio jumped in.
"I would just like to point out to you, Doctor, that I serve on the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, and we have discussed the sighting of UFOs
with Defense Department witnesses who have appeared before that Subcom-
mittee," Minshall said. "We have held secret hearings on it, we have held open
hearings on it, and I think the hearings are now open to public inspection. All
the experts, both civilian and military, absolutely discounted any possibility of
actual incursion into airspace by people from the outer planets."
Minshall was perhaps referring to the Rivers Committee, where Hynek
and Quintanilla of Blue Book had downplayed importance of the 1952 Wash-
ington, D.C., UFO overflights, particularly. The full transcripts of that hearing
had not been released; only a summary of part of it. "A lot of this was behind
502 FIRESTORM

closed doors as well," said Minshall, giving some the impression that he was
relishing his privileged position.
"Are you asking for a comment on this?" asked McDonald bluntly. "I'm
afraid that all the indications are that the full measure of that problem has been
no more laid before Congress than the skin cancer problem has been laid be-
fore you, prior to today."
"We went into it quite thoroughly," said Minshall, protecting his status.
"I would be most interested to have an opportunity to study the closed
hearings," challenged McDonald.31
Minshall didn't answer, and the session went into recess. When it recon-
vened a little later, there was no rest for McDonald. Rep. Tom Steed of Okla-
homa, who was either rather dull or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issues,
challenged McDonald on his ability to talk about the photochemical reactions
which could destroy the delicately balanced ozone layer. McDonald was quite
patient with him, explaining how he had sought the advice of photochemists at
ORNL and Baylor, and how he had derived data from a true expert in photo-
chemistry, Dr. J. London. "One draws on other people's work," McDonald told
Steed. "That is what is involved here." Steed persisted, and the hearing
dragged on.
Then it was Rep. Jack Edwards' turn to question him. In answer to one of
his interminable inquiries, McDonald explained that supersonic aircraft of the
military services gave off only about 1% of the water vapor that would be emit-
ted from fleets of SSTs flying daily.32
McDonald was followed to the stand by other witnesses, who testified
both pro and con; McDonald stayed on to hear their testimony. One was Stew-
art L. Udall, former Secretary of the Interior, who also urged that SST devel-
opment be stopped. In all, 30 individuals—scientists and representatives of
citizen groups alike—testified on different ways fleets of SSTs would harm the
environment, including harmful noise level, sonic blasts and various contami-
nants in all layers of the atmosphere. One of these speakers commented on Sen.
Barry Goldwater, who was a firm proponent for SST development, and who
had publicly attacked the truthfulness of environmental organizations that
were trying to "spare the world."
"Senator Goldwater is probably the most charming, most radical and most
consistently wrong person I have ever had the pleasure of debating," one envi-

31. Ibid. pp. 333-36.

32.Ibid, pp. 337-42.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 503

ronmentalist testified. "Still, anyone who likes to run the Grand Canyon in boats
cannot be all wrong." These words forewarned a clash which would soon occur
between Goldwater and McDonald.
When Dr. Will Kellogg, McDonald's colleague at Colorado's NCAR, tes-
tified, he initially supported McDonald's testimony about the effect SSTs
would have on the ozone. He also predicted that fleets of SSTs could create a
smog problem in the stratosphere and other adverse environmental effects.
However, Kellogg considered McDonald's data for an ozone damage-skin
cancer link as flawed. 33
As Kellogg fielded questions from the Congressional Panel, Silvio Con-
te again brought up McDonald's UFO research, reading from a page of dis-
jointed quotes from McDonald's testimony before the 1968 Congressional
UFO hearings. Conte read these as a "paragraph," but actually they were
snippets plucked from McDonald's 85 pages of UFO testimony and arranged
in such a way as to distort their original meanings and give the impression he
believed firmly in UFO occupants! Conte's unethical approach omitted most
of McDonald's important qualifying phrases, made no mention of the credi-
bility of occupant-sighting witnesses, and the fact that such sightings oc-
curred worldwide. Conte ostensibly "quoted" McDonald:
An extremely unusual category of cases, those involving reports of hu-
manoid occupants of landed UFOs.... I have tended to skirt such cases
on tactical grounds; the reports are bizarre.... One or two early at-
tempts to touch up that point...taught me that one loses more than he
gains in speaking briefly about UFO occupants.... But occupants there
seem to be, and contact of a limited sort may well have occurred. ,..34
Conte abruptly followed his reading of the "quotes" with this comment:
"A man who comes here and tells me that the SST flying in the stratosphere is
going to cause thousands of skin cancers has to back up his theory that there
are little men flying around the sky." 35
The hearing room broke into laughter. We cannot be sure of the motives
behind Conte's bitter attack. Jacques Vallee remarks: "This is the [sort of] sit-
uation [against] which Hynek had cautioned him. Jim...was arguing before
people who were not ready for what he said and the way he said it. Hynek's
position 15 years earlier had been even worse."

33. Ibid., p. 526.

3 4 . Ibid., p . 5 6 2 .
35. Ibid.
504 FIRESTORM

McDonald realized that Conte had publicly ridiculed him, a situation

which had never confronted him before in his scientific life. Stephan A.
Schwartz, the researcher who had talked with him in the Tucson book store not
many weeks prior, was also in Washington, D.C., for part of the SST hearings,
because the Navy had an interest in them. He saw McDonald later that day in
a hotel coffee shop, sitting at a table with another man whom Schwartz could
not identify. Schwartz approached and told McDonald he'd tracked down T.
Townsend Brown.
"Did Townsend have a copy of Project Winterhaven?" asked McDonald,
shoving his own problems aside for the moment.
"No, he told me about it, what he'd done, but ironically he did not have a
copy," Schwartz replied.
Schwartz was not aware of the ridicule McDonald had just sustained at the
hearing. "I'm still looking for more information on Project Winterhaven," he
relates. "I was blind to the sub-text that was going on. But McDonald was de-
pressed, or bitter, almost cornered. He was just like a guy [who'd] gone up to
shake hands with someone that he knew and instead...the guy had reached
down and picked up a 2 x 4 and hit him on the side of the head. It was just com-
pletely unexpected."
McDonald spent very little time talking about the hearings, but the conver-
sation led to his UFO research. Schwartz asked him if he'd considered the pos-
sibility of funding from the NSF. "They won't let them say 'yes,'" McDonald
answered.36
This short statement spoke volumes. Somehow, in the short period-—a few
weeks or a couple of months, after he had appeared so upbeat to Robert Wood
and Marty Hall, confiding the fact that he had "high-level" information about the
nature of UFOs, something had happened that showed him he'd been led down
a garden path. But who were "they"?
"It was the scientific establishment," reasons Schwartz. '"They weren't
going to go along with what he wanted. And he was stunned at that. He felt his
case was compelling, that on the strength of its merits he ought to win."
What Schwartz did not know—the "subtext," as he called it—was that he
encountered McDonald just after he had sustained a double blow. He had been
publicly ridiculed for his stand on UFOs, and, apparently, he had just learned
that funding would never be made available to him to study the UFO question
scientifically.

36. Author's interview with Stephan A. Schwartz, 13 January 1993.

T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 505

"Were 'they' taking that position because some few members of the [NSF]
knew that there was another on-going effort?" asked Schwartz in an interview
for this book. "I don't know. Was it because they thought the whole thing was
utterly bogus? I don't know that, either. The sense I got from that conversation
was that it had dawned on him that he wasn't going to get what he wanted, not
because of the merits of his argument, but because there were political agendas
within the power structure of the scientific community that simply were not go-
ing to focus on UFOs."
Schwartz's description of the meeting in the coffee shop indicates that
McDonald must have made another attempt during that same period of time
to obtain funding from the NSF. McDonald's fourth journal indicates he had
given a briefing to an NSF "student training program," hoping that NSF
funding might still be forthcoming. 37
"That would explain why he was so depressed," muses Schwartz. "He had
tried to publish, he had tried to get funding, he had tried to get the NSF to pay
attention to what he had. He didn't understand why they turned him down, be-
cause he'd made what he felt was an intellectually compelling case. He had be-
gun to realize that there were other issues than just simple scientific curiosity;
there were other agendas. There are decisions that get made, not on the basis
of the scientific information. And [when] they turned him down, they just
didn't say, 'Well, this is a very compelling argument, but we're not going to
do it this year.' The sense I got is that they said, 'We think this is a stupid line
of exploration, and you ought to have better sense than to come and talk to us
about it.'"
Researchers in the UFO field who knew him well also noticed changes in
McDonald after this time. Gordon Lore saw him in Washington, D.C., though
not directly in the context of the SST hearings. "I picked up something that
seemed to be bothering him," Lore says. "The last time I saw him, he didn't seem
to be the ball of fire that he usually was, although he was more of a ball of fire
than most people, even at his worst."
Still dealing with the double blow, McDonald went home to Tucson and
continued his professional duties while the SST controversy droned on. For a
couple of weeks it seemed that his testimony and the testimony of colleagues
against SST development would come to nothing, and he was deeply troubled.
During this period, he talked with his friend Dr. A1 Mead, who was worried
about "the touch of despondency" that he displayed.

37. McDonald's fourth journal, p. 49.

506 FIRESTORM

"The impression I had was he was feeling very much that he was not being
heard," Mead said. "I talked with him on the mall on the campus—and here
again he was riding his bicycle and standing there and hanging onto the han-
dlebars—he was feeling very depressed about the fact that he was calling,
'Hey, there's a problem over here! We've got to give it attention!' As I say, he
just couldn't seem to get people to see the seriousness of it. He saw the whole
of life as we know it..."
The key to the rejection which McDonald was experiencing lies in the fact
that he was never able to fully accept the fact of his own worth. Although he had
an adequate amount of self-esteem that enabled him to accomplish many things
in science, he was never able to accept praise from others around him, not even
Betsy. Gordon Lore and other researchers experienced the same reaction.
"I think that goes with people who repress their emotions a lot," stated
Lore. "Everybody else saw the person for what he was.. .but the person didn't
feel that way about himself. I think he had adequate ego-strength to know that
he was doing a good job, but I don't think he knew how very intelligent he was.
This is what he had trouble with, people telling him that he was super intelli-
gent. He wouldn't accept that—but he was."
Additional clues to McDonald's personality lie in occasional remarks he
made to friends about his life as a child. "Oh, what a family he had! I can't
believe that family!" says his colleague, Dr. Cornelius Steelink. "He once
told me, 'My mother and father never talked to each other, period. For years.'
It didn't take much imagination to figure the effect of that on a kid."
McDonald did not often make such personal comments. His father, James
Patrick, was never mentioned in the family's Tucson home. He had so adversely
influenced James E.'s childhood that he was virtually incapable of showing nor-
mal emotions. Everything about McDonald, with the exception of his love for
Betsy, was expressed on an intellectual level. Yet his parents' courtship and early
marriage were apparently happy; an early photo shows Charlotte and James
Patrick walking railroad tracks hand-in-hand (see Figure 34).
In the early 1920s, McDonald's father had owned a successful creamery in
Duluth. He lost ownership when the Great Depression hit and was forced to con-
tinue working as an employee of the new proprietor. This was a harsh blow to
the elder McDonald. Another man might have adjusted and accepted it as fickle
fate, but McDonald's father withdrew into himself. He took out his unhappiness
on his wife, throwing the entire family into a cycle of ever-increasing turmoil.
He withheld his wages from his wife and gave the household money to young
James, with instructions that the boy dole it out to his mother. Young McDonald
carried this burden from the age of nine years until he left home to attend college.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 507

FIGURE 34. McDonald's parents, Charlotte and James Patrick, in the early
1900s, shortly after their wedding, and before their lives
changed tragically.

McDonald's emotional growth during his formative years was severely af-
fected; he suffered from the lack of paternal warmth and the responsibilities
laid upon him. The only one to whom he was ever able to form any emotional
attachment was Betsy. With her, a thin ardent cord was forged. The love he
gave his children was deep and real, but mainly intellectually based. This was
even more obvious in his friendships with his numerous friends. His Irish-
Scandinavian ancestry enabled him to establish cordial relationships, backed
by a hardy sense of humor. However, this sense of fun was almost entirely ab-
sent in his interactions with Hynek and Menzel, as well as others who irritated
his sense of scientific honesty. Jacques Vallee, unfortunately, was caught in
this due to the fact that Hynek was Vallee's mentor and friend. "I never saw
any sense of humor in Jim," Vallee says. "Intelligence, honesty, integrity, in-
tensity, yes. Humor, no."
Because of the difficult relationship with his father, McDonald never
showed any pride or delight in "being Irish," a happy trait shared by most people
of that heritage. Only very infrequently did he mention his lineage, such as a brief
mention at the SST hearings, while discussing the fact that people of Celtic stock
508 FIRESTORM

were more susceptible to skin cancer rates. On that occasion, in his testimony, he
used the phrase, "Irish, like myself."
It was this basic personality that McDonald brought to his professional
work. Although he realized that his research abilities were adequate for any
task he might take on, he could not quit even when a task proved to be impos-
sible. On rare occasions he became depressed when an important problem,
such as the Titan missile controversy, seemed irresolvable. On that occasion,
he sank into deep depression, which was magnified by his conviction at the
time that he had multiple sclerosis (MS). That depression ended when the Air
Force grudgingly conceded he was right, and also because he found out he did
not have MS.

The UFO question, however, was another matter. Whoever it was that he
was talking to at the "highest levels" of government in late 1970 or early 1971,
the meetings which he had told two close friends were bringing him close to
the answer, had apparently stopped. This cries out for clarification.
Back in Tucson, McDonald turned the SST hearings over and over in his
mind, particularly Rep. Silvio Conte's attitude and comments. McDonald
was never one to write off a potential ally; he decided to give Conte the ben-
efit of the doubt. He rationalized that Conte might have an honest interest in
UFOs and would need to counter fellow Congressmen who might bring up
the subject in floor debate, in an attempt to determine if McDonald's testi-
mony on the SST question was credible. On March 8 he wrote Conte a letter,
enclosing several of his UFO writings, which presented the problem as a
"matter of potentially highest scientific significance" (see Appendix Item
18-B, page 582). Conte did not respond.
After the SST hearings, McDonald assiduously attended to his university
teaching and his research contract responsibilities. He handled additional fall-
out from his SST testimony and continued work on other atmospheric projects.
For some time, he'd been intrigued by the fact that early exploration by Earth
satellites had discovered ionized layers of nitrogen oxide high in the atmo-
sphere. He was intrigued by the fact that, at about 100 and 175 kilometers al-
titude, the main positive ion is nitric oxide (NO+): these NO + layers do not lose
their charge by charge transfer. He heavily annotated a copy of Space Physics
by Harrie Massey on those pages which refer to these NO+ layers.39 One of his
handwritten annotations emphasized, "NO has lower ionization potential than

38. McDonald, personal letters to Betsy McDonald, 21-25 April, 1971.

39. Massey, Harris: Space Physics, London and Colchester, Spottiswoode, Ballantyne and Co.,
Ltd., 1964.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 509

0 2 , O, N 2 , N, while NO+ has highest dissociation potential of any diatomic

molecule or ion in [the] atmosphere."40
Why did the information about these high-altitude NO+ layers catch his at-
tention so intensely? It does not seem linked to his ozone research, which in-
volved a stratospheric layer much closer to Earth's surface. Why did he put his
copy of Space Physics in his UFO library instead of his even more voluminous
collection of atmospheric sciences books? Could his interest have been related
to the notion that ionization is possibly associated with UFO propulsion? (See
Chapter 12.) Positive evidence that ionization is related to UFO propulsion still
eludes us, but McDonald's interest in the NO + layers should be noted. Perhaps
a speculation might be in order here: e.g., are UFOs coming in from space sur-
rounded by NO + ?
Following the SST hearings, McDonald also assiduously studied "fire-
storms." Firestorms are violent explosions which occur within intense heat
concentrations, such as forest fires. Up to the mid-1990s, at least, the source of
their energy still remained a scientific puzzle. The firestorm phenomenon is in-
triguing to many meteorologists and atmospheric physicists. It was not the first
time McDonald had researched it, but his 1971 phase was different. Margaret
Sanderson-Rae recounts: "He was into this firestorm thing again. It was really
bothering him. He had a lot of literature about it strewn about his desk....
Something about it was worrying him." Betsy McDonald also noticed his re-
newed interest in firestorms.41
"Good firestorms can act like tornadoes. That's what happened in Dresden
and Hamburg and Tokyo," relates his colleague, Prof. Charlie Moore. "I re-
member some discussion of firestorms with McDonald. San Luis Obispo [Ca-
lif.] had a famous [fire]storm—three million barrels of oil burned in a
lightning-initiated fire.... I've been interested because the energy concentration
in tornadoes is a puzzle."42
Dr. A. Richard Kassander states, "A fire, of course, could cause an updraft
and therefore accelerate its spreading from the surface winds caused by the
convection.... It is not unusual to find a cloud forming over a big fire or a vol-
cano, for that matter, which would be the same sort of thing. There was even
some hope, I guess, that fire could cause a cloud big enough that it could be
seeded to put itself out, or help put out the fire." But would McDonald be "wor-
ried" and "bothered" about the possibility that clouds formed by fires could be
seeded to help put out fires? Could he instead have been wondering if the un-

40. McDonald's handwritten note referring to p. 139 in Massey's Space Physics.

41. Author's interview with Betsy McDonald, 23 May 1993.
42. Author's interview with Prof. Charles B. Moore, 27 September 1994.
510 FIRESTORM

explained energy that produces firestorms might be related to the unexplained

energy that propels UFOs?
All through March and into April 1971, McDonald was receiving letters
from leading medical researchers nationwide, applauding his ozone-damage/
skin-cancer research.43 He also received a letter from Phil Klass, inviting him
to respond to an article in Aviation Week And Space Technology, which decried
the imminent defeat of Boeing's SST. Klass believed McDonald should have
the opportunity to respond in a "Letter to the Editor" and invited his input.
"Although I was convinced he was wrong about UFOs, I felt he might be
correct about SSTs and ozone layer," states Klass. "Although we sharply crit-
icized one another on [the UFO] issue, I admired.. .his willingness to speak out
candidly on those things which he felt strongly about.... In the article I wrote
for AW&ST, based on McDonald's Congressional testimony, I reported his
forecast that a fleet of SSTs would seriously deplete the ozone layer."44
The SST-ozone controversy was being actively discussed pro and con in
leading newspapers and top journals,45 but McDonald was encountering other
problems resulting from his SST testimony. Dr. Will Kellogg of NCAR in
Boulder, interpreting McDonald's testimony about UV damage, stated:
I became intrigued by [McDonald's estimate of] 10,000 cases of skin
cancer out of a population of200 million.... This means that one per-
son in 20,000 might be affected.... I live about 20,000 days and this
means if I covered my head one day in my lifetime I would have elim-
inated the effects of the SST.46
McDonald determined that Kellogg had made a "1000% error" in his calcu-
lations and brought this to Kellogg's attention. He also discussed it before a
group of 40 scientists who assembled in Boulder on March 18-19, 1971, to dis-
cuss the SST. This meeting was convened by the Department of Commerce
Technical Advisory Board. Kellogg conceded his error before the assembled sci-
entists but never retracted it publicly.
Sen. Barry Goldwater, who was a proponent of SST development, picked
up on Kellogg's Congressional testimony without recognizing the 1000% er-
ror. He wrote about it in his syndicated column on April 1, blithely titling it,
"Don't Worry, Girls: Bikinis Safe With SST." On the basis of Kellogg's faulty

43. Letters in McDonald's "SST' files.

44. Letters from Philip J. Klass to me, Jan. 26, 1994, and September 14, 1996.
45. For example, Kallis, Stephen A., "Leapfrogging the SST," National Review, April 20, 1971.
46. Goldwater, Barry, "Don't Worry Girls: Bikinis Safe With SST," Syndicated Column,
appearing in Tucson Daily Citizen and other newspapers, 30 March 1971.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 511

calculations, Goldwater concluded that "scantily clad female bathers could

wear bikinis and ward off the possible skin cancer effects of the SST by mak-
ing sure they wore bathrobes at least once in every 2,000 years."47 The column
also mentioned McDonald several times in rather demeaning terms and ended:
"To raise such an outlandish probability that Prof. McDonald raised is to do a
disservice to laymen trying to understand if the development of SST consti-
tutes a dangerous health hazard. Obviously it doesn't." 4
Goldwater had been a valued ally in the Titan missile controversy and was
also knowledgeable about UFOs. Having become convinced that UFOs were
a serious scientific question, he had boldly stuck his neck out more than once.
His views were quoted from time to time in NICAP's UFO Investigator and in
other UFO literature, and he was widely respected in the field. McDonald re-
spected Goldwater for his stand on the Titans and on UFOs. He knew that
Goldwater once asked Gen.Curtis LeMay for permission to go up to Wright-
Patterson AFB to study UFOs. LeMay refused, told Goldwater to forget that
he'd ever heard of UFOs, and "gave him a good-natured kick out of the of-
fice."49 The Tucson Citizen had quoted Goldwater as saying that Wright-
Patterson had lots of UFO data, "but you can't get near the information."50 He
and McDonald exchanged cordial correspondence in 1968, and had made ten-
tative plans to get together when time permitted.
McDonald was greatly irritated by Goldwater's April 1,1971, column and
told IAP's director, Dr. A. Richard Kassander, about it. Kassander was like-
wise upset, and wrote immediately to Kellogg, expressing concern that
Kellogg would have used "this kind of a silly analog in the first place when
speaking to a difference of opinion with another scientist."51
In March 1971 Congress killed Boeing's SST contract, concluding that
it was unwise to take on the environmental hazards about which McDonald
and 30 other scientists and knowledgeable persons had testified. The French-
British SST, the Concorde, was allowed to make regular flights into New
York airports after Atlantic crossings, but regular overflights of the Con-
corde over the U.S. mainland were forbidden. McDonald had won his part of
the fight.52 He could have ridden out the storm and overcome his depression,
judging from his experience with the Titans. But no one, not even McDonald
himself, realized he was hanging on by his fingertips. He could not have

47 .Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. McDonald, "Cover-up vs. Foul-up" file, entry dated January 20, 1968.
50. Goldwatec Tucson Citizen, January 17,1968.
51. Letter from Kassander to Dr. William W. Kellogg, dated April 1,1971.
512 FIRESTORM

known how very right he was, that problems with the ozone layer would oc-
cupy the world's concern just a few decades later!
Before he left for Boulder and the March 18-20 governmental SST confer-
ence, Betsy told him she was experiencing a problem. Since he didn't have time
to discuss it with her, she told him she would write the details in a letter, which
she wrote during his absence. Upon his return, she realized the SST controver-
sy was still causing him stress. (Congress had not yet revoked Boeing's con-
tract.) When he asked for the letter, she tried to keep it from him, but he
insisted. There was nothing she could do but give it to him.
The letter laid out her problem: McDonald was seriously neglecting her. As
a consequence of his frequent absences from home, she had become involved
with a younger man who was active in the anti-war movement and whom she
saw frequently at the Peace and Freedom Center. He fulfilled her need for com-
panionship and also claimed to share her Marxist philosophy. He assured her he
was not of Stalinist/Communist persuasion, which she abhorred.
Betsy's letter asked for a divorce. McDonald found her decision "all too
painfully understandable." He tried to convey his sorrow, but this didn't
help. The emotional cord he'd formed with her snapped, and he sank into full
depression.
Even in the throes of clinical depression, however, McDonald's mind
worked fully. He began immediately to plan suicide, and over the next four
days carefully worked out a strategy that he was confident would leave his
family financially sound. All details were recounted in long letters to Betsy,
which he kept with other papers where they could be found afterwards.54 He
hid his plans and his depression from his colleagues and family but in these let-
ters expressed concern about what would happen to his research files. He knew
that his atmospheric physics research papers would be properly handled by the
IAP but was deeply concerned about his UFO files. He methodically described
the value of his UFO files, and most especially the radar-visual cases he had
recently copied at the Blue Book archives:
That UFO material remains of very real scientific significance. The
batch of Xeroxes I spent a good many hundreds on at Maxwell AFB
are extremely useful, to the right person.... I don't really know just

52. For how long, however? About 2001, the media reported Boeing's plans to produce fleets of
super-large transports with Japan. Further information has not surfaced on this at time of
publication, spring 2003.
53. Personal letter from McDonald to Betsy McDonald, dated March 21,1971, hand-typed with
added, handwritten notes.
54. Personal letters dated March 21- 24, 1971.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER L I V E S . . , 513

what to say about it all.... My present best suggestion is that it be ar-

chived at the UA Library, though maybe they '11 view that as presump-
tuous.... That stuff is the one part...that really bothers me at this
stage— its scientific value is, I think, quite large.... I'd sure hate to see
that stuff burnt.55
He also worried about the UFO book he'd planned to write:
If only someone with roughly my combination of background and con-
cerns could squeeze out...of my files the full dimensions of USAF's in-
credible handling of the UFO problem. [But they would need] the radar
& meteorology & astronomy background. Maybe you could store it till
Lee and Kirk might sense its significance.... & dig into that mine (mo-
rass?) of material and write "my book." Think it over.56
He left his UFO files in order, most of them arranged alphabetically in
three cabinets marked "UFO," along with his library of UFO reference works.
He also worked on his atmospheric research files. "He had organized all his pa-
pers from his work together," Betsy relates. "He had assembled it all into these
documents. Everything—all of his work."
During these last few days, he also finished a technical paper related to
thermodynamics titled "A Variational Derivation of Young's Equation For the
Contact Angle." 57 He noted on the first page that it was done "with the support
of the ONR" yet strangely, none of his colleagues at the Institute who were in-
terviewed for this book remember anything about it. Only Margaret Sander-
son-Rae, who typed the final draft, recalls it. It has been shown to several
physicists and engineers, but no light has been shed on it. He made one minor
correction to the last draft and dated it, in his handwriting, on Monday, March
22, 1971, the next day after he began planning to end his life.
Why did he choose to finish this particular paper, out of 70 unfinished pa-
pers in his files? The puzzle is compounded by the fact that the manuscript was
found among his UFO materials rather than his atmospheric physics files. In
the hope that qualified person(s) might shed some light upon it, it is included
as Appendix Item 18-C, page 583. Could this paper possibly have anything to
do with the unknown energy involved in UFO propulsion? Dr. Robert M.
Wood states: "The contact angle paper concerns any solid-liquid-vapor sys-
tem.... This is a very general kind of paper in that sense.... What I see is that

55.Ibid., dated Tuesday, March 22,1971.

56. Ibid. Handwritten note on margin.
57. McDonald's bibliography by Valerie Vaughan (see note 22, page 396) lists the date of this
paper as March 15,1971. However, a copy found in his UFO files had been corrected in his
handwriting and dated March 22,1971.
514 FIRESTORM

Jim McDonald was writing an article...with the support of the ONR. And I
think you'd find that all of a sudden his conscience said, 'Well, my normal job
for the university says I gotta do this stuff.' And so he did what he promised
he would do." 58
McDonald did not go ahead with his plans for suicide on March 26; the rea-
son remains unclear. He continued working at top-speed for two more weeks.
Then just before dawn on April 9, alone in the main house, he abruptly wrote a
short note to Betsy, took his handgun and fired. The bullet missed the brain and
hit the optic nerve instead. Divorce plans were dropped while Betsy and his fam-
ily spent several very difficult weeks, during which hospital personnel helped
him learn to cope with blindness.
As he slowly began the climb back, McDonald continued to influence the
world of science. On April 14,1971, the Washington Post reported that the U.S.
Court of Appeals was reconsidering whether a secret presidential report con-
demning the supersonic transport should be released.59 On April 26, the press re-
ported on an NAS meeting in Washington, D.C., including the NAS panel's
report to the DoT asserting that SSTs might affect the Earth's radiation shield
and cause a worldwide increase in skin cancer.60 This had been McDonald's in-
dependent research finding, but the NAS had adopted it as their own, a common
occurrence in science.
Between June 7 and June 11,1971, McDonald dictated detailed notes con-
cerning his re-entry into academic life. He was still staying in the hospital at
night but going to his university office several hours a day. These daily notes,
transcribed by Sanderson-Rae, were upbeat in tone, describing input he was
getting from friends who visited him frequently and planning ways he could
continue his professional life, even though blind. They included talks with col-
leagues George Dawson, William Sellers, Ben Herman, Phil Krider and others.
One of the most revealing was a description of a talk with Dawson, during
which Dawson sought to convince him that his abilities and worth to the Insti-
tute were so great that help from everybody was desirable.
"He even expressed the view that, in all of his experience, here, in En-
gland, and at Berkeley, I have greater breadth and depth in science than any
other scientist he had seen!" McDonald wrote. "I told him I found that very
hard to believe, and that I am also unable to quickly accept rather complimen-

58. Author's interview with Dr. Robert M. Wood, 21 August 1993.

59. Ungar, Sanford J., "Court to Restudy Release Of Secret Report on SST," Washington Post,
April 14, 1971.
60. Cohn, Victor, "Science Academy Facing Cries for Reform," Washington Post, April 26,
1971.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 515

tary remarks from other colleagues. I pointed out to him that I tend to kid them
with the charge that they are buttering me up with undeserved praise. He
strongly disagreed...." 61
Among the ideas which his Institute colleagues offered, and which James
McDonald thought feasible, was the preparation of a manual for teaching cloud
physics, which would serve as a continuation of the one-year graduate course
in cloud physics, which McDonald had always enjoyed teaching. He also
planned to write a textbook for advanced meteorology students whom he'd
guided through advanced degrees for many years. He expressed the view that
blindness would not prohibit teaching if a graduate assistant was available in
the classroom.
He was also impressed by Dawson's description of a blind professor at
Kiel University who had developed a system of "acoustic radar." McDonald
planned to try to locate other professors of physics and other sciences who
taught despite total blindness. He was also intrigued by preliminary research
at Bell Telephone Labs, which involved implantation of tiny electrodes
which would communicate coded information to a person's brain. He de-
scribed this evolving technology as fully as possible and made plans to con-
sult with electrical engineers about this. He held out hope that he and Betsy,
who had remained at home with the family, could reconcile.
McDonald's Friday, June 11, entry in these detailed notes describe his plans
to discuss the possibility of setting up a new center at the university, incorporat-
ing the "world gaming" ideas of Buckminster Fuller and other advanced think-
ers—ideas that could possibly bring a broad approach to worldwide human
interests.62 A friend, Mike Brewer, who had spent some time at Fuller's center
in Carbondale, 111., had visited McDonald and told him he'd also gotten the im-
pression Fuller was interested in UFOs. Implicit in McDonald's July 11 notes
was the idea that both UFOs and parapsychology might be included among
"worldwide human interests."
He also planned to track down "a fellow from NASA, John Deal," whom
Mike Brewer had met at Fuller's center. Deal was interested in both UFOs and
parapsychology. McDonald thought that Deal might be a NICAP member
who'd come up to him after one of his talks and given him a card. "There
would be no perfect way of sorting that out unless I had Bets check my file on
that particular case," wrote McDonald. "I might try that." 63

61. In series of private notes, typed from McDonald's dictation, covering Monday, June 7,
1971, through Friday, June 11,1971.
62. Ibid.
63.Ibid.
516 FIRESTORM

Upon his return to his office in early June, the energy with which he threw
himself into his work was vastly encouraging to his IAP colleagues. With the
help of a graduate student, Alex Long, he reviewed two papers which had been
submitted to him for peer review, by the Journal Of Applied Meteorology. He
wrote letters to Tom Malone and other colleagues. He made a point of visiting
everyone around the IAP offices and had pleasant chats with each. His new in-
terests seemed genuine. His daily notes also contained details of "conversa-
tions" he was having with a Dr. Cutts at the Veterans' Hospital. From him,
McDonald had learned the value of counseling sessions directed toward "un-
derstanding the divisive force in marriages where the husband is professional
and spends a great deal of time on his work and tends to put the wife off." 64
Instead of rejecting counseling and trying to solve his own problems by read-
ing psychology books, as he had in the past, he was discussing his personal
problems with a doctor, and the interchange seemed to be benefiting him.
Even though McDonald seemed to be returning wholeheartedly to his work,
his wife Betsy was very worried. She had participated in some of his counseling
sessions and had been warned that McDonald might be pretending to handle
things well so he could get out of the hospital and try suicide again. "At the In-
stitute, they were helping him get back to work, but for me it was all wrong."
Betsy McDonald states. "That was just his device to get out of there and commit
suicide. He fooled the doctors, he fooled the Institute. He was just so smart, and
he was, like, 99% suicidal. Our whole thing was to work for time. The only rea-
son we had him in the Veterans' Hospital was for time, but everything he did was
to get out." She also tried other ways to help him, offering to quit her work and
help him write his UFO book. "He told me 'no, that I didn't have to do that.' I
would have been glad to do it, but he knew it wasn't 'my thing.'"
McDonald was told by his doctors that some of his vision might return
within two months' time. His children begged him to wait the two months to
see what would happen. By the end of two months, a small amount of periph-
eral vision had returned on both sides, but only his family knew this; his IAP
colleagues did not.
During the week of June 7-11, a colleague, Dr. Paul E. Damon, visited him
one evening at the hospital. Toward the end of that talk they discussed UFOs,
which McDonald had never discussed at any length with Damon before. "He
was concerned with what he could do, about how he could still make the con-
tribution," states Damon, "and the UFOs [were] a lot of it." McDonald de-
scribed to Damon two widely disparate cases, one being the Portage County
UFO chase that had impressed him so deeply and was one of the spurs that

64. Ibid.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 517

launched his own research. McDonald expressed his deep shock that the Air
Force had mishandled that case so grossly. "Air Force officers...just passed it
off as nothing at all and had some scientifically implausible explanation," says
Damon "He said their attempts to explain cases were quite absurd and that he
was shocked by their incompetence and low level of scientific knowledge."
The other case which McDonald told Damon about was the Papua, New
Guinea, case, where the Anglican priest, Fr. Gill, some native clergy and many
mission natives had seen a large hovering object with "humanoids" clustered
on its top. "He didn't go into detail about the case, but everything he could
learn about it made it very difficult for him to believe that Fr. Gill was not be-
ing truthful."
Damon could see the distress with which McDonald was struggling. "I
don't think it was the blindness per se—I think it was the estrangement from
Betsy. He was not blaming her, at all. He felt that the problem was in his up-
bringing, his having lived with those very cold parents.... He didn't blame her.
He always had just the most endearing things to say about her.... He was think-
ing about the future-—[saying] 'There's a number of things I can do.'"
By Tuesday, June 8, McDonald had completed an application for sabbati-
cal leave for July through December 1971. His stated purpose: "To engage in
a number of limited studies of new techniques capable of meeting the demands
of teaching and research duties with perhaps special attention to the expanding
undergraduate field."65 He also planned to prepare two manuals for teaching
atmospheric physics. On a second page, he elaborated on three manuscripts he
planned to write from already completed research, including one on a "group
of nucleation events occurring in super-cooled carbonated liquids," another on
"the interaction between weather modification projects and the wide range of
public response thereto," and a brief paper on "a useful variant of the Beer's
absorption equation." If time permitted, he added, one or two other papers of
completed work would be written. His signature on the sabbatical application
is virtually indistinguishable from his signature before he lost his sight.
As he had done all that week, McDonald went to his IAP office on Saturday,
June 12. Betsy agreed to pick him up that afternoon. McDonald was looking for-
ward to this; he felt encouraged that it might be a tiny step toward reconciliation.
Some time after he settled himself at his desk, dictating various items, he learned
that Betsy's young man had unexpectedly persuaded her that she needed a rest
and that they had gone to the White Mountains for an overnight trip. Instead of
Betsy, one of his daughters would pick him up later that afternoon. His frail

65. James E. McDonald, "Application for Sabbatical Leave," dated June 8,1971. His last sab-
batical had been for a six-month period from 7/1/63 to 12/31/63.
518 FIRESTORM

threads of hope for reconciliation snapped again. He made his way down the hall
to the office of Ben Herman, who was also there that Saturday, finishing up some
work before catching a plane to attend business meetings in Colorado.
"I spent two hours with him," relates Herman. "He was talking— nothing
about UFOs, but about his personal problems. He kept telling me he...missed
the first time and he was 'going to do it again.' He didn't say that day, but that
he knew he would do it again. I remember trying to talk him out of it.... I said,
'Mac, we all have problems, and along that [vein].' And I remember him say-
ing, 'Yeah, but you're much better balanced than I am. You've got hobbies.
You don't just do your science and nothing else.' And I said, 'Yeah, but
Mac...your science is your hobby.' I was concerned about his safety, because
of the way that he was talking. And Lou Battan was there. When Mac left my
office, I went down to Lou's office and said, 'Lou, I'm going to be going home,
I'm leaving soon. I really don't think Mac should be left alone. He's talking
crazy.'" Lou Battan told Herman that he was going to lunch right then, but
would come back and check on McDonald. That he 'would take care of it,
don't worry about it.'" 66 Battan then went home for lunch.

"When I went home his daughter called me and said they were trying to
find him," continues Herman. I didn't know what to do. I called Betsy. She
wasn't home, so I called Lou and Lou said he had gone down to check again,
and he'd gone out. I'm not sure of the whole story.... I remember I was trying
to convince Mac that, even though he was blind, he could still—" Herman
pauses, then continues, "I wasn't convinced he was totally blind, by the way. I
was never convinced. He saw something. He did. There were some things that
happened that convinced me that he wasn't totally blind."
McDonald had called a taxi and left the Institute, apparently unseen by
anyone there. The taxi driver took him to the other side of town, where he
bought a 0.38 Spanish-made revolver at a pawn shop. After that, the taxi driver
drove him north several miles into the desert, which was very sparsely popu-
lated at the time. Why a taxi driver would have driven a blind man to a pawn
shop where he could purchase a gun concerns his family and colleagues to this
day. The only possible explanation is that McDonald did have enough limited
vision to accomplish this without arousing suspicion of the pawn-shop owner
or the taxi driver. The pawn shop owner might not have realized McDonald
was blind, and the taxi driver might not have known that he'd purchased a gun.
No specifics on these particular questions have been found in newspaper ac-
counts or police records of the time.

66. Herman's interview with author, 2 November 1993.

T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 519

The police queried the taxi driver, who stated that he let McDonald off
about 4:00 P.M. at an isolated intersection in the desert. He inquired if he'd "be
all right," and McDonald had replied that "someone was picking him up." The
taxi drove off, and McDonald apparently walked over a mile to the Canyon del
Oro, a steep-sided, dry wash with which he was familiar, having explored it
thoroughly just six weeks before. There, under a bridge, his body was found
midday on Sunday, June 13, 1971, by a family that was hiking in the wash.
The circumstances of his death have led to speculation in the UFO com-
munity that perhaps it was not self-induced. Accounts in Tucson newspapers
at the time contain inconsistencies and errors. The most accurate account is in-
cluded as Appendix Item 18-D, page 584, but it, too, errs in stating that he left
the hospital Sunday by taxi; actually, he left the Institute by taxi on Saturday,
as described above.
When McDonald's body was found midday on Sunday, police at the scene
estimated that he'd been dead eight to ten hours. This suggests that he may have
been alive quite a few hours after being let out at the isolated desert intersec-
tion. Theoretically, he might have been found in the desert the same day he dis-
appeared if the police had been called immediately and if Tucson's efficient
search-and-rescue team had been notified. Yet the team was never contacted.
Instead, two friends of the family, a man and woman, who had been called by
the family during the initial search, advised the family that they would find
him. The woman, who presented herself only as "Dr. Martin," found out where
the taxi driver had left him in the desert, and she made numerous calls from an
isolated house within a mile of Canyon del Oro. Why did "two friends" insist
on looking for him instead of calling in the experts? This remains unclear, and
the "two friends" remain unidentified.
Margaret Sanderson-Rae describes another unexplained event. "When
he came back from the hospital, I went through his office, removing anything
that was sharp or dangerous, being sure it was a good working environ-
ment. ... After he passed away, Dr. Kassander wanted me to go through some
things there and I [discovered] one of the books on his shelves had no cover.
Dr. McDonald would always preserve the jackets of his books. If they had no
jackets, he very carefully made one. All the books on his shelves had jack-
ets.... That one book hit my eyes. I pulled it out, and there was something
behind it. It was the book jacket, all crumpled up, as if it had been wrapped
around something." Even though she was so close to the tragedy, Sanderson-
Rae never knew that McDonald had bought the gun he used that very day.
She felt a profound sense of relief when told, during interviews for this book,
that McDonald had not concealed a gun in the crumpled book jacket. But
what was wrapped in the book jacket? Was it, perhaps, a number of 5" x 7"
520 FIRESTORM

"small notebooks" or notebook pads, on which he'd written the confidential

notes regarding UFOs mentioned in his journals? If so, where are they today?
McDonald's suicide deeply shocked and grieved his numerous col-
leagues and friends. "I thought afterwards that this man, who could stand up
against the United States Government, the Air Force, and bring it right to
Washington and get them to admit what he had already said—a man of such
great courage when faced with such powerful institutions—could be so vul-
nerable in his personal life," says Dr. Paul E. Damon. Damon's words ex-
press virtually the helpless feelings of all who knew McDonald well.
A memorial resolution by Drs. Dick Kassander, Lou Battan, Paul Martin
and Cornelius Steelink, written a few days after McDonald died, reveals the
deep admiration and appreciation they felt for him personally and for his con-
tributions to science (see Appendix Item 18-E, page 585). And Dr. A1 Mead,
in a March 27,1996 letter to this author, updates the fondness and respect that
the University faculty still feel for McDonald. ["It is important] to the memory
of Jim," Mead writes, "to let the reading public know the great depth and dis-
tress within the mind of a truly great scientist, James E. McDonald, who was
tragically ahead of his time."
The shock felt by the UFO community upon hearing of McDonald's death
was even more abysmal, because most were not aware of the factors which had
led up to it. They were not nearly so prepared. Many UFO researchers suspected
that the government had silenced him because his research was incredibly thor-
ough and his knowledge of confidential material far-reaching. He was getting in-
formation on classified UFO cases which had never surfaced before. Indeed, he
had confided that he was "close to the answer" and speaking to "high-level per-
sons." He had confided this to Dr. Robert Wood and Marty Lore, and possibly
also to others who have not yet spoken out openly.
Two alternate hypotheses are probably more reasonable. There is Betsy's
theory that McDonald had been pretending to adjust to blindness so that he
could seek an opportunity to "do it again." Secondly, there is his colleagues'
contention that McDonald seemed to have made a degree of adjustment to his
blindness, had planned to complete many projects during a six-month sabbat-
ical and felt confident that he could return to teaching with the assistance of a
teacher's aide. This hypothesis would necessarily have to incorporate the no-
tion that his emotional makeup was still so fragile that any setback would im-
mediately send him into a deep depression. Was the telephone call which
informed him that Betsy was not picking him up that afternoon enough to send
him into the depths?
There is a third alternate hypothesis, however, which combines factors
from the three others and which could under certain circumstances be "logi-
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 521

cal." Confirmed facts surfaced in the mid-1970s through Congressional hear-

ings and through the FOIA about experiments which were conducted by
government intelligence agencies in the 1950s and 1960s. It is an established
fact that human behavior can be influenced through the use of chemicals, mi-
crowaves, long-range hypnosis and several other techniques that can work
from a distance. These techniques can cause depression, violent behavior, and
other detrimental alterations of normal conduct. All these effects can be
brought about without the subjects' knowledge.67
Giving credence to the third hypothesis is the fact that McDonald, during
the course of his six-year UFO research, was repeatedly cajoled, disappoint-
ed, blocked, ridiculed and finally emotionally devastated. All of these events
are described separately in this book, but it is not illogical to speculate that
some of them were orchestrated attacks. Add to these the fact that Betsy's
young man, four months after McDonald's death, admitted that both he and
his father were of Stalinist/Communist persuasion. Shocked and betrayed,
Betsy broke off the relationship immediately.
The most solidly confirmed facts, however, reveal that McDonald had
sustained a series of severe personal problems which he had fought against
valiantly but was not able to solve. His history of at least one other sustained
depressive period, in the early sixties, and his basic rigidly intellectual per-
sonality, point to a more prosaic explanation. His family members, and all of
the scientific colleagues interviewed, with two possible exceptions, believe
that his death was self-induced, with no conspiratorial factors entering in.
While his colleagues in the UFO research field, scientist and non-scientist
alike, staggered from McDonald's loss, other colleagues set about minimizing
the importance of his UFO research. His AAAS paper, which was such a superb
example of critical thinking, as well as solid facts demonstrating the scientific
importance of the UFO question, was included in a book written by Carl Sagan
and Thornton Page. The book, UFOs: A Scientific Debate, while retaining the
facts of radar-visual cases McDonald had researched, edited out his related crit-
icisms of the Condon Report 68 McDonald had made it very plain to all of his
colleagues that a complete rebuttal of the Condon Report was to be his next im-

67. "Project MKULTRA: Joint hearing before the Select committee On Health and Scientific
Research of the Committee On Human Resources, United States Senate," Washington,
D.C., Government Printing Office 1977. Also see: Bowart, Walter, Operation Mind Control,
New York, Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1978; "Microwave Harassment & Mind-Control
Experimentation," by Julianne McKinney, Director, Electronic Surveillance Project, Asso-
ciation of National Security Alumni, Silver Spring, Md.; "Mind Control," by Harry V. Mar-
tin and David Caul, 12-part series, Napa Sentinel, 1991.
68. Sagan, Carl and Page, Thornton, editors, UFOs: A Scientific Debate, New York, The Norton
Library, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1972.
522 FIRESTORM

portant step and was crucial to a scientific understanding of the UFO question.
He also planned to point up the fact that the government (Air Force), backed by
the NAS, used the Condon Report to justify closing all public official channels
for reporting observations.
Even as the UFO community continued to research the phenomenon, the
mystery deepened. In the mid-seventies UFOs, which had been generally ac-
cepted as one phenomenon or, at the very least, a closely-connected series of
phenomena, suddenly exploded into a multitude of aspects. The so-called
"UFO abductions," similar to Betty and Barney Hill's experience in New
Hampshire increased exponentially. Suddenly hundreds and then thousands of
so-called "abductees," many of them demonstrably rational individuals, began
coming forward, claiming UFO "occupants" had forcibly taken them aboard
their craft—creatures which, to put it briefly, the "abductees" did not feel had
their best interests at heart. The second aspect was even more mysterious—de-
monstrably rational persons described events which were strangely reminis-
cent of 1950s' "contactee" stories except that many of the "entities" involved
were not so human-like.

These two aspects have evolved into a two-headed coin, in which the two
sides of so-called "UFO abduction" have developed a sort of clouded mirror-
image. Researchers and "abductees" on one side allege that the UFO human-
oids are, at best, "scientific, unfeeling explorers of the galaxy" and, at worst,
malevolent entities serving their own nefarious purposes. The other side al-
leges that space-traveling humanoids are here to "raise human conscious-
ness" and/or to "evolve" the human race to prepare it for imminent
catastrophes or "cleansing." At present writing, for many UFO researchers,
the line between the old-time "contactees" and the new breed of "evolving
abductees" has become vanishingly small.
Another element which must be addressed in assessing the veracity of
abduction reports is the growing evidence that many "abductees" are instinc-
tive resisters and find it possible to wake up from the altered state in which
the great majority of "abductions" occur. I wrote a comprehensive book in
1998 describing nine simple mental and physical techniques which 70+ wit-
nesses have described as being effective in ending abduction scenarios. 69
There is growing evidence that there is a strong, unrecognized parapsycho-
logical element in abduction scenarios, and many UFO researchers are pres-
ently hypothesizing that they might have an interdimensional component,
rather than occurring in physical space-time as do other classes of UFO re-

69. Druffel, Ann, How to Defend YourselfAgainst Alien Abduction, New York: Random House,
Three Rivers Press, August 1998, 241 pp.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER L I V E S . . , 523

ports involving unidentified flying craft which are chased by jet pilots,
caught on radar, and photographed.
In the meantime, through the mid-seventies, eighties, nineties and into the
new millennium, while researchers were investigating the plethora of differing
"abduction" stories, the basic phenomenon—unidentified metallic aeroforms
traversing Earth's atmosphere—which had seized the attention of McDonald
and all objective researchers since 1947, has continued. The military, especial-
ly the USAF, still encounter UFOs, but there is no longer any governmental re-
ception center to receive reports. Inadequate as it was, Project Blue Book's
files and archives contained amazing material which excited McDonald's, and
other researchers,' scientific curiosity. Until very recently, however, the "basic
phenomenon" has been downplayed drastically, mainly because, for over 20
years, the "abductee" phenomena seemed to hold out hope of obtaining phys-
ical evidence, but this hope has not yet borne fruit. This author's present hy-
pothesis is that the "Visitors," whatever they are, are "posing" as physical
occupants from the physical unidentified craft that still travel Earth's skies.
Two large civilian research organizations, the Mutual UFO Network
(MUFON) and the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), filled the void the disin-
tegration of NICAP had left in the field. While many veteran researchers who
wet their feet in UFO data in the '50s and '60s remain in the field, many sci-
entists and other professionals have joined the field. Although this combina-
tion of new and old is effective in many ways, no top scientist with the unique
combination of McDonald's intensity, persistence, persuasiveness, brilliance,
worldwide reputation, unswerving vitality and influential contacts has come to
the fore.
In the early seventies, CUFOS was established by J. Allen Hynek; this or-
ganization attracted many scientists to the field. As the years passed, Hynek
became regarded by younger researchers as the first prominent scientist to take
an interest in the UFO phenomenon. These younger researchers are not fully
aware of NICAP's seminal work and did not know Keyhoe or McDonald per-
sonally. Veteran researchers still attempt to correct re-written history.70
In the last couple of years, there has been an encouraging surge of interest
in the history of UFO research and in the importance of the basic UFO phe-
nomenon. Archival material is increasingly available. Some of Edward U.
Condon's files surfaced in the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia; thus not
all of his UFO files were "burned" as he had claimed. Some of Hynek's files

70. Frequent historical articles/papers/books are published by The Fund for UFO Research, The
J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, the Mutual UFO Network, and in Flying Saucer
Review, FSR Publications in England.
524 FIRESTORM

have become available since his death, and many researchers have produced
valuable accounts of older cases in which NICAP, McDonald and Hynek had
taken such interest.71 Recently, the Fund for UFO Research (FUFOR) in Mt.
Rainier, Md., granted me funds for the archiving of McDonald's voluminous
UFO files. They are now available to researchers in the James E. McDonald
Personal Collection at the University of Arizona Library, Tucson.72
The loss of McDonald, a remarkable genius, still affects many today.
Many of his colleagues who knew and loved him still grieve his loss. Those in
the UFO community who worked with him remember and mourn. The mystery
of his confidences to a few colleagues that, toward the end of his life, he was
"talking to top-level people about the UFO phenomenon" and that he was
"close to the answer and would soon be free to speak openly" has not been
solved. Did he mention this to others in the UFO field besides Dr. Robert
Wood and Marty Lore? If he had uncovered information that no one else had,
why wouldn't he let someone know before leaving the Earth plane? Knowing
what we do today, it is very likely that the "high-level" information was just a
ploy to further depress him. Perhaps the answers to this mystery are contained
in his missing "pocket notebooks," which are still being sought.
James E. McDonald was the first prominent American scientist to recog-
nize clearly the possibility that UFOs were from extraterrestrial sources. With
unwavering persistence he urged the scientific and governmental establish-
ments to study the evidence with adequate funding and complete objectivity.
His courage, honesty and stamina through years of governmental resistance are
legendary.
McDonald's untimely death can be traced, in large part, to his frustration
with widespread official blindness that even to this day prevents powerful peo-
ple from studying undeniable evidence that Earth is possibly being visited by
advanced intelligences. He recognized that the UFO issue is perhaps one of the
most important questions that has ever faced the human race, and that to ignore
it could easily be a mistake of incalculable enormity. McDonald dedicated his
life to gathering the best available data relevant to the question.
Eltjo Hasselhoff, Dutch experimental physicist, perhaps expressed James
McDonald's dilemma when he said, "To look at the evidence and go away un-

71. As one outstanding example, see article by Ted Bloecher and Paul Cerny titled, "The Cisco
Grove Bow and Arrow Case of 1964," in the International UFO Reporter, Chicago, 111., J.
Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, Vol. 20, No. 5, Winter 1995.
72. Druffel, Ann: "James E. McDonald's UFO Files," MUFON UFO Journal, January 1997,
No. 345, pp. 3-9.
T H E B L A C K S P O T OF O U R INNER LIVES.., 525

convinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against
it is another. That is not science."
McDonald's staunch fight in the face of disbelief and danger stands today
in mute testimony to the difficulty that the human race faces in the coming
days, as it waits until the truth inevitably emerges. The struggle continues....
About the Author...
Ann Druffel

Ann Druffel began

investigating UFO
reports in the Southern
California area in April
1957 with the National
Investigations Commit-
tee on Aerial Phenom-
ena (NICAP), which
was directed by the
UFO research pioneer
Major Donald E. Key-
hoe, USMC (Ret.). She became acquainted with Dr. James E. McDonald
through his contacts with the Los Angeles NICAP Subcommittee from
1966 to 1971. After NICAP's demise in 1970, she joined the Mutual UFO
Network (MUFON) and the then newly-formed Center for UFO Studies
(CUFOS).
She has researched over 2,000 Los Angeles Basin UFO reports, in-
cluding alleged landings, UFO photo cases, close encounters with physical
effects on witnesses and terrain, alleged "abduction" reports and other
UFO-related phenomena. A prolific writer, Druffel has contributed over
180 articles on various aspects of the UFO question to numerous UFO
journals and newsstand magazines.

Firestorm - Ann Druffel

A N N DRUFFEL 527

Frequently speaking on UFOs before civic and educational groups, she is

noted for lively slide presentations and Q&A sessions and has presented many
papers at UFO symposia/conferences. Since 1965 she has been a spokesperson
on various aspects of UFOs for TV, radio and press as well as consultant/ re-
searcher/ film writer on numerous UFO documentaries. She wrote the classic
book Tujunga Canyon Contacts with parapsychologist D. Scott Rogo and con-
tributed to other major literary works such as the UFO Encyclopedia and the
anthology UFO Abductions. Her How to Defend Yourself Against Alien Ab-
ductions was published by Three Rivers Press/Random House in August,
1998.
Her ten years' academic and professional experience in sociology and
child/family social case work provided her skills in interviewing, value-judg-
ing and report-writing. Later, she went on to become a free-lance researcher
known for her objective and skeptical approach toward UFO sightings and ab-
duction reports.
Beginning in 1965, she coordinated and directed SKYNET, a filter center
and tracking-system for public UFO reports in the Los Angeles Basin area. Al-
though set up as a tracking system to receive reports in real-time, SKYNET
proved invaluable in revealing numerous conventional objects often mistaken
for UFOs. SKYNET was an adjunct at first to NICAP in the Southern Califor-
nia area and later to MUFON and CUFOS.
Besides UFO work, Druffel free-lances in various aspects of psychic re-
search. From 1986 to 1991 she worked as research assistant/consultant and,
later, researcher with the Mobius Society, the Los Angeles-based parapsychol-
ogy lab. She has written numerous articles on disparate psychic phenomena for
newsstand magazines and authored books with famed psychic Armand Mar-
cotte.
Ann Druffel lives in a wooded glen in Pasadena, California. Her husband
Charles K. Druffel and she had five daughters, who are grown and live their
own exciting lives. Ann's hobbies include hiking, swimming, snorkeling, or-
chard gardening and exploring Native American sacred sites.
528 APPENDIX 2 - A

routine. Several airmen on" the

base say planes reflecting the
sun's light often appear as avail
of light from certain angles."
Others agreed that Sgt. McDon-
ald's "is as good an explanation as
any."
Civilians who reported seeing
the UFO'a I t about 5;55 a.m. Tues-
day lay there were four or five
of them flying in V-formation.
S g t McDonald pointed out that
he has leen FIOJ jet fighter planes,
presumably from George AFB * t
Vlctorville, Calif., fly over Tucsdh,
usually in V-formation and always
in groups of (our.

UFOs May Those who u w the object! say

they were followed by vapor trails,
as though from jets In pursuit.

Have Been "It's possible they were Jetf

that disappeared from view be-
iWitB M.WO and 70,000 lett just a a '

F102s ih/v they fanned a vapor trail, leading

aome observers to assume they
were being pursued by Jeta," S « J
Possibility Suggested McDonald suggested. He atld\
vapor trails form only at SO o r t o j
By D-M's Acting PIO below zero and when humiifltyl
conditions are r i g h t
Those unidentified Hying object*
reported seeo Tuesday i t lunup Sometimes, he added, jets leave
m i y hive been nothing more behind intermittent vapor tralli
mysterious than F102 Jet fighters. like dashes as they go from cold
This possibUity was suggested to warm layera of air.
yesterday by aourcts at Davis- Whether a formation of FlOZ'i
Monthan Air Force Base. did, Indeed, fly over Tucson T u e j .
One spokesman, Sgt. John W. day mornlg could not be learned
McDonald, acting public informa- yesterday. L t Col. Robert C.'
tion officer, explained that the Smith, commanding officer at the
delta-wing F102's could easily ap- UA Air Force R a d a r Station on Mt.'
pear to i civilian observer as Lemmon, w i s on leava and un-
tear- or oval-shsped "blobs of available for comment.
light" 1* the pre-dawn twilight, Sgt. McDonald said If the sta-
especially If the planes were flying tion's radar equipment did pick up
at an unusually high altitude. such a flight it can be assumed It
was a routine flight, a» no emer-
"Airmen, used to seeing planes gency alert was reported given.
In flight at all hours and under
til circumstances, and trained In The UFO"i were Men Dying east-
1
aircraft 'Identification," ha said, erly parallel to the Benson Hwy.
"are apt to regard such sights as and appeared white and round and
stayed In light about l t mlnutea.1
Observers included LeRoy Gas-i
kins, 1931 S. Campbell Ave.; Dean
Wood, 5925 p . 22nd St.; Eugene!
Ford, SOS ,W. Santa Rosa St.; J.l
C. H u n t 5863 Waverly PI.; Mrt.J
Warren Gray, J449 N. Edith Blvd.}3
Lennle Wells, 511-A W. Planta.St.;
El..:... C......H1

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch.528.C.pdf
 APPENDIX 9-A 529

i P A R T M E N T OF" T H E N A V Y
o r F I C K o r N A V A L R U I A N C H
W A 8 H I N O T O N . D C. 2 0 3 8 0
ofiRiZhaSxjHir
25 Hay 1966

Dr. J. E. MoDonald
UnlrerBity or Arisona
Institute of Atmoaphario Physios
Tuoaon, Arleona 85721
D e a r Mao i
S l n o a y o u e r e o o m l n g t o W a a h l n g t o n f o r tlx® m e » t i n « « o f t h e
S t o r m F u r y Paunel, I w o n d e r I f y o n w o u l d mind, s p e n d i n g a f e w e x t r a
daye ao that X o o u l d have the b e n e f i t o f y o u r c o n s u l t a t i o n o n aome
aspects of our program particularly those concerning w e a t h e r
m o d i f i c a t i o n . There are also some Interesting proposals we have under
consideration for remote sensing of the atmosphere on whloh X would
appreciate your o o m u n t a •

Speaking of remote sensing* X see there i s a resurgence of

Interest I n UFO* s . J i m Kearney at F M R I n h i s c u r r e n t o b s e r v a t i o n
program with a laser-radar built b y SRI tells m e about sane Interesting
r e t u r n s i g n a l s frctn l o c a t i o n s w h e r e s t r a t u s I s n o t y e t -risible b u t f o r m s
I n the same location shortly after the laser signal-the reverse
p h e n o m e n a a l s o o c c u r s , I . e . s t r a t u s a f t a r d i s s i p a t i n g frcan v i e w s t i l l
gives a return signal. Stratus or other cloud forms dissipating In
one place and reappearing I n another oould give the I l l u s i o n of v a r y
rapid movement. Incidentally* Incidents Ilka these were obaerved by
t h e I t a l i a n n a v y I n t h e T.igurlatn a e a w h e n m a k i n g a o n a r o b a a r r a t i o n a .
They were getting returns off different underwater peaks but thought
they were on a moving objeot. Naturally the presumed object appeared
to have a high rate of displacement. W h a t X a m leaullng u p t o I s t h a t
laser obaarrationa oould possibly eliminate some o f the unldentlfloatlon
I n UFO* s. There are other Interesting Implications of laser observations
In connection with what Ron Callls calls subvlslble or Invisible clouds.
I will dlsouss them with y o u when y o u are I n Washington.

Soane o f t h e p h e n o m e n a r e c o r d e d I n P r o J e a t B l u e B o o k m u s t b e t h e
result of uniqueness of partloal sit* and olrounatanoaa of altitude
and Illumination that would be of speolal Interest In connection with
laser applications. X f o n y o u r r e t u r n t r i p y o u oaun s p a r e t h e t i m e t o
examine the Project Blue Book d a t a , at least the u n o l a s s l f l e d d a t a ,
would y o u give us some aaaesament of the aapeota of t h e p r o b l e m X
have described? X hate to Impose on y o u r time this way, but in the
interest of efficient use of time, perhapa y o u oould include all these
chores I n one t r i p . Since y o u w i l l be doing these things in our behalf,
i t w i l l b e l e g i t i m a t e t o c h a r g e y o u r t i n e a n d t r a v e l sigainat o u r c o n t r a c t .

Sincerely yours.

a. -

«J. H U G H E S

cos M r . Russell Lathrop, QNR Pasadena

http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch.06. B.pdf
 530 APPENDIX 3 - B

2, 1967

s ...
and response
I think we are
problem.
I have thought abcuc the prcbletz tr.ap.y tirr.es since
.your briefing her«. I ar. core convinced than e\-er chat
a positive prograo-iti extraterrestrial Tife or coonuni-
cations studies shmtld not be tied-to Che UFG problem.
I know you don't agree with this and I am not sure Bill
Doolittle does either; however, I arc convinced that we
vou.ld really open the £locd gates on UFO problems i£ the
public thought that the Condon group, v a s about to involve
in extensive research on extraterrestrial activities. I
realize that Csndon m u s t addres? "this subject, but this
l^yW. is different from conducting active re&earch. T chink
v
J , research in this area should be accomplished by an encirel>
unrelated activity.

Please pass on any ideas you have and keep us alerted

in any way that we eight help. ^
Sincerely,

WILLIAM C . GARLANTI
Brigadier General, USAF
Director of Information
^CcrXOTTCt-RaytflOftfl S". Sleeper
Comoiand«r
Foreign Technology Division (AFLC)
Wright-Patterson Air Force Jii^fc Ohio 45433

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 03. B.pdf

 A P P E N D I X4-A, continued533

R.H.Peatalozzi
6 7 1 2 E a s t W h i t t i a r Street:
Tuoaon, Arizona
7 July 1966
D r • Jamo a E* McDonald
34 6 1 E a s t 3rd S t r e e t
Tucson, Arizona
Dear Jim,
The Information you requested several weeks ago concerning a
U F O r e p o r t s u b m i t t e d by m e , as r e p o r t i n g o f f i c e r , to U S A F
Project Blue Book, followss
T h e I n t e r v e n i n g y e a r s and a v e r y m e d i o c r e m e m o r y d o , of c o u r s e ,
pgCrclude my r e c a l l i n g the e x a c t d a t e , r e p o r t d a t a s u c h as t i m e ,
meteorological conditions- flight altitude (which must have
b e e n a b o u t t w e n t y t h o u s a n d f e e t ) , n a m e s of o b s e r v e r s , e t c , e t c *
I w i l l , h o w e v e r , r e l a t e the I n c i d e n t t o y o u t o t h e b e s t of m y
rec o l l e c t l o n *
This observation occurred lnthe hours Just b e f o r e n o o n In the
e a r l y m o n t h s of 1 9 5 2 . (Ma roh, April, M a y or J u n e * )
W h i l e s t a n d i n g on the f r o n t e n t r a n c e s t e p s of the D a v l s — M o m t h a n
Allr F o r c e B a s e H o s p i t a l , I o b s e r v e d the a p p r o a c h of t w o U F O s
u p o n a B — 3 6 f l y i n g on a g e n e r a l e a s t - w e s t h e a d i n g d i r e c t l y o v e r
the b a s e . T h e U F O s a p p e a r e d f r o m the g r o u n d , to b e r o u n d In s h a p e
and m e t a l l i c In c o l o r . ( T h e s a m e c o l o r as the B - 3 6 . ) T h e o b j e c t s
a p p r o a c h e d the a i r c r a f t f r o m the n o r t h — e a s t ata s p e e d a b o u t
t h r e e or f o u r t i m e s that of the a i r c r a f t *
T h e two o b j e c t s a p p e a r e d to b e a b o u t t h e s a m e s i z e w h e n f i r s t
o b s e r v e d * One o b j e c t a p p e a r e d t o g a i n a l t i t u d e a s It a p p r o a c h e d
the a i r c r a f t b e o a u a e It a e e m e d t o g r o w s m a l l e r * It s t a t i o n e d
I t s e l f , a t the B-3fi s p e e d . J u s t b e h i n d and to the p o r t s i d e of
the B - 3 6 * T h e o t h e r o b j e c t a p p r o a c h e d the a i r c r a f t a t the a l t i t u d e
of the B — 3 6 a n d s t a t i o n e d I t s e l f b e t w e e n the p u s h e r — t y p e p r o p
s p i n n e r s and the l e a d i n g e d g e of the s t a r b o a r d e l e v a t o r s * T h e a i r
c r e w , w h i c h l a n d e e d the a i r c r a f t at D M A F B , and w e r e I n t e r r o g a t e d
by m e , c o n f i r m e d the g r o u n d — o b s e r v e d s t a t i o n i n g of this o b j e c t
In t h i s e x t r e m e l y c l o s e p r o x i m i t y to the a i r c r a f t *

I can n o l o n g e r r e m e m b e r the l e n g t h of time o f the o b s e r v a t i o n

b u t a l l of the a i r c r e w mo rubers, e x c e p t o n e w h o f l e w the a i r c r a f t
d u r i n g the e n t i r e I n c i d e n t , w e r e a b l e to g e t to the sta r b o a r d
o b s e r v a t i o n p o r t to see the U F O .
T h e o b j e c t s w e r e r e p o r t e d to b e s y m e t r l c a l l y c o n v e x t o p and b o t t o m ,
a b o u t ton or t w e l v e f e e t t h i c k f r o m top to b o t t o m at the m i d d l e
and q u i t e a h a r p at the e d g e * ( T h e c r e w g a v e a n a p p r o x i m a t e f i g u r e
In I n c h e s w h l o h I c a n n o t r e m e m b e r * ) T h e o b j e c t w a s r e p o r t e d b y the
c r e w , a a X r e m e m b e r , to be a b o u t t w e n t y or t w e n t y O f l v e f e e t in
d i a m e t e r * ( It f i t r a t h e r s n u g l y b e t w e e n s p i n n e r s and e l e v a t o r * )
S o m e of t h e a i r c r e w m e m e b e r s r e p o r t e d s e e i n g a p a l e b a n d of r e d
o o l o r a b o u t h a l f w a y b e t w e e n the top and the e d g e of the o b j e o t *
A l l m e m b e r s d i d n o t s e e this c o l o r b a n d , h o w e v e r *

.. 4-page document at http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 03. C.pdf

532 APPENDIX 4 - A

July, 1970
Dear Allen,
This is a delayed reply to your note of May 4,1970, which you sent along
with a tear sheet on your 4/22/70 article in the Christian Science Monitor. I had
already seen it and filed it, but thanks for a spare copy. What interested me,
irritated me, and finally led me to undertake a long and blunt letter to you was
your closing sentence:
"I still look forward to the day that we might work together rather than
somewhat at loggerheads."
That seems a faint, but unmistakable, intimation that you and I are working
at cross-purposes because of some sort of a stubbornness on my part, the cessa-
tion of which you anticipate with patience. 1 simmered almost long enough to
write you this letter back in May, then cooled off again. However, subsequent
receipt of the March/April issue of FSR brought further irritant, and two weeks
of intensive work on the Bluebook files down at Maxwell AFB still later, fol-
lowed by another long and careful look at the role you played in Project Grudge
and sequelae, have made me decide that I had better spell out, once again in a
long and specific letter, the kinds of points that I have tried to get across to you
at one or another time in the past, evidently with limited success.
When you suggest that we are working "somewhat at loggerheads", I pre-
sume you can mean only one thing. Since you're not directly interfering with
anything that I am currently doing on the UFO problem, and since I'm not di-
rectly interfering with anything that you're doing on it, and since there is a con-
currence in what each of us is currently saying (at least in a general way about
the present scientific importance of the UFO problem,) I must conclude that
your cited sentence really is to be translated as saying that you look forward to
the day when I stop being critical of the role that you have played in the past
twenty years' developments in the UFO problem.
I might suggest that I will probably stop being critical of that role soon af-
ter you stop trying to "rewrite history" and become considerably more candid
(perceptive?) about the fact that you have been much more a part of the prob-
lem than part of the solution in the UFO area since 1948.
On June 9,1 spoke to the IEEE in the Los Angeles area, just a few days
after returning from Maxwell. My mood was similar to that which marked my
first encounter with you, in Evanston on June 8, 1966, immediately after get-
ting my first fairly good look at those incredible Bluebook files. And just as
that first good look at the files had led me to outspoken criticism which I pre-
sented quite bluntly to you in your office, so this latest and in some ways better
 Appendix 4-A, continued 533

look at the Bluebook files and all those memos and all the rest of that material
that outsiders to Bluebook never could have realized was tucked away there,
leads me to more of that blunt criticism. So, yes, I would say we're still at log-
gerheads on past history, if that's the way you'd wish to phrase it.
And we're at loggerheads when I find you stating, in your 4/22/70 CSM
article, that: "After twenty years, we are still pretty much where we started,..."
and then following that up with a dig at the "scientific establishment", as if it
were somehow "they" rather than you yourself as the one scientist who,
through those twenty years, had unparalleled opportunity to see what was go-
ing on, to truly evaluate the situation, and to take the kind of steps that could
and should have alerted the scientific community long ago to the importance
of the UFO problem. There's a quite real sense in which you were the scien-
tific Establishment (or the core of it) relative to this scientific problem area in
the 1949-69 bidecode, and I believe you may lack the intellectual honesty to
face up to it.
Again, we are at loggerheads when I read, on Page 3 of the March/April
1970 FSR, that you are ready to criticize Bill Hartmann as "a young man on
the make," who "cannot afford to be pro-UFO and expect to get anywhere in
the astronomical profession," and who you suggest is putting a "protective
coloration" over his attitude for reasons scientifically politic. Surely you must
realize that those charges against Hartmann would immediately put me in
mind of your own defenses back in June of 1966, when I asked you with a
good deal of vehemence how you could have failed to alert the Robertson Pan-
el to the fact that they were getting only the barest glimpse of the UFO prob-
lem in their 1953 three-day session, only to have you tell me, by way of
explanation, that you were "only small potatoes then," and that you were
"overawed" by that prestigious committee. (Or were you as unperceptive as to
fail to see that this was essentially what I ended up trying to tell you on 6/8/
66?) Either in that just-cited remark or later in that rather warm exchange in
which Bill Powers and Jacques Vallee pitched in for your defense from time
to time, you allowed that your colleagues must be very different from my
physicist colleagues, inasmuch as you wouldn't have dared to openly and em-
phatically suggest to astronomers that there really was a problem of great sig-
nificance in the UFO area. I believe I recall correctly that you followed that
statement with a crack to the effect that I was "the first guy with a union card"
whom you'd ever heard take the problem seriously. Between those revealing
comments and other indications that I subsequently got from you and persons
who have been in a position to know your mode of operations, I must say that
I find it about a 50/50 mixture of the surprising and the irritating that you
would...

.. 4-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch.04. C.pdf

534 APPENDIX 9-F

McDonald's List of Favorite Quotes

It la certainly likely that our present knowledge of (elementary)

parflcles Is Incdmpleto. I remind you of the story of the fisherman
who was fishing with a net of 6-lnoh mesh. He concluded that
all of the fish In the sea were larger than 6 Inches.
W.K.H. Panofsky In Rldenour p. 2 2 3

To observations which we ourselves make

We grow more partial for th' observer®! sake. Alexander Pope

Common sense Is a doolie thing. It sooner or later learns the

ways of science. Henry Margenau

Santayana spoke truly when he said that nothing gives such an

Idea of the Infinite as human credulity. HlHebrand

Some, things take a certain minimum time to a ccompllsh; you can't

make a baby In one month by putting nine men on the job. Hugh Dryden

ffethomatlos can never tell vou what Is; only what would be If. Po'ncare

The main business of a university la to examine the discrepancies

between natural phenomena and the currently accepted explanations
of them. In Hlldebrand

One nourishes the tree of science without knowing which branch

will bear the apple. H . H . Ellis

Blessed Is he who expects noth'ng, for he shell never be dIsapoolnted .

I^owledge is a sacred oow, and our problem Is to to figure out

h o w to milk her while keeping clear of her horns. Szent-OJorgy 1

111 fares the land, to galloping fears a prey,

Where gobbleydook accumulates, and words decay. J, 'hurbcr

The osmails a.horae designed bv a committee.

There may be lesa here than meets the eye. Tallulah BanVhead

If you want to beat the d o g , you can always find a stick. DuTolt
Is It more probable that nature should go out of her oourse, or
that a man should tell a lie? Thos. Paine.

.A definite maybe. S a n Goldwyn

w
h e n a d1stlnu^lshed but elderly scientist states that something
Is possible, he la almost certainly right. W h e n he states that
something Is Impossible he Is very probsbly w. rong. Arthur Clarke

Anyone who looks for a source of power In the transformation of atoms

is talking moonshine. R u t h e r f o r d 1933«

There has b e e n a great deal said about a 3000-mlle high-angle rocket.

In my opinion, such a thing Is Impossible today and will be impossible
for many years, Vannevar Bush 191*5 Senate Hearings.

Every tine we make an atomlo bomb we corrupt the morals of a host of

Innocent neutrons below the age of consent. S . W . A u d e n

An optlmlsh'ls one who sees the world In a rosy light; a pessimist

is one whr sees it In its true llchfc.

...28-page document at http://5thworld.eom/Firestorm/Apps/ch.08.G.html

 APPENDIX 9-A 5

JEM NOTEBOOK 33 PP.

UFO I'jmel

(1) 4/5/66Gen
--> Relevant check with Atlas & FAA traffic controller re kinds of spurious
echoes one can get under given conditions.
-> Navy - Check photo in 4/77 LIFE alleged to have been taken from a
Navy ship off California coast.
~> 4/15/66. J. R. Siovcrs phone call.
Said Rep. Ford seem to be trying to make some political hay with the
UFO-USAF problem, but not dear just what he's doing.
In Feb. an Ad Hoc Comm. under USAF Sci Adv Bd was set up to
review the problem. Chaired by Brian O'Brien (now a private consultant,
formerly chief scientist Am Optical Co.), members include several scientists
whose names 1 didn't get. One was Richard Porter, V. P. M. (?) Research at
G.E.). Wrote a brief report to Sci Adv Bd in March, just a few pages.
Confidential copy received at NAS April 11. Take USAF to task for its public
relation & argue? better scientific investigation. Urged USAF set up contracts
with a number of universities to do lield investigations in region. Each
should have one Physical scientist and one clinical psychologist plus field
investigation. Estimate an average of 10 man-days per investigation. Would
deal with the roughly 100 sightings/year that fall in Unexplained category.
Feel that public should be kept better informed on nature & results of
investigations.
Hvidently the Ad Hoc report contained info that Project Blue Book
consists of 1 officer, 1 sergeant, 1 secretary!
-> NAS has been approached by Geo Miller of H. Science & Astronautics
Comm, but NAS decides against any positive action now. Will not go thru
with my idea of 1-man study, since would be presumption of criticism of
USAF Board. I urged John to get John Coleman to suggest my name for any
new Advisory Board & he said he'd try.
-> I asked Arthur Lowery's reaction to news story that U setting up USAF-
supported investigation teams headed by one clinical psychologist & one
physical scientist. Didn't bother him very much. Thought that some people
might welcome the opportunity to "clear themselves". Later agreed,
however, that it could dissuade certain others from reporting in first place,
(end first side, first page)

(other side, first page)

(in top margin, seems added after page was written) ABBREVIATIONS
CONTD.

Charlie Moore 4/28/66. Check Nunn-Baker camera wide-angle search photos.

Radar with 200 mile range. Check their systems. NASA Spacewatch radars
(Tennessee?) [Cf Ilall 180. Nunn-Bakers do show many UFOs. NICAP has
some data on this.) Ground Observer Corps 1950-59 - Produced many reports.

121

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 06.B.pdf

5 APPENDIX 2-A

W A. t/ft^*, f ^ A ^ ^ 01 _ i//*AS
T'jiZ r J- "4S-P4f4t*r
•&....T / * CV «—** 7 A — ^ //•<> ^

ii K « < ' •^'/f'? S/i.9. /twf.., r ^-Z ^

4L0- i- C/>* yO^U. .&.

- fij^J^y,

<5£ JFn y ^ M A u - ^ /c—r r».

^ W C , C' ^ f

CL-C^ /^o ^

i/o/it ^

/£.. o / * s j . .

/yd,/-/A/i/JI, (J. . Ll^c^tJ

C V *-y—~7 •j ^ -C—' — —<

^'• ^ O.- i-T u. P f-

/3—* ii.., •

</Zj>-, A : w - / r/r ^ ^ , >—^kv ^ ^ s^c.

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 05. C.pdf

 APPENDIX 5 - D 537

J*w J • tv+u c
04J*
fLj APPENDIX - ITEM n
CHAPTER 5 t!
O n

T U ^

~u~< A f- — , —, «»". !

(IT) C^Ct ( r f; <7 rf < ~r •Q-jZ- S*-

</y/'< ^ "J* /"—». 4™+ • »,<,< i, — •», ——^ G~ •

f*., -T J. /"A—< ' p* J M-y^r —, S

Jt- -u y^r- / r —• " C^r^J O.r. '

, JO- — Vry./UyC^ .

^ -. ^V X. e— 7 »«* JX^, ,
^ ^ 11

tt„t * * A* t

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 05. D.pdf

538 A P P E N D I X 9-F

Stratospheric Cloud over Northern Arizona

Jamee E. M c D o n a l d

Reprinted f r o m Science, April 19, 1963. Vol. 140, N o . 3 S 8 4 . p a g e a 2 9 3 - 2 9 4

C o p y r i g h t © 1 9 6 3 by the A m e r i c a n Aeaoetadon for the A d v a n c e m e n t of Science

ttC C L O U D

...28-page document at http://5thworld.eom/Firestorm/Apps/ch.08.G.html

 APPENDIX 9-A 6

2 Part lll-WED., AUG. 10.1960 jLoa3ngtlt0TOlltt*7*

'SELECTED BY OUTER SPACE'

f Flying Saucer Man

:
Runs for President
BV JACK SMITH .
Gabriel Green, a 35-year-1
old bachelor from VVhiltier,1
threw his hat in the ringyes-!
terday for President of the
Untied States on the fljing
saucer tickct.
At a press confcrcnce In
the Biltmore, Green an-
nounced that he had been se-
lected by people from outer
space.
He said his advisers were
from the Alpha Ccnturai
system and they "looked
IQte people."
Green admitted he doesn't
expect to beat Vice President!
Nixon or Sen. Kennedy but
ho does believe he can car-,!
ry Whitticr if he gets enough
publicity.
He said the space people
could overpower the e.irth C A N D I D A T E — Gabriel
in a few hours, hut they Green, 35, flying saucer
don't operate that way. They candidate for President.
want us to helieve In them Tlnwl ttwto
first, he said, so they can "They didn't believe the
teach us peace aml economic world was round," he said.
security under universal "They didn't believe we
law. could crack the sound bar-
"They could completely rier, and we cracked it. The
take over this planet be- reporters wouldn't even re-
tween breakfast and lunch port the Wright brothers'
any day of the year," he curly flights."
warned, "but that would be Green was asked why ht
In violation of their princi' didn't have a Martian or a
pies." man from Venus at his press
I n t e r f e r i n g All A l o n g
conference to help prove his
claims.
Green said he has seen at What would be the use?"
least 75 flying sauccrs from he said. "If he said he was
space, the last contact being from outer space nobody
only three months ago. would believe him."
"I have seen them with Green was wearing a spec-
my own eyes," he said. tacular set of red socks.
Contrary to popular opin- "Did you get those from
ion, he said, space men arc outer space? he was asked.
not new to this planet but "No," he said, "1 bought!
have been "interfering all those right here In Los An-
along." geles."
"They are more advanced The Presidential candidate
than wc arc, mentally, spir- said the women in space arc
itually and scicntihcaliy," beautiful.
he said. "One of my friends made
Green said he doesn't ex- a contact with one of them
pect to be believed because not long ago," he said. "He
skepticism is the general al- said she was really out of
titude of the race. this world."

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 06. B.pdf

540 APPENDIX 9-F

UFOs—the Modern Myth

by Donald H. Menzel
Myths come in a wide variety of sizes, shapes, and colors. Myths are sto-
ries, whose origins are usually forgotten, devised to explain some belief, insti-
tution, or natural phenomenon. Especially the last.
Let me remind you of a few ancient myths. Echo is a mischievous nymph
who pined away for love of Narcissus until nothing was left but her voice.
Earthquakes occur when a giant, chained underground beneath a mountain,
tries to free himself by shaking his bonds. Lightning is a thunderbolt hurled by
Zeus or Jupiter. And so on! The rain' The winds! Ocean storms! All controlled
by or at the mercy of some personalized deity.
Man has traditionally tended to construct myths to explain anything he
cannot understand. And this is precisely the way that Flying Saucers or UFO'
s came into existence.
The evidence and conclusions 'were -about as follows, in 1949. The Air
Force had collected several thousand reports of queer things in the sky. Many
had come from military and airline pilots who, presumably, were reliable and
at least not likely to foster hoaxes. Objects were reported to move at speeds
enormously greater than that of any known terrestrial aircraft. Similarly, the
observed accelerations of these objects were far in excess of those of ordinary
aircraft. They exhibited an ability to maneuver in such a way as to avoid being
intercepted, so that the investigators felt themselves forced to conclude that the
objects were "under intelligent control. "No terrestrial craft could behave in
such a manner, ergo they must be extraterrestrial!
That, gentlemen, was the position of the military in 19491 And today,
twenty years later, the two previous speakers have said essentially the same
thing. In brief, they are saying that they sup- port the extra-terrestrial hypoth-
esis (ETH) simply because they cannot find any other explanation acceptable
to them. I see nothing to justify their assumption that they are the ultimate au-
thorities. I ask, is this science?
On such slender evidence McDonald has flatly stated that "the problem of
unidentified flying objects is, indeed, the greatest scientific problem of our
times. "He has further urged that Congress provide, for their study, a budget
that would dwarf that of NASA....

...28-page document at http://5thworld.eom/Firestorm/Apps/ch.08.G.html

 UFOs - THE MODERN MYTH

by Donald H. Menzel

Myths come in a wide variety of sizes, shapes, and colors. Myths are stories,
whose origins are usually forgotten, devised to explain some belief, institution, or natural
phenomenon. Especially the last.
Let me remind you of a few ancient myths. Echo is a mischievous nymph who
pined away for love of Narcissus until nothing was left but her voice. Earthquakes occur
when a giant, chained underground beneath a mountain, tries to free himself by shaking
his bonds. Lightning is a thunderbolt hurled by Zeus or Jupiter. And so on! The rain' The
winds! Ocean storms! All controlled by or at the mercy of some personalized deity.
Man has traditionally tended to construct myths to explain anything he cannot
understand. And this is precisely the way that Flying Saucers or UFO' s came into
existence.
The evidence and conclusions were about as follows, in 1949. The Air Force had
collected several thousand reports of queer things in the sky. Many had come from
military and airline pilots who, presumably, were reliable and at least not likely to foster
hoaxes. Objects were reported to move at speeds enormously greater than that of any
known terrestrial aircraft. Similarly, the observed accelerations of these objects were far
in excess of those of ordinary aircraft. They exhibited an ability to maneuver in such a
way as to avoid being intercepted, so that the investigators felt themselves forced to
conclude that the objects were "under intelligent control. " No terrestrial craft could
behave in such a manner, ergo they must be extraterrestrial!
That, gentlemen, was the position of the military in 19491 And today, twenty
years later, the two previous speakers have said essentially the same thing. In brief, they
are saying that they sup- port the extra-terrestrial hypothesis (ETH) simply because they
cannot find any other explanation acceptable to them. I see nothing to justify their
assumption that they are the ultimate authorities. I ask, is this science?
On such slender evidence McDonald has flatly stated that "the problem of
unidentified flying objects is, indeed, the greatest scientific problem of our times. " He
has further urged that Congress provide, for their study, a budget that would dwarf that of
NASA.
Hynek—I understand—has made a proposal to NASA for another study of UFO'
s. For your information I have no intention of making any such proposal.
They warn about the danger of repeating the historic boo-boo of the French
Academy about 1800 in failing to recognize that stones could fall from the sky. And yet
neither of them has produced a single artifact—let alone "a baby UFO," to use one of
Hynek' s phrases—in support of their sensational, wide-sweeping conclusions.
They further admonish us to remember that there will be a science of the twenty-
first, and of the thirtieth centuries. Presumably they thus seek to refute the old-fashioned
scientists who—like myself—continue to believe in the second law of thermodynamics,
the impossibility of perpetual motion, the laws of conservation of matter and energy, and
the laws of action and reaction.
Since the previous speakers have indicated their connection with the field of UFO'
s, let me briefly present my own qualifications. During three years of active service as.
Commander in the U.S. Navy during World War II, I had the responsibility of initiating
and interpreting research in the field of radio propagation in general and radar
phenomena in particular. I was head of the Section of Mathematical and Physical
Research for Naval Communications, in Naval Operations.
I summarized the results of some of these studies in a book. There I cited startling
examples of what we then called "anomalous propagation. "
The phenomena were indeed "anomalous" when we first encountered them. No
one had foreseen that these short radar waves, whose range was supposed to coincide
roughly with the optical horizon, would sometimes follow the earth' s curvature for
thousands of miles and produce false targets that conf-used the armed forces. In the
Mediterranean a cruiser shelled and reported sinking a target that later proved to be a
false image of the island of Malta. At last report, Malta still exists. From a distance of
600 nautical miles, a task force in the Pacific witnessed the Japanese evacuation of Kiska
and ignored it because they didn't' t know anything about anomalous propagation. Proper
interpretation of the radar record would have enabled our task force to engage with the
Japanese fleet and inflict severe losses upon them. I think you can see why such problems
were vitally important to Naval Operations.
It was evident to many of us that a radar phenomenon analogous to optical mirage
might be involved. And so I turned toward meteorological optics for clues. The subject
was intensely interesting. The "Wave Propagation Committees of the Joint and Combined
Chiefs of Staff, of which I was a member and later chairman, met weekly to discuss such
problems. We directed research,' both U.S., and Allied, toward a solution of this question.
The key to the problem was indeed temperature inversion: layers of cold air close
to the earth' s surface with the temperature increasing upward for a time. The region
below the temperature maximum was called a "duct" because it tended to trap and guide
the radio waves around the earth' s surface. Moisture content as well as temperature
proved to be important. Whether or not a radio wave remained in the duct depended on
the wavelength.
We still encountered difficulties. Nature is never as uniform as our equations
assume. The earth' s surface is rough and irregular. The vertical distribution of
temperature varies from point to point in an unpredictable manner. One can never have
all the data necessary to achieve a full mathematical solution. So we did our best on a
statistical basis. We defined a "trapping index, " in terms of moisture content;
temperature gradient, duct height, and wavelength.
Our researches in the radar field turned up numerous cases of false targets and
apparent trapping when the trapping index was much less than the simple theory
indicated. We sometimes encountered dozens of false targets in an area where we were
sure no real targets existed. Of course one can never know the temperature and moisture
distribution over the entire area, but only near those regions where a sounding balloon
has been sent up. From such studies we surmised that irregularities in the atmosphere—
such as bubbles of hot air-- often produce false targets even when the trapping index is
less than the critical figure.
Now let us examine a few specific cases, first of radar and then of optical
phenomena. I have already pointed out that—in my opinion—the views expressed by
McDonald and Hynek are highly subjective. It is very hard to pin either of them down.
Although both have spoken volumes on the subject, their writings are extremely meager.
For McDonald' s views I turn to three sources: some of his. numerous press releases, a
pamphlet published by NICAP, and Hearings before the Committee on Science and
Astronautics, U. S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, July 29, 1968, other-
wise known as the Roush Report, since it represented a symposium chaired by Hon. J.
Edward Roush of Indiana.
For Hynek' s views I must turn to the same Roush Report, to an earlier
Congressional Hearing, or to two articles in those well- known scientific journals. The
Saturday Evening Post and Playboy magazine.
When, in the hot summer of 1952, a multitude of radar saucers invaded
Washington, D. C. , with concentration over the National Airport I felt quite at home.
Here v/ere all the familiar features of anomalous propagation with its partial trapping. In
confusion and fear, the authorities closed the National airport and ordered aircraft from
Andrews Air Force Base to try to intercept the Unknowns. The jets, directed by radar,
roared into the air and found absolutely nothing. A few reported seeing distant lights but
they weren't clear at all about it. The lights could have been stars, ground mirages,
meteors, or false images on the retina.
The atmospheric conditions persisted for two days and repeated themselves five
days later. Still no UFO' s! No intercepts! But this failure did not discourage the
Ufologists. As one sensation monger wrote, "It was bad enough to know that UFO' s were
flying over Washington, but to find that they knew how to make themselves invisible was
frightening! "
In the midst of this confusion I released the facts to the newspapers. I attributed
the cause to a form of anomalous propagation not fully understood perhaps but no cause
for worry. No UFO' s. And General Samford, a few days later, affirmed my position.
Studies by the U.S. Weather Bureau and the Air Force supported my views. And so does
the Condon report. It was not surprising, I said, to expect bubbles of hot air over
Washington.
Now what does McDonald have to say about my views ? How does he proceed? I
call your special attention to his methods because they are typical of his evaluations in
other cases.
I quote from the Roush report. He says: "I have interviewed five of the CAA
personnel involved in this case and four of the commercial airline pilots involved, I have
checked the radiosonde data • against the well-known radar propagation relations, and I
have studied the CAA report subsequently published on the event. " He then states: "The
refractive index gradient, even after making allowance for instrument lag, was far too low
for ' ducting' or 'trapping' to occur," He continues in this vein for a couple of paragraphs,
quoting this or that witness or authority in support of his final conclusion: "I am afraid it
is difficult to accept the official explanations for the famous Washington National Airport
sightings. "
This kind of argument—I submit—is hardly science. The basic data, consisting of
the observers reports, obtained under conditions of panic, are clearly questionable. Those
who made the reports are highly biased because they want to justify their original
conclusions. The only hard data bearing on .the question consist, of radio-sonde measures
from several isolated points. What does McDonald know about the general propagation
conditions over the entire Washington area? Nothing at all! He clearly just wants to
believe that the UFO' s are real and arbitrarily ignores the hard evidence. It was true that
severe trapping did not occur. But this was one of the marginal cases of partial trapping.
Harder to recognize but the evidence is unmistakable.
Let me give you a sighting, as reported in the Denver Post in January 1968. The
headline read: "30 Citizens Sight UFO. One of the best-verified sightings of a UFO in
recent months was reported in Castle Rock, a small community 30 miles south of Denver.
Deputy Sheriff Weimer said about 12 ' reliable citizens' " - I wonder why they put
"reliable citizens" in quotation marks- "reported seeing a large, bubble-shaped- object
flying over the town between 6:10 and 6:25 p. m.
"Morris Fleming, director of the Douglas County Civil Defense Agency, said
about 30 persons saw the object.
"Howard Ellis said that ' all of a sudden about a dozen lights shined on me. ' He
said the lights were ' all the color of car head- lights that have mud on them. '
"Phelps said he didn't see the bubble-shaped object, but, instead, a big, real bright
light. Not a brilliant light, but a bright one." He said that the light, which moved at
different speeds, seemed to be about 600 feet high and at least 25 feet in diameter.
"The object ' shot straight up and disappeared, shooting out a couple of balls of
flame, ' Ellis said. He thought the egg- shaped bubble was about 50 feet long, 20 feet
wide and 20 feet deep.
"Fleming said the Douglas County Civil Defense Agency would administer a
blood test to Ellis on Wednesday to determine if any ' radiation or unknown or foreign
matter is in his blood stream. ' "
A remarkable and spectacular UFO! Grist for the mill of the ufologists! - And so
it would be today and forever, except for a small notice in the same paper two days later.
Under the headline, "Mother of Two Young Scientists Identifies UFO, " we read
"A slightly embarrassed Castle Rock mother came forth Thursday with an explanation for
the UFO viewed and reported by some 30 persons Tuesday night.
" The UFO," Mrs. Dietrich explained, "was built by her two sons Tom, 14, and
Jack, 16. Tom learned how to make the thing in science class at school, and he was
showing us how to do it, " she said . "It actually was a clear plastic dry-cleaning bag, a
small one, the kind that comes on a suit jacket, " Mrs. Dietrich said.
Let me come back to a case I know something about because I was the observer
and McDonald has questioned either my veracity or my conclusions. Flying in the Arctic
zone, near Bering Strait on March 3, 1955, I observed a bright UFO shoot in toward the
air- craft from the southwestern horizon. Flashing green and red lights, it came to a
skidding stop about 300 feet--as nearly as I could judge-- from the aircraft. Its apparent
diameter was about one-third that of the full moon. It executed evasive action,
disappearing over the horizon and then returning until I suddenly recognized it as an out-
of-focus image of the bright star Sirius. The sudden disappearance was due to the
presence of a distant mountain that momentarily cut off light from the star.
McDonald, "analyzing" this sighting, characteristically and accusingly reports: "I
have discussed that sighting with a number of astronomers, and not one is aware of
anything that has ever been seen by any astronomer that approximates such an instance. "
Here we go again! He questions the observation because I did not show how the index of
refraction could have produced such an effect. The same procedure. Interviewing selected
and unidentified witnesses. Significantly, he did not interview me. I ask how many
astronomers have seen a bright star just on their optical horizon from an altitude of 20,
000 feet? With refraction, the object would lie about 1 1/2 degrees below the geometrical
horizon. McDonald makes the absurd claim that such an observation would require "a
peculiarly axially- symmetric distribution of refractive index, which miraculously
followed the speeding aircraft along as it moved through the atmosphere, that it seems
quite hopeless to explain what Menzel has reported seeing in terms of refraction effects. "
Here is a man who, on the basis of a few scattered radiosonde observations
rejected anomalous propagation as an explanation of the 1952 Washington sightings.
Now he implies that I need detailed retractive measurements through hundreds of miles
of atmosphere tangential to the earth' s surface--much of it over the USSR--before he can
accept my observation as valid! Nor is his statement correct that an axially symmetrical
distribution of refractive index would be necessary. He is obviously unaware of an
analysis I made some years ago, of the "random walk" of a light beam through an
atmosphere consisting of irregular layers. You can see, perhaps, why I distrust his views
and opinions. McDonald is probably disturbed because I claim--and prove-- that many of
his classical sightings have a similar explanation, explicable as bright stars or planets on
the optical horizon. Incidentally, the ufologists were quick to get his message. One of the
leading proponents of ETH wrote that Dr. Menzel saw in Alaska a real UFO and wasn't
capable of identifying what he saw.
Let' s have another example of McDonald' s scientific method—an Air Force case
both of us have studied in depth. This was a sighting from the airport in Salt Lake City,
October 3, 1961. Harris, a private pilot, on take-off noticed an object shaped like a silvery
pencil which proved to be not a plane. It appeared to be metallic. As Harris tried to
intercept it, the UFO moved away and finally, with a sudden burst of speed, faded away
into the distance. During all this time ground observers re- ported no motion whatever.
There are many details corroborating the identification of the UFO as a sundog
phenomenon, more properly called parhelia. McDonald claims that the UFO could not
have been a sundog. He reported "the skies were almost cloudless. " Now this condition
with reference to sundogs sounds as if he had said "It couldn't have been a rainbow
because it had almost stopped raining. " For sundogs require only a very thin layer of
cirrus, to become visible. Later, without explanation for his change of mind, he stated that
the skies were "completely clear. "
For his second point McDonald objected that a sundog would have occurred
either 22° to the left or the right of the sun and at a higher elevation. On the contrary, the
lower tangential arc—theoretically and practically—lies directly beneath the sun, a
pencil-shaped object, at an altitude in close agreement with Harris' estimate of elevation.
Moreover, parhelia—like rainbows—are centered in the eye of the observer. You can no
more intercept a sundog than you can a rainbow. It .is well known that parhelia possess a
metallic sheen, but that does not indicate the presence of metal in the apparition.
McDonald blindly accepts the observer's conclusion that he had seen a solid, metallic
object.
Let me give you one final example: one of the classic sightings by Eastern Airline
pilots Chiles and Whitted near Montgomery, Alabama, in July 1948. They saw what
appeared to be a huge, cigar-shaped, wingless aircraft. A brilliant blue glow accompanied
the object and red-orange flames shot from the rear. Hynek identified this UFO as a
bright meteor and, after seeing and studying the official record, I concurred with this
identification. I further noted that many exceptionally bright meteors had been observed
that night by amateur astronomers all over the country, because it was the date of the
delta Aquarid shower. McDonald belabors me for even implying that the meteor might
have been a delta Aquarid, which actually I did not do. He accuses me of glossing "over
the reported rocking of the DC-3. " Nonsense! There was no mention of such "rocking" in
the official report, only in some of the fictionalized reports by ufologists.
McDonald's sole contribution—as far as I can find out—has been his re-
interviewing of more than 500 UFO witnesses. As an interviewer, I am sure McDonald is
skillful enough to find support forhis ETH hypothesis. The evidence at best is only
subjective. But is this a new way of doing science? Without experiment or theory, and
using only interviews, one can make a case for just about any concept whatever.
This is not science. With McDonald and the other believers, every UFO is
immediately considered as from outer space--and they put the burden on us non-believers
to prove them wrong. I ask, should not they bring to us a better documented case than we
have heard today--if they want us to take them seriously.
Now let me turn to Dr. Hynek. I confess I am much more sympathetic to his
viewpoint than I am to that of McDonald. He is somewhat more cautious in his claims
and does not come straight out in his support of ETH. Instead he implies that some vastly
important scientific phenomenon may lie behind the UFO mystery.
Or that there is some big secret, which he hopes to find out. Some basic discovery
like that of radioactivity.
I quite understand why he would not wish to take a position that might stand in
the way of such a discovery. I wouldn't want to obstruct the advance of science either. On
the other hand I think there is one far greater danger, that of fostering what the late Dr.
Irving Lanmuir termed "pathological science, " and he included flying saucers among his
items.
Most of you here in this room are too young to recall the infamous N-rays,
mitogenetic radiation, or the Allison effect, yet these topics were as highly debated in
their time as UFO' s are today. N-rays were supposed to be a mysterious radiation emitted
spontaneously by various metals. After being passed through a spectroscope whose lenses
and prisms were of solid aluminum, these rays impinged on the dark-adapted eye, which
detected them as flashes of visible light. Nearly 100 papers on N-rays were published in
Comptes Rendus in the first half of 1904 alone. And the French Academy awarded
Blondlot the Lalande prize of 20, 000 francs and its Gold Medal for the "discovery. " The
irrepressible R. W. Wood cleverly exposed N-rays as a figment of Blondlot's
imagination--self-delusion. The "flashes" were.. purely physiological, an optical illusion,
a natural reaction of the unreliable human retina. To see them yourself, simply go into a
completely darkened room. Wait till your eyes have become dark-adapted and watch. In
time a you will see/psychedelic pattern of pulsing glow, punctuated from time to time by
bright flashes. A phenomenon undoubtedly also responsible for many UFO reports.
 APPENDIX 9-A 52

SCIENTISTS CLASH
ate launching^ V tfrffs/well
an audience of 500 newspaper financed investigation by "tof
editors, two scientist! dashed caliber scientists from ail over
sharply Saturday'« whether the world."
"Dying saucers" are nonsense In opposition, Menzel said he
or "a serious phenomenon has spent many years ex-
which u r g e n 11 y demands amining the evidence of UFO
scientific investigation." sightings and is convinced that
Involved in the bristling ex- they can be explained by purely
change at the oonventlon of the natural phenomena.
American Society of Newspaper Be said some of the ap-
Editors were Or. James E. partitions are mirages, while
[McDonald, research physicist others result from reflections of
and profestsr .or meteorology atthe sun or moon from the_jir-
the University aTMsma, and borne ice-cryififs, bail-
or. Donald lieniel, professor of l i g h t n l n g , electromagnetic
astrophysics u d astronomy at "plasmas" generated by higb-
Harvard. tension electric power lines sim-
McDonald said that on the ba- ple hallucinations and most of
sis of a 12-month intensive study all by the visual "after Im-
of UFO's (unidentified flying ages."
objects), be has become con- The latter occur in the human
vinced that "something is going eyes after looking i t bright
on here of greatest scientific light or taking too long into
interest which is being swept darkness or at a uniform color
under the rug by ridicule." such as blue sky.
He charged that an Air Force "The very term 'UFO' is
investigation of UFO sightings misnomer," Memei said. "These
has been "superficiary and sightings are not unidentifiable,
incompetently handled" and has they often are not flying and
been governed by i desire to many are not objects i t alL"
debunk rather than to as- He scoffed at Investing more
certain. money or scientific talents In
McDonald urged an immedi- UFO investigation.

http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch.06.B.pdf
 8 APPENDIX 2-A

fj/rThjyfOj 6atr7.ll tTle-/*yj'.

o/^c ii^ 1.-. ^
ivy ,

J. - ^ '*

t<j y — v

- Mrr^X,^. U. OAIT f A x c i ^ U O S - ^ / i A y . 7-f

- QJU. « A ^ J ^ A ^ ^ ^ X , ^TT^h

McD
<">al<l's h a n d w r i t t e n n o t e s o n t h e b a c k of a c o p y o
Phil Ideas article. "Man, UFOa are Identified as P l a s m a s . "
cpJSp °ct?b?r 1<)66 i s s
« e Of A V I A T I O N WEEK AND
SPACI. T E C H N O L O G Y . M c D o n a l d ' s n o t e s p o i n t u p e r r o r s in Klass'
p l a s m a " t h e o r y to e x p l a i n U F O s .

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 08. C.pdf

 APPENDIX 9-A 8

'SAUCER
EXPERT
FROM U.S.
l top American scientist flew
into Sydney lost night on
a "secret mission" to in-
vestigate unidentified fly-
ing objects in Australia.
'e is Professor J. E. Mc- At Ma&ot airport last night. and he told us that he
Donald (pictured), of the Professor McDonald re- wanted to meet people
Institute of Atmospheric fused to reveal any details who have seen unidenti-
Physics at Arizona Uni- of his mission. fied flying objects," he
versity. "I have nothing to say," he said.
!
e is expected to meet lead- said. "I hive certain ob- "We plan to introduce Pro-
ing scientists in Sydney, jectives and it Is not my fessor McDonald to four
Melbourne and Canberra, hahit to talk about them people in Sydney who
nnd to interview 'Austra- until they are accomp- have seen objects.
lians who claim to have lished." "He will meet others in Mel-
seen flying saucers and Professor McDonald refused bourne.
other types of unidentified to say whether Australia "He is the most distinguish-
flying objects. was considered a fertile ed flying saucer expert to j
country for flying saucer visit Australia."
sightings.
"Do you think the Press
will treat this matter
seriously?" he asked.

Govt, grant
Officials of the Sydney
branch of Unidentified
Flying Object Investiga-
tion Centre met Professor
McDonald.
The president of the centre,
Dr M. Lindtner, said he
was surprised, and em-
barrassed by Professor
McDonald's secrecy.
"We have been correspond-
ing with the professor.

http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch.06. B.pdf
544 APPENDIX 9-F

- 4 -
Time p.m.
9.46 Overhead U.F.O, re-appears, i6 hovering.
10.00 Still there, stationary.
10,10 Hovering, gone behind cloud,
10,50 Very high, hovering in clear patch of sky
between clouds,
10.50 - Very overcast, no sign of U.F.O.
11,4 - Heany rain.
i u . at

Data sheet og observation of U.i'.O's

• 6.45 - 11,4 p.m.
26/6/59.
(sgd.) WilliaA ^J'fillX
/ >
Rough sketch of U.F.O.as " .
it appeared from position j'$JU!t i) XLlLt
of observation. ' — * <J
// .» 1 - 4 men

v J
^ — ^ (from waist up)
C "men" illuminated.

' w v

Appearances of men '

1. 2 & 3 *t 6.55 P.m.
WllllamgSlll
Stephen Gill Koi. C^JUL

Appearances of men at 7.00 p.m. 0 .

1 f g
SUJitfi G i l S ^ i i Z U ^ U * . <r*M- M**-'

Ananias Rarata .
Nessie Mol fyx -« ^ *
Appearances of men & light shaft at 7.10 p.m.
1, 5. * & 2 Lin that orSer) j^juuJ-^aL,
m m ffiii'iii
Ananias Rarata A «*-«•- -' —-> fl*^^-**
Appearances of men 1 & 2 and light.shaft at 7.12
C p.m.
1
William ft. 6111 XZuJ^IAJL"
Stephen Gill Roi
Ananias Rarata •
This paper drawn up and signed by chief observer
at 7.30 p.m.
26/6/59.

...28-page document at http://5thworld.eom/Firestorm/Apps/ch.08.G.html

 A P P E N D I X4-A, continued533

10/21/66

T H E PROBLEM OF T H E U N I D E N T I F I E D PI TXNG OBJECTS

Janes E. McDonald*

(Summary of a talk given October 19, 196C, to the D i s t r i c t of

Columbia Chapter of the A m e r i c a n Mateoroloc-leal Socloty,
Washington, D. C . To m o a t a numbar o f raquaota for a b r i e f
summation of the above talk, this summary has b e e n preparod
as an extension and revision of a short digest o f w h i c h a
limited number of copies w o r e available at the time of the
AMS meeting.)

A B S T R A C T . conclusions drawn from a c o n t i n u i n g , intensive study

of the problem of the UFOs (Unidentified Plying O b j e c t s ) w e r e
summarized. A l t h o u g h a t m o s p h e r i c p h e n o m e n a (ball lightning,
mirages, scintillation, parhelia, anomalous r a d a r p r o p a g a t i o n ,
etc.) have been invoked to account for many UPO reports, such
explanationn have been neriounly m i s a p p l i e d . Specific e x a m p l e s
were d i s c u s s e d .
Careful scrutiny of hundreds of the b« t U t U P O r e p o r t s from
quite crodible obnervors during the p a s t t»nnty y e a r s (and longer)
reveals that not only does it seem lmposslk to e x p l a i n thorn
away in terms of atmospheric physics, b u t • .Ino the o t h e r officially
proposed categories of g e o p U y o i a a l , estrone (ileal, technological,
and p s y c h o l o g i c a l h y p o t h e s e s fall to e n c o m r i n s the UFO p h e n o m e n a .
Reasons were given Cor regarding as probabl'i t h e least unsatisfactory
hypothesis that of the e x t r a t e r r e s t r i a l nature of the U P O s . Sorious
ahortoomTncjs in the pnot o f f i c i a l inventive tions o f the U F O problem
wore discussed, and a radical change in the level of scientific
study of the p r o b l e m wan urged.

O n e m i g h t group past and currant e x p l a n a t i o n s o f the unidenti-

fied flying objects (UFOs) into eight broad c a t e g o r i e s comprising
the following spectrum of UFO hypotheses t
1. Hoaxos, fabrications, and frauds*
2. Hallucinations, m a s s hysteria, rumor phenomena)
3. Lay mil interpretations of w e l l - k iown p h y s i c a l phenomena
(meteox ologleal, a a t r o n w i l c a l , o p t i c a l , etc.);
4• Advanced technologies ('-est vehicles, satellites, re-entry
effects)i
5. Poorly understood p h y s i c a l phenoiiena (rare a t m n a p h e r i c -
electrical effects, aloud p h e n o m e n a , p l a s m a s of natural
o r technological o r i g i n , etc.)j

• Senior Physicist, Instituto of Atmospheric P h y s i c s , and Professor,

L'cpartJnunl: of Meteorology, The University of A r i z o n a , Tucson, Arizona.

.. 4-page document at http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 08. C.pdf

 546 A P P E N D I X 9-F

that this experienced pilot had told in con-

sternation - and a journalistic era was thereby
UPOs i GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM OP OCR TIMES?
James E. McDonald
As one digs back through the subsequent
(Prepared for preeantaclon before the 19S7 history of the UPO problem, it be COM • evident
annual M e t i n g of the American Society of that a wave of UPO sightings actually began
Newspaper Editors, Washington, O. C., April 32, severel deys prior to Arnold's observation, but
it was not until about July 4 that press
1967.) interest rose exponentially and "flying
saucers" were headline news throughout the
country. I have recently had the opportunity
SUMMARY - An inteneive analytit of hundrtdt of of reviewing a compilation of UPO sightings
outstanding UFO rmportt, and pereonal inter- for those first few weeks of what is usually
vitut w i t * doming of key uitnmeeee in important regarded aa the beginning of UPO observations,
oatee, have ltd me to the oonolution that t k ( a compilation being prepared by T . R. Bloecher
UFO p rob lorn it on« of emocedingly gnat toitn- for publication later thia year, probably by
tifio importance. Inetead of deeerving tho the National Investigations Committee on Aerial
detoription of "noneenet problem", uhioh i t hat Phenomena (MXCAP). Although Z waa already
had during twenty yean of official mi»han- faailiar with much UPO history when I began to
dling. it warrant* the attention of ecience, examine Bloecher's sutterial, I waa atartled to
prate, and public, not Juct uithin the United see the large number of reports of high-speed
S t a t e * but throughout the uorld, ae a eerioue unconventional objects that flooded into press
problem of firet-order tignifioanoe. offices throughout the country in that early
P«riod, far more than Z had ever gueesed.
The outrioue manner in uhioh thit problem Only e email fraction of the reports were
ham been kept out of eight and maintained in carried by national w i r e services, ao it hes
diertpute it examined here. Maeio responsi- been neceesary for Bloecher to dig into old
bility for i t s eyetematio mierepreeentation newspaper filee in many major U. S. cities to
lice with Air Toroe Project Bluebook uhioh, on unearth the dlmeneione of that wave of sight-
tht baeie of firethand knowledge, I oan only ings.
detoribe ae having bttn aarritd out in the pact
doten yeart in a quit* tuptrfioial and incom-
petent manner. I cite this early period aa exemplifying
•uch that has happend subsequently, although
Taare of Air Foroe aeeuranc'et havm kept most of the reports or that period nave naver
the public, the preee, Congreee, and tht toien- been checked ee w e r e leter caaea, ao one cannot
tifie community under the mieimprtttion that yet regard the evidence for all the 1947 sight-
tht UFO problem woe being etudied uith thor- ings as conclusive. A mixture of denials led
oughnttt and eoientifio onportioe, Thit I havt to a rather quick fall-off in news value of the
found to bt oomplctely falee. Illuetrative flying saucers" in late 1947. Hoaxes were
txampltt, drawn from a vtry large tamplt, will headlined with about as much emphasis as ware
bt dttoribtd to demonetrate thit. reports from experienced observers. The pub-
It it urgtd that the time it long overdue lished reports fell off, and for awhile it
for a full-maalt Congrtttional inveetigation of appeared that one had witneaeed juat another
the UFO problem, an inveetigation in uhioh per- ailly season phenomenon," aa aome newspaper-
monm outeide of official Air Force ohanntlt oan men described it. ^
put on rtcord the at founding history of the way But, surprisingly, the UPO reports began
»>i uhioh a problem of potentially enormourn cropping up again. Here and there they
toitntific importance hoc been swept under a received prees coverage, mostly non-wire
rug of ridicule and micrepreeentaticn for two coverage in looel papers. By 194S, consider-
ably m o r e feporte were coming in, and military
The hypotheeie that the UFOt might be concern (which had probably never died out)
vae responsible for establishing an official
extraterreetrial probee, deepite i t s tttmingly
cmtngly investigatory project. Project Sign (often
low a priori probability, it euggeeted at tht loosely called "Project SaGcer"). sign Zt, set
leaet uneatitfactory hypotheeie for tmitplaining 2 < J « ! U : r y aa, 1948, With headquarter; at
tht nou-availabia UFO evidence. Wright-Patterson APB, within the then newly-
creattd united S t a t e . Air Porce. That date
INTRODUCTION b
* 9 i n n i n g of Air Porce responsi-
June 24, 1967, will mark the twentieth bility for investigating UPO phenomena, a
anniversary of what we might whimsically call responsibility it carries to this date. I
the -birth of the flying saucer.* Por juat think i.t xs rather striking that USAP was
twenty years earlier, on the afternoon of
d
June 24, 1947, Kenneth Arnold, a Boise busi- fya old wh
*n At
handed the
ness man flying in hie private aircraft, UPO problsa in 1941.
reported seeing a formation of nine disc-like to3 ct n
objects skimming along at high speed between j ,J! * ?f« to "Project Grudge"
him and distant Mt. Rainier. He said that they in February, 19 49, and, with upa and downs
Grudge continued until .bout March, 1952? ihen
moved in an unconventional manner "like a It v a . superseded by "Project Bluebook?" an
saucer would if you skipped it across the organisational entity that . u r Z l ^ Z T ^ a y ^
water. A reporter who interviewed Arnold
after he landed that evening in Pendleton,
Oregon, coined the phraee "flying saucers" to wav.ITTf™£f 1 , 5 2 b t o u
9 h t o n e of the greetest
add a feature-story twist to an obaervation

...28-page document at http://5thworld.eom/Firestorm/Apps/ch.08.G.html

UFOS: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM OF OUR TIMES? James E. McDonald

(Prepared for presentation before the 1967 annual meeting of the American Society of
Newspaper Editors, Washington, D. C., April 22, 1967.)

***

SUMMARY - An intensive analysis of hundreds of outstanding UFO reports, and personal

interviews with dozens of key witnesses in important eases, have led me to the conclusion that
the UFO problem is one of exceedingly great scientific- importance. Instead of deserving the
description of "nonsense problem", which it has had during twenty years of official mishandling,
it warrants the attention of science, press, and public, not just within the United States hut
throughout the world, as a serious problem of first-order significance.
The curious manner in which this problem has been kept out of sight and maintained in disrepute
is examined here. Basic responsibility for its systematic misrepresentation lies with Air Force
Project Blue Book which, on the basis of firsthand knowledge. I can only describe as having
been carried out in the past dozen years in a quite superficial and incompetent manner.
Years of Air Force assurances have kept the public, the press. Congress, and the scientific
community under the misimpression that the UFO problem was being studied with thoroughness
and scientific expertise. This I have found to be completely false. Illustrative examples, drawn
from a very large sample, will be described to demonstrate this.

It is urged that the time ie long overdue for a full-scale Congressional investigation of the UFO
problem, an investigation in which persons outside of official Air Force channels can put on
record the astounding history of the way in which a problem of potentially enormous scientific
importance has been swept under a rug of ridicule and misrepresentation for two decades.
The hypothesis that the UFOs might be extraterrestrial probes, despite its seemingly low a priori
probability, is suggested as the least unsatisfactory hypothesis for explaining the now-available
UFO evidence.

INTRODUCTION
June 24, 1967, will mark the twentieth anniversary of what we might whimsically call the "birth
of the flying saucer." For just twenty years earlier, on the afternoon of June 24, 1947, Kenneth
Arnold, a Boise businessman flying in his private aircraft, reported seeing a formation of nine
disc-like objects skimming along at high speed between him and distant Mt. Rainier. He said that
they moved in an unconventional manner "like a saucer would if you skipped it across the
water." A reporter who interviewed Arnold after he landed that evening in Pendleton, Oregon,
coined the phrase "flying saucers" to add a feature-story twist to an observation that this
experienced pilot had told in consternation - and a journalistic era was thereby opened.
As one digs back through the subsequent history of the UFO problem, it becomes evident that a
wave of UFO sightings actually began several days prior to Arnold's observation, but it was not
until about July 4 that press interest rose exponentially and "flying saucers" were headline news
throughout the country. I have recently had the opportunity of reviewing a compilation of UFO
sightings for those first few weeks of what is usually regarded as the beginning of UFO
observations, a compilation being prepared by T. R. Bloecher for publication later this year,
probably by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). Although I
was already familiar with much UFO history when I began to examine Bloecher's material, I was
startled to see the large number of reports of high-speed unconventional objects that flooded into
press offices throughout the country in that early period, far more than I had ever guessed. Only
a small fraction of the reports were carried by national wire services, so it has been necessary for
Bloecher to dig into old newspaper files in many major U. S. cities to unearth the dimensions of
that wave of sightings.
I cite this early period as exemplifying much that has happened subsequently, although most of
the reports of that period have never been checked as were later cases, so one cannot yet regard
the evidence for all the 1947 sightings as conclusive. A mixture of denials led to a rather quick
fall-off in news value of the "flying saucers" in late 1947. Hoaxes were headlined with about as
much emphasis as were reports from experienced observers. The published reports fell off, and
for awhile it appeared that one had witnessed just another "silly season phenomenon," as some
newspaper- men described it.
But, surprisingly, the UFO reports began cropping up again. Here and there they received press
coverage, mostly non-wire coverage in local papers. By 1948, consider- ably more reports were
coming in, and military concern (which had probably never died out) was responsible for
establishing an official investigatory project. Project Sign (often loosely called "Project Saucer").
Sign was set up January 22, 1948, with headquarters at Wright-Patterson AFB, within the then
newly- created United States Air Force. That date marks the beginning of Air Force
responsibility for investigating UFO phenomena, a responsibility it carries to this date. I think it
is rather striking that USAF was exactly seven days old when it was handed the UFO problem in
1948.
Project Sign gave way to "Project Grudge" in February, 1949; and, with ups and downs, Grudge
continued until about March, 1952. when it was superseded by "project Blue Book," an
organizational entity that survives today, still headquartered at Wright-Patterson AFB. The
summer of 1952 brought one of the greatest waves of UFO reports on record, and the first Blue
book Officer. Capt. E. J. Ruppelt, has related (Ref. 1) the hectic efforts of his staff of about ten
Air Force personnel to keep pace with the reports that poured into WPAFB that summer. The
famous Washington National Airport sightings of July 19 and 26, 1952, which included CAA
radar observations, commercial airlines pilot observations, and ground observations, created the
nearest thing to a panic-situation that has ever evolved from UFO reports. After a White House
query and numerous Congressional and press demands for an accounting, a press conference was
called and the entire series of observations were "explained" as due to anomalous radar
propagation and mirage-type refraction events. (I have carefully examined these official
explanations and find them entirely inadequate, incidentally.) Although press attention subsided
in the face of these assurances. Air Force concern behind-the-scenes continued, and early in the
following year a panel of scientists was assembled to review the situation.

THE ROBERTSON REPORT AND THE CIA

The Robertson Panel (chaired by Cal Tech theoretical physicist H. P. Robertson) met in January,
1953, and reviewed selected UFO reports apparently about eight in detail and about fifteen
others on a briefing-basis. Two working days of case-reviews followed by two days of
summarizing -and report-drafting constituted the entire activity of this Panel during the period
January 14-17, 1953. I describe that Panel's work in more than passing manner because I believe
that the Robertson Panel marked a turning point in the history of UFO investigations.
On the first of three visits to Project Blue Book at WPAFB last summer, I asked to see the full
report of the Robertson Panel and was given that report by the present Blue book officer, Maj.
Hector Quintanilla. He informed me that he had "routinely declassified" it earlier on the basis of
the "12-year rule" covering DOD documents. I made extensive notes from it and discussed its
content with Maj. Quintanilla. On my next trip to Blue Book, on June 20, I requested a Xerox
copy of the report. The copy was prepared for me, but not given to me because a superior officer
suggested that since "another agency" was involved, they'd have to check before releasing it to
me. I reminded them that I already had extensive notes on it and that I had already discussed its
contents with many scientific colleagues around the country. I was assured that their check was
perfunctory and that I would be sent the copy in a week or two.
In fact, I never received it. The' "other agency," the Central Intelligence Agency, ruled that this
document did not come under the "12-year rule" and reclassified it. Although a so-called
"sanitized version" was later released, the full document remains undisclosed. A number of
sections of the "sanitized version" have been published by John Lear, who asked for full release
but got only the partial version (Ref. 2).
I studied the full version in unclassified status. Military and scientific staff -it WPAFB have been
fully aware of my possession of this information for months. I have discussed it with many
scientists. I regard it as open information in no way bearing on the security of the United States,
and I shall now describe its contents here. I urge that press and Congress demand full and
immediate release of the entire text of the Robertson Report, including the CIA
recommendations which have had such strong bearing on the way in which the Air Force has
subsequently treated the UFO problem, so that other scientists can make their own evaluations of
the manner in which scientific pursuit of the UFO problem was derailed in 1953.
The scientists comprising the Robertson Panel (Robertson, Luis W. Alvarez, Lloyd V. Berkner,
Samuel A. Goudsmit, Thornton Page), on the basis of what I must regard as a far too brief
examination of the evidence already in Air Force files as of January, 1953, ruled (first) that there
was no evidence of any hostile action in the UFO phenomena. In particular they ruled (secondly)
that there was no evidence for existence of any "artifacts of a hostile foreign power" in any of the
records which were submitted to them. And (thirdly) they recommended an educational program
to acquaint the general public with the nature of various natural phenomena seen in the skies
(meteors, vapor trails, haloes, balloons, etc.), the objective being to "remove the aura of mystery"
that the unidentified objects had "unfortunately" acquired.
In view of the rather limited sample of UFO evidence which was laid before this Panel, such
conclusions were perhaps warranted. The crucial shortcoming was this: There is no evidence that
any of these five men had previous extensive contact with the UFO problem. The principal cases
they examined excluded some of the most "Interesting and significant cases already on record
(e.g.. United Airlines, 1947; Chiles-Whitted, 1948; C. B. Moore, 1949; Tombaugh, 1949;
Farmington, 1950; Chicago & Southern Airlines, 1950; TWA Airlines, 1950; Seymour Hess,
1950; Mid-Continent Airlines, 1951; Nash-Fortenberry, 1952; and many other very significant
1952 sightings). And a mere two days of review of the UFO data (prior to going into report
drafting session) would not be enough for all the Newtons of science to sort out the baffling
nature of this problem. The only scientist present at these sessions who had already examined a
substantial number of reports was an associate member of the Panel, Dr. J. Alien Hynek. When I
asked him last June why he did not then speak out, on the basis of his then five years experience
as chief scientific consultant to the Air Force on LTD matters, he told me thait he was "only
small potatoes then" and that it would have been impossible for him to sway that eminent group.
In reflecting on. all that I have learned in the past year's work on this problem, I regard this four-
day session of the Robertson Panel as a pivotal point in UFO history. For instead of a
recommendation that the problem be taken out of Air Force hands ton grounds of non-hostility of
the UFOs) and turned over to some scientific agency for adequate study, there was a most
regrettable fourth recommendation made, in addition to the three cited above, a recommendation
made at the specific request of CIA representatives present at the final sessions of "this
 APPENDIX 9 - A 547

' '.THE UNIVERSITY OF A R i l* KJ LN r\

T U C S O N , A R I Z O N A 85721

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS

DEPARTMENT OP PHYSICS

A p r i l J , 1968

MEMORANDUM TO: P r o f e s s o r James McDonald

I n s t i t u t e of Atmospheric Physics

CONCERNING: Support f o r Studying Unexplained Atmospheric and

Aerial Objects.

The Space Sciences Ccranittee voted not to support an extension

of your work on Unexplained Objects. This d e c i s i o n i s based on the
Committee's opinion t h a t the NASA I n s t i t u t i o n a l Grant was not intended
f o r use in gaining support f o r an i n v e s t i g a t i o n or f o r s t i r r i n g up
the s c i e n t i f i c and lay crar.u.nity in fevor of so..ie p a r t i c u l a r study
and t h a t we c a n ' t in good conscience s t r e t c h i t s nandate t h a t f a r .
We r e a l i z e , of course, t h a t t h e r e a r e overtones of s e l l i n g 60ne p o i n t
of view or another in every s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t h e t i t i s
q u i t e proper f o r the s c i e n t i f i c discussion of the r e s u l t s to become
heated in some c a s e s , but a s the emphasis of an i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h i f t s
t o p o l i t i c s (however necessary t h a t s h i f t may seem t o b e ) , we f e e l
the use of NASA g r a n t funds become-questionable.

The only consideration, t h a t has given us pause i s a thorough

respect f o r your own s c i e n t i f i c Judgment and acumen ( I need not p o i n t
out t h a t there a r e very few o t h e r s on campus who would have received
any support f o r UFO s t u d i e s from t h i s committee). Vie .ire c o - s t r a i n e d ,
however, t o follow our ovn j e s t judgment.
- •'/

A. B. Weaver, Chairman
Space Sciences Committee

ABW/eb

cc: Mr. Simmons

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 06. B.pdf

548 A P P E N D I X 9-F

Addendum - p. 1

The following l a a list of groups before whom formal talks (colloquia

and lectures) and discussions were presented by J. B. McDonald in the
period October, 1966 through March, 1968, in connection with his con-
tinuing studies of observations of anomalous aerial phenomena. (For
brevity, only group addressed and location are listed. Title and
emphasis varied from talk to talk.)

Date Group

Oct. 3, 1966 Colloquium, Dept. of Physics, Univ. Ariz.

Oct. 6 Colloquium, Dept. of Meteorology, Univ. Ariz.

Oct. 10 Aerospace-Hechanical Engineering Seminar, Univ. Ariz.

Oct. 19 Washington, D. C. Chapter, American Meteorological

Society

Oct. 26 Colloquium, Dept. of Psychology, Univ. Ariz.

Nov. 1 Staff, Steward Observatory.

Nov. 2 Tucson Amateur Astronomers Assn., Steward Observatory

Nov. 9 Planetary Atmospheres Seminar, Kitt Peak National

Observatory, Tucson,

Nov. 15 Seattle Chapter, American Meteorological Society,

Dept. of Meteorology, Univ. Washington.

Nov. 16 Conference, Dept, of Psychology, Univ. Washington,

Seattle.
Nov. 17 Staff, Dept. of Geophysics and Astronomy, RAND
Corporation, Santa Monica, California.

Dec. 6 Tucson Chapter, National Pilots Assn.

Dec. 8 Seminar, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Univ.

of Arizona.

Dec. 14 Joint colloquium, Arizona State University psychology

and sociology honoraries, Tenpe, Arizona.

Mar. 8, 1967 The University Club, Pioneer Uotel, Tucson.

Apr. 17 Scientific staff, National Science Foundation,

Washington, D. C.

Apr. 17 Staff, USAF Office of Information, SAFOI, Pentagon,

Washington, D. C.

...28-page document at http://5thworld.eom/Firestorm/Apps/ch.08.G.html

 APPENDIX 9 - C 549

MEMO
PHILIP J. KLASS s«pt. 16, 1968

Dear Mr. Froschi

Tho shocking mis-use of Navy r e s e a r c h f u n d s

c i t e d i n t h e enclosed a r t i c l e i s not only t r u e ,
b u t was condonod ( i f not oncouraged) by t h o
O f f i c o of Naval Research c o n t r a c t monitor who
was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o t e c t i n g Navy/taxpayer
interests.

Furthermore, tho s i t u a t i o n was allowed t o

continue f o r many months a f t o r i t was brought t o
tho a t t o n t i o n of ONR o f f i c i a l s .

I am prepared t o document t h e s e eharges i f

your I n t e r e s t w a r r a n t s .

MtGran-HW. Inc., 423 Njlt. htu Dldg.. yVathioyion. O.C. 20004

http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch.09.C.pdf
550 APPENDIX 9-F

THE UNIVERSITY OF A R I Z O N A
T U C S O N . A R I Z O N A 85721

INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS September 25, 1968

Dr. Robert A. Froach
Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Research and Development
Navy Department
Washington, V. C.
Dear Dr. Froschi
On September 17, I received a call from the contract monitor of
uy recently expired contract with the office of Naval Research, asking
me to comment on allegations in Jack Anderson's Washington Merry-Go-
Round column of Saturday, September 14, 1968. After hearing a brief
summary of passages which suggested that I have misspent Navy funds,
I wired tho Chief of Naval Research that Anderson/had seriously dis-
torted statements that 1 made to him, and I indicated that a latter
would follow commenting in more detail. —V.
You will axcuso me, I am sure, if^notjquite according to the con-
tract monitor's directions, I choose^o makfe my extended reply directly
to you, in the interests of economy o\tt£>e and first-handedness of
information. I choose this coup<nrH4ecause my contract is at present
expired, and I therefore foel/in a position to present ay side of the
case as an independent university professor with enough studies and
publications on atmospheric physics/to speak with sane background on
what ia, or is not, wojrK"relaC*<L-«6 the fiold of atmospheric physics.
Let me begin by /assuring you that, when Anderson stated that
"Dr. McDonald told tjus column that his flying saucer research and his
expenditurea had beenNiiiprbvad by the Navy", ha was either grossly
missing the point I explained to him in hia September 7 phone inter-
view, or olse he was trying for a spicier column than his information
warranted. Briefly, I told him that there are certain areas of overlap
between (1) problems for whose study I had ONR support, and (2) problems
of atmospheric physics bearing on the UFC problem. I believe 1 made it
entirely clear to Anderson that only such overlap aroas (meteorological
optica, atmospheric electricity, radar propagation anomaliea, etc.) and
not my other much more extensive* studies of the UFO problem have been
OSR-supported. His column gave readers a very different impression.
There were other errors in that column, but comment thereon is not per-
tinent here.
You cannot understand what is going on in all of this without ay
commenting a bit further on the Anderaon Interview and on some other
background matters. I have been seriously concerned with scientific
aspects of tho UFO problem for over two years. In that period, I have
spent a great deal of onergy in trying to get the scientific community
to take a new and much moro careful look at what I now beliave to be a
seriously neglected problem of potentially great importance in the UFO
area. My position thereon has received sufficient notice in national
publications and through my writing and speaking that I am frequently
contacted by writers and reporters three long-distance calla

...28-page document at http://5thworld.eom/Firestorm/Apps/ch.08.G.html

 December 14, 1968

Mr. J. C. Deyo
ONR Regional Repreaentative
Room 401, Spaca Sciences Building
University of Arixona
Tucson, Arixona 85721
Dear Mr. Deyoi
Attacheu ara tan copiat of a brlaf final report for Contract
No. !!onr-2173 (03) •

We havo mad a no attempt to summarize the work performed

under the contract. We believe that the most satiafactory
record of performance Ilea in tn» publications in the
formal literaturo which have been aubject to review by
other apocialiata in the fiold prior to publication and
alao are aubject to publiahed conmonta. In thia way the
work supported by ONR reachea the broadest poaalble coaxiunity
of aciantiata and alao permlta the non-specialist to knuw
that the work has bean appropriately reviewed prior to
publication.

In thin spirit we ara aapeclally proud to be able to present

aa our final report a formidable liat of 41 citationa in the
regular literature all of which carry an acknowledgment of
aupport from the Office of Naval Research.

Sincerely,

A, Richard Kaaaander, Jr.

Director
ARKimlt
Attachment
CCl J. Hughea

document at http://5thworld.eom/Firestorm/Apps/ch.09.E.html
552 APPENDIX 9 - F

Official government document detailing Capt. Richard T. Holder's

investigation of the Socorro case.

• p MPORT
te April 1964
_ X. Uahard T. HoUar, Captain, OU, 09J0U. PP fc«i«a (1— • i l i i . waa n o t i f y
tgr l / u Bteka, taoutira orflaar, O* 0, OSAO, that ha bad J u t k t > *>tlflad by Nr.
D. Artter a yraaa. Jr., Dradtetlala Ma. 3417, M m l k m Of InraetigaUcn, of t
imported UPO In the KM, U. Rleka Mid that Mr. Writ** m i d like for mm to aoutaat
Mm «t thi Stat* Police Offloa, Sooorra, i f poatfhla. X triad t o o a l l , lawuoceaaflrtly,
than started dressing. While dreealng, approximately J adnutoa l t U r . Nr. Drnm c-Oled
mm. Infomed u of tho UFO report. I stated that I would be at t t e offlLoo ( State
Polloa) in about 5 aimrt.ee. Mian I arrived Mr. Mrramm iotroduaad bteaalf, we eaeh
e t a l n e d tha othara Oredaitlala and toad than eat la factory. Offlaar Lamia I n ,
9ooorro Polio• Dapartaant, mm praaaot, and n i latreduaed bgr Mr. g n w a aa tha
witneee (only witneee i n i t i a l l y ) to tha UFO. Ma bath than lnterrlawod Offlaar Z w n .
and thia la aubatant l o l l y repraeented in n t l n t j r bgr tha aauleeed etataaanta. Ma thai
departed for tha aoana of tha raportod l a d i n g of tha UFO. te routo (Mr. Byrne.1 and I
Kant by tha saas vahlala) we atoppad by tha raairtanaa af Oft. Oaatla, KIXC SRC H.P.,
who than soooapenlod ua to tha alta a d aaaiatad in tha annlneat a a ( a a r a w t i
aid obaervatlone. F r e e a t whan we arrived vara Offlaar Zaaora, Offlaara Halite k H i -
l a f f , B i l l Pylaid, e l l of tha Seoorra Polio* M p a r t e a n t , «fa, adatad l a aadng the
measuraante, Mian we had aeaplotad anrarlnatlca o f t t e area, (rt Brntea, Offlaar ZO-
•ore, and I rat urn ad to tha atata Pallaa Offtea aateoarra,t h a s e r i a t e d tbaaa
reporte. Upon arrival at t t e efflaa I w t l n In tkl MOIN OMstW BulUla*. aa vara
informed by Map Ispaa, Sharif*'a OMlaa radio eparaaor, that a a n i l w l i l j ifcM
reiorte had boon called in by talapboaa af a blue flaaa 0# Ujfet l a tlM IIM, I-";1'!
sighting wae aada bgr Offlaar taaaora at appteadeataly 1750— I wae •illfte* te I t .
Illeka at approadaately 1910. Ibaaa reports Mara not antarad so tha dlMtabar'a log
ao no tlso so ttaaa raporta l a availahle — Ua dlapatahar India t r l that tha ' 1 n *
war. roughly atellar. Raporta vara ooapleted at vprozlnataly OOOO 25 April. I raoosated
that I ba notified in tte event of a similar ooeuranoe orTaport. ^ ^

Uahard T. Bolder
Captain Qrd/C
•on 87 Requeet of tha FBI, ploaaa do aet rafar to the FBI aa participating in lay
faahlon — uaa of looal l a anforaaaait authorities l a — t f l TbU
(There follows l a m ' s interview)
Sooorra, KM) April 24, 1964
Lonnla U a o n , b06 Roaervelr S t . , Sooorra, W, S35-U34, Offlaar Sooorra PL
ibout 5 yaare, o f f l o a phono 835-A9U, now on 2i00 FN to lOiPM a h l f t .
About 5i45 PM 4/24/^4 tello in Sooorra 2 Polloa Oar (44 Pootlaa Mdta) atartad
•o ehue a oar (ha aouth froa waat alda af Court Hooaa. Oar « H ^parantly naadlna
»nd «»» Hbout 3 biooka In front, at point on Old Soda* atraat(attention of Park 3t JI
jouth)near Oaor|o Horlllo r*eldanoe(about 1/2 a l i o aouth of Spring straat) tha ohaaad
oar waa ,,-rlng straight ahead toward rodaa greunde. Car ahaaad waa a now pi.ok Chevrolet
(It lalght h'tra baan Floyd Raynolda boy TlTian about 17). Chaaad a w a t U l about 3 bloika
ahead. Lonnle alone.

At this time heard a roar and aav a f l a a i in tha rity ta t t e aotftbaaat eon>
latmire iway — pooelbly 1/2 a l i o or a a l i o . C M to aind that a ten«lta ebuok in tbit
urea hnd hlo>*i up, decided to loara teatt^l teaaad ear d .
nuae waa hluleh and sort of oran«s, t o o . Could not t a l l alaa of f l u e , jiort
ol' inotlonlees
flaaa, "lowly deeoendlng. Waa a t U l drlring ear an] oould not pay too
much . lotion to the f l r a e . I t wa* a narrow type of flaaa. It waa Ilka a • at re at down"
— a funnel type - narrower at top thai at bottoa . ' l a a poeelbly 3 dexraee or to In
width — not id.de.
F l u e about t wioe aa wide at bottoa aa top, and about four tlaaa aa hlrfi a* top

...28-page document at http://5thworld.eom/Firestorm/Apps/ch.08.G.html

 APPENDIX 1 0 - A 553

(Not printed at Government expense)

NICAP UFO Report

EXTENSION OP REMARKS T h e "NICAP Report on Secrecy D a n - Today. thU danger may .urpaaa the one
gers." with documented evidence on cited In NICAP'. report: That the U S S R ,
might .pread fal»e rumor, that the UFO", are
U T O ' a . w a s first s u b m i t t e d c o n f i d e n t i a l l y
HON. LEONARD G. WOLF t o m e . a n d t o s e v e r a l o t h e r M e m b e r s of
•ecret Bed devices which have mapped all ,
or IOWA the US. and allied targets und oould be used <5© W f i rvif <rf»,
C o n g r e s s . I n c l u d i n g S e n a t o r LYNDON
aa .urprlae-attack weapon^ (Qgjgf'SiHaX- £ ^
IN T H E H O U S E OI» RBPRESKNTATIVBS JOHNSON. I n a r e p l y t o N I C A P . J u l y 6.
, fear of t
Wednesday. August 31.1960 1980. S e n a t o r JOHNSON s t a t e d t h a t h e
Mr WOLF M r Speaker, u n d e r leave h a d o r d e r e d t h e s t a f f of t h e S e n _ _ aucj
e .ure you will agree It te ImperaUve
to extend m y remarks, I Include a n ur- i end the risk of accidental war fromi de- >u»ar+ (
de- jt,
g e n t w a r n i n g by Vice Adm. R . H . H l l l e n - keep close w a t c h o n U F O d e v e l o p m e n t s e forces' confusion c 1 de-
k c e t t c r , f o r m e r D i r e c t o r of t h e C e n t r a l and to report on any recent significant e peraonnel. not merely top-level groups.
Intelligence Agency, t h a t certain p o t e n - s i g h t i n g s a n d t h e Air F o r c e I n v e s t i g a - told that the UFO', are real and £ > /
1
tial d a n g e r s a r e linked with unidentified t i o n s of s u c h s i g h t i n g s . should be trained to distinguish them—by ^
fly stiff o b j e c t s — U F O ' s . A d m i r a l H l l l e n - Although I have not had time for a their characteristic .peed, and maneuver*— C C A ^ M l f - ' »
koetier's request t h a t Congress inform from conventional plane* and m las lie. This
detailed s t u d y . I believe t h e c o n c l u s i o n s
is not in effect today.
t h e p u b l i c a s t o t h e f a c t s Is e n d o r s e d b y of t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e d N I C A P o f f i c i a l s
Second, the American people miul be con- "f^ C ^ - b . !
b y m o r e t h a n 200 p i l o t s , r o c k e t , a v i a t i o n , should be given c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n
vinced. by documented facts, that the UFO'a
a n d r. ua ud»a .r e x p e r t s , a s t r o n o m e r s , —,
m i l i t a r jy Certainly their sobei^-valuations should
oould not be Soviet machine*.
v e t e r a n * , a n d o t h e r t e c h n i c a l l y t r a i n e d ) >* c o m p l e t e l y d i s a s s o c i a t e d f r o m t h e o b -
m e m b e r s of t h e N a t i o n a l I n v o c a t i o n s ! fraud. delusions about U F O ' . C e r t a i n l y e v e r y M e m b e r of C o n g r e s s i i
T
Committee on Aerial Phenomena, w h i c h u n f o r t u n a t e l y h a v e b e e n p u b - will a g r e e t h a t a n y s u c h d a n g e r of a c c i - ' " * ' ^ c L
Among them are Rear Adm. H B. U i C t t e d - T h e N I C A P r e p o r t is s t a t e d t o d e n t a l w a r — e v e n If s l i g h t — m u s t b e {xSiQ^Jt,»
Col. J o s e p h B r y a n in. U . S . b e t h e r e s u l t of a 3 - y e a r I n v e s t i g a t i o n - a v e r t e d i n e v e r y p o s s i b l e w a y . I t i s a l s o .
Air F o r c e R e s e r v e ; L t . Col. J a s . M c - i t s c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d o n l y o n v e r i f i e d v i s - i m p o r t a n t t o p r e v e n t a n y u n f o u n d e d f e a r ^
A s h a n . U S A F R : L t . Col. S a m u e l F r e e - u a l . r a d a r , a n d p h o t o g r a p h i c e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e U F O ' s a r e s e c r e t e n e m y d e v i c e s .
m a n . U.8. A r m y Reserve. A v i a t i o n ; M r . by t r a i n e d , r e p u t a b l e observers. A f t e r discussing t h e subject with col-
J . B. H a r t r a n f t . president. Aircraft O n A u g u s t 20. i960. N I C A P s e n t m e l e a g u e s . I a m c e r t a i n t h a t t h e r e is r e a l
O w n e r s P i l o t s A s s o c i a t i o n ; C a p t . R . B. t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t t o b e a d d e d t o c o n c e r n by m a n y M e m b e r s of C o n g r e s s .
McLaughlin. Navy missile expert; t h e o r i g i n a l r e p o r t :
W i t h o u t necessarily accepting all t h e
Mr. F r a n k Rawllnson. physicist. National There I. a growing danger t h a t UFO',
c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e N I C A P B o a r d of O o v -
A e r o n a u t i c a l a n d S p a c e A g e n c y ; D r . may be m i s t a k e n for Soviet mUallee or jet
ernors a n d technical advisers, we a r e
Leslie K a e b u r n , s p a c e c o n s u l t a n t , U n i - aircraft, accidentally causing war. Several
Air Defense scrambles a n d alerts already have c o n v i n c e d t h a t a t h o r o u g h s t u d y of t h e
v e r s i t y of S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a ; f o r m e r
occurred when defense r a d a r m e n mistook U F O p r o b l e m s h o u l d b e m a d e . P e n d i n g
Air Force M a j . W i l l i a m D. Leet. w i t h
UFO formation* for poeelble enemy m a - s u c h a c t i o n , I b e l i e v e t h a t p u b l i c a t i o n of
0 f f l C l
^ c h i n e . NICAP ngreee with t h U .ober w a r n - t h e N I C A P r e p o r t will h e l p t o r e d u c e t h e
w h i l e a n A i r F o r c e p i l o t ; F r a n k H a l - lug by Oen. L. M.
l. NATO coordinator
s t e a d . 25 y e a r s a s c u r a t o r . D a r l i n g O b - or Allied Air Services: d a n g e r s cited by Vice A d m i r a l H l l l e n -
servatory; R e a r Adm. D. S. F a h r a e y , " I t Is of flrat i m p o r t a n c e to confirm these k o e t t e r a n d t h e o t h e r N I C A P officials.
f o r m e r c h i e f of t h e N a v y m i s s i l e p r o - o b j e c t s • • • t h e business of governments F o r t h o s e M e m b e r s d e s i r i n g t o d o so
g r a m ; Col. R . B. E m e r s o n , U . 8 . A r m y t o t a k e a h a n d , if only t o avoid t h e danger t h e p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d c o n f i d e n t i a l
of global tragedy If we,
R e s e r v e , h e a d of E m e r s o n T e s t i n g L a b - r e p o r t c a n be o b t a i n e d u p o n r e q u e s t a t
t o recognise the exlitenoe of tl
o r a t o r i e s ; P r o f . C h a r l e s A. M a n e y . a s t r o - t h e National Investigation Committee on
wUl e n d up. one fine day. by n
physicist, Defiance University; Capt. Aerial P h e n o m e n a . 1531
W . B. N a s h , P a n A m e r i c a n A i r w a y s . D.C.

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 10. C.pdf

 554 APPENDIX 1 0 - B

HARVARD COLLEGE OBSERVATORY

CAMBRIDGE, M A S S A C H U S E T T S 0 2 1 3 8

May 19. 1967

Dr. Janes E. MacDonald

Institute of A t m o s p h e r i c Sciences
U n i v e r s i t y of A r i z o n a
Tucson, Arizona

Dear Jim,

I have carefully read your article "UFO*a: Greatest Scientific

P r o b l e m of our T i n e s ? " and w a n t to tell you i m m e d i a t e l y t h a t , a l t h o u g h
I m a y o b j e c t to an o c c a s i o n a l p o i n t h e r e and t h e r e , I t h i n k the a r t i c l e
is a l t o g e t h e r c r e d i t a b l e , a n d I w a n t to c o n g r a t u l a t e y o u o n i t . Regard-
l e s s o f w h o ' s r i g h t , I t h i n k it is v e r y i n p o r t a n t t h a t s o m e o n e w i t h
your b a c k g r o u n d h a s l o o k e d i n t o m a n y of the c l a s s i c s i g h t i n g s and has
reached opinions different from the official ones. If y o u r a r t i c l e Is
w i d e l y d i s s e m i n a t e d in t h e s c i e n t i f i c c o m m u n i t y I t h i n k lt c a n o n l y
s t i r I n t e r e s t and u n h a r d e n o p i n i o n s , b u t an a d d r e s s to the A m e r i c a n
S o c i e t y of N e w s p a p e r E d i t o r s is n o t q u i t e t h e s a m e a s a s c i e n t i f i c
article. L e t m e u r g e y o u to w r i t e up y o u r d i s c u s s i o n in a f o r m s u i t -
able for some scientific journal. I do not think you w i l l have much
difficulty publishing It.

I h a v e s o m e m i s g i v i n g s a b o u t the s e c t i o n b e g i n n i n g on y o u r
page 20. I d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d w h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e of a
m a g n e t i c f i e l d on M a r s o r V e n u s h a s to d o w i t h t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of
life there. T h e a r g u m e n t of P u r e e l l a g a i n s t I n t e r s t e l l a r s p a c e
t r a v e l h a s s e v e r a l a t t e n d a n t o b j e c t i o n s w h i c h a r e o u t l i n e d in t h e
b o o k by S h k l o v s k i i and m e . I t is p o s s i b l e to d e s i g n e v e n t o d a y a
spacecraft which can achieve interstellar space f l i g h t . It's huge
and e x p e n s i v e and far b e y o n d our p r e s e n t e n g i n e e r i n g capability,
b u t p h y s i c a l l y p o s s i b l e , a n d If w e c a n i m a g i n e s u c h s p a c e c r a f t , t h e n
c l v l l i z a t l o n a far b e y o n d us m u s t be able to do a lot b e t t e r . Not
only will they have vastly superior engineering techniques, they
will have a science which involves principles that today we cannot
even dimly guess a t . W h a t c o n c e r n s m e is t h e v a r i e t y a n d f r e q u e n c y
of o b j e c t s w h i c h are on your list of u n i d e n t i f l e d s . Why should
t h e r e be h u g e n u m b e r s of e x t r a t e r r e s t r i a l s p a c e c r a f t investiga-
ting the Earth? W h y s u c h a g r e a t v a r i e t y of s p a c e c r a f t , and
why us? W h a t ' s so s p e c i a l a b o u t the E a r t h ? )

Please look me up next time you're East.

With best wishes,

Cordially

Carl Sagan

VV* ^ c f t CXc

I 0 fee
v,o0'

http://5thworld. com/Fires form/Apps/ch. 10. B.pdf

 APPENDIX 1 0 - C 555

A page from McDonald's second journal detailing the conversation,

re: possibilities inherent in UFO propulsion with
Drs. Robert M. Wood and Darrell Harmon.

• - ci,.

frt/lltn. OrM ».. t — / » « — 3 1 1 - 1 ? / / u

•—<. * ss i'sri-wi

X ^ / f l , - J , 4 < . ^ . Z 4 '—CJ

A. A"S f I —<•

- J ^ - . / U . J _ « * -j •<'•'- -

^ c c ^ . r / -f, «' Jt-s-c?.

£ [<' 11 ~ vh}. ^—
./. / ^ r r - t f .. L, - (<—*;

'A*-*, bJ* J a— t-r>~j /0

"
r<*-ri . / a_<, n ^ a / t ^ i . y a~-/uoc . fly.. Y *
A — f fyvc «

c^/. T- •<•... » . . ^
j^r-v^ittm* •- . //.O. IXjjfc rfw, .^f ^ f-—
O •• •'ft/ ( A t\ n*

* K/TS Autiuut J&jfZjfc^ y....- .<... r w

- A . ^ A *c —Jt^f . « Ctv^r- * t*-, ^ i U W ^ - i '

to /L 4—tftX •

/ C 4 / ( ^ - y ^ v . /t^. t v ^ — '

-V-v • -t

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 10. C.pdf

556 A P P E N D I X 17-C

Letter from McDonald to his contract monitor

at ONR, Mr. James Hughes.

y ovk k-30-66
Dear Jim:
That old puzzler that's bothered ma so long, the UFO problem,
la very much In my mind theae days. Charlie Moore and Martin Uman
were hare a couple of daya ago for the IEEE session on atmosphtrlo
eleotrlclty, and we had a long dlaouaslon of the problem over beer
and steaks. Martin has become Interested In the matter because of
certain al-llarltlea with ball lightning observations, so we were
going over the pros and cons of that Idea. Charlie had reoently
talked at length with Hynek (USAF scientific consultant In the UFO
area) and it was most Intriguing to hear about Hynek's v i e w s .

About a month back I decided to try to get NAS to look Into

the UFO problem. I wrote Tom Malone a long letter asking that
something be undertaken within the Comm. of the A t m . Sciences. He
discussed lt with soms of t h e people at NAS and that eventuated In
my presenting some suggestions to the CAS at a meeting up ot NCAR
early this month (I was mainly there to provide backup In still
another bout with Wally Howell over our Panel report and sequelae).
Things were shaping up to permit me to do some kind of a low-keyed
study with HAS support when Rep. Ford's Congressional noises led
to some changes. Aotually, even before he asked for a "full Con-
gressional Investigation", the USAF S o l . A d v . Board h8d been taking
a new look at '"rojeot Bluebook and the Inadequacies of its UFO Inves-
tigations, and were considering setting up a civilian scientific
panel of some kind Just about the time the Michigan sightings got
Ford riled u p . The net result has been that DOD has gone to NAS
to get suggested nomes and universities to participate In some kind
of a UFO s t u d y . At least that's one version I've heard. There aro
others. I understand I'm at the head of the list of those who might
tilt with the U t i l e green men — but to date I've heard nothing from
DOD or U S A F . John Slavers Indicates lt may take a bit longer. My
own ausplolons are that my Titan activities may make me less than the
Air Force's ideal oandldate to check up on this problem. But In any
event, something la oooklng on this long-standing problem. I continue
to cheok UFO reports In this area and continue to grow more oonvlncef
that there la a problem of high solentlflo Importance that la being
Ignored and laughed out of court.
W e l l , all that by way of asking a favor. D o vou suppose you could
ask around as to the origin and circumstances of the photo that Life
ran on p . 29 of Its April 1 , 1966 issue? I enclose a copy. Says lt
was taken "from a Navy ship off the coast of California lnl957", but
I've kept close traok of all auoh matters and this Is the first I heard
of such a photo. T h e rather casual way Life mentions lt seems quite out
of keeping with the quality and detail of the photo. I'm keenly Inter-
ested In knowing If the Nsvy had previously released this photo, or if
Life somehow got lt under special olrourastanoes. I'd like to know what
the ship w a a , the data and time, and what other observations were re-
ported. Any chanoe that you might run down any dope?

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 17. C.pdf

 APPENDIX 18-C 557

OffM****0
CHAPTER 11
Chronological l i s t of son* UFO cases of l n t a r a a e . The b a s i s f o r
l n c l u a l o o l a v a r i e d : Many a r e widely known c a s e s , many a r e In-
cluded only because I have p e r s o n a l l y checked then and see In them
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s p e c i a l I n t e r e s t . Several a r e shown only because
they a r e c a r r i e d as u n i d e n t i f i e d In Bluebook f i l e s and I l l u s t r a t e
the q u i t e non-conventional nature of aany such c a a e s . Only a few
a r e f o r e i g n , though UFO r e p o r t s occur with about the sane apparent
a r e a l and temporal frequency In other p a r t s of the world s s In the
U.S. — J . B. McDonald 3/13/67
Year Date Identification
1897 Airship
1904 Feb.28 USS Supply
1926 Aug.5 Roericn exped.
1931 Jun 10 Chlcheeter
1944 Foo f i g h t e r s
1946 Sumner Ghost r o c k e t s
1947 Jun 24 Bsrmeth Arnold, Mt. Rainier
Jul 4 United A i r l i n e s , Capt. Smith
" 4 Portland, Ore.
" 8 Hiroc AFB
1948 J b l 23 Chlles-Whltted, EAL
Oct 1 German, Fargo, N.Dak.
1949 Apr 24 C. B. Moore, J r . , White Sands
Jul 3 Loogvlew, Hash.
Aug.19 Clyde Tombaugh
1930 Mar 17 Farmington, N. M.
" 20 L i t t l e Rock, Chlcago&So. AL
Apr 27 Go*lien, m d . , TWA
May 20 F l a g s t a f f , Seymour Hess
" 29 Sperry, AAL
1951 Jan 20 Sioux City, Vlnther, Mid-Continent
Oct 10 J . J . K a l i e z e w a k l , a l a o 10/11
1952 Jul 2 Trenonton, Utah, Newhouae
" 14 Naah-Fortenberry
Washington N a t l . A i r p o r t , 17th and 26th
" 26 F-94 lock-on
" 27 H j a h a t t a o Beach, C a l i f .
29 Port Huron, Mich.
Aug 1 Yack, Mont.
" 1 B e l l e f o n t a l n a , 0.
" 5 Haneda AFB, Japan
" 25 P i t t s b u r g h , Kans., Squyrea
Sep 19 Operation Malnbrace
Oct 27 Ga i l i a c , France AH
Dec 6 Gulf of Mexico, B-29
1953 May 23 So. A f r i c a
Jun 24 Hampton Bays, L . I .
Aug 12 Rapid C i t y . S.Dak.
" 31 R>rt Moresby, New Guinea, Drury
Nov 23 Kinross AFB
1954 jun 29 BOAC S t r a t o c r u l s e r
Oct 22 Dublin, Ohio
" France
Dec 3 G u l f p o r t , Miss.

...2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.B.html

558 APPENDIX 1 1 - C

"JL~ (/xt/it T' "4s ?>*"ics>

Fuu^-a^^ iv/)Cn

O fUJU, ^

JU. Mac • — A ^ , J. ^ ->

/2

J* Y —< &
/W. -»« ('rf/C- J/*-—, X 1"*/ , •»•••
CU A ZLv - ASyr* '—
-
,— < ft jy X -x tJiyi,. —
a—< —
^
J. 3. */-< <i-Av

w a^^ /J. -y^ -t

-
^ /*. - < - — - , ^ /Ay — C • - ^li .tV/y*—

/^^—f ~ •
vn^f^l^ f St..!. /')/ l
//•J. ^ /fi-y-^-y.
—a; ^ / 6A'. J A^
— i ^ t <v SAG Y V*" * J
J Sit/, ^ Ayk,' '

—m * .

(V ^ - (2) /2.SC,, -<r- «• < r

o^e^'Oy' J, - JV/9 ,

A
A
* < A A-fJ ^ « —«• <^-7- ^ ^

....2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 11 .C.html

 APPENDIX 1 2 - A 559

-APPENDIX - ITEM A

'H r , • CHAPTER 12

^TtfiZr — / 'r

T' > ^

i m i i i ^ r,
sd+puM-S(/s-y, stpc ^ trnjl^ ,
o / ^ t l u

Sf+tlU/C/ foSa^cS), Xtf*.

Ta.f

... .5-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. l2.A.html

560 APPENDIX 12-B

Letter from LANS-NICAP investigator/engineer John Gray,

to McDonald in March 1968.

Dear D r . McDonald!

Idabel has been keeping me Informed of your thoughts and activities per-
taining to Rex's case through copies of your letters and her relating of your
telephone conversations; and I confess that I've been a little confused as to
Just where you stand. Prior to your trip out here In January you expressed
confidence In Hex's sincerity only to be followed by expressions of skepticism
sftervsrds. Since then, I've detected some Indications of vacillation. Ad-
mittedly, v e have been at tines distressed at the thought of losing your sup-
port for this case. That Is, all of us except Rex; perhaps understandably,
he becasie disenchanted (he stated he had hoped for some scientific solution
for what he had photographed).
The apparent shifts In your appralsel of Rex's character can, I believe,
be attributed to your misunderstanding of that character and the consequent
misinterpretation of his comments. In short, you took him to be 100 percent
serious 100 percent of the t i m e . We who hsve known him the past 23s years
have learned to differentiate between his facetlousness and his seriousness.
Like all humans, he Is subject (and entitled) to changes of moods and the
burden Is upon the rest of us to choose whether or not to tolerate and/or ap-
preciate then. Rex did not seek us; w e sought h i m . It took LANS a full year
following the publication of his sighting to obtsln his acquiescence to ride
to Los Angeles to meet the members(all were Impressed with his sincerity).
This reluctance does not reflect a person seeking recognition for a perpetra-
tion of a h o a x , much less suggest any motivation for attempting such a scheme.
His good nature has enabled him to tolerate all the probing and inquiring Into
his background from all quarters. In other w o r d s , it has helped him to retain
his "cool."

In regards to your perpetual concern for Photo 4 , two points lending cre-
dence to Its authenticity should be emphasised:
1. The most logical theory pertaining to the origin of the black smoke (or
dustt) ring Is that it is the ssme as that enveloping the object in Photo 1
discovered by D r . Nathan from an enlargement, more so than that of an atomic
bomb simulator. W h e r e , it could reasonably be asked, in Southern California
does one find an atomic bomb simulator or to be permitted to approach so
close (as Photo 4 seems to suggest) to take the picture? Scrutinising D r .
Nathan's enlarged copy of Photo 1, one can perceive a semlspherlcal outline
of the upper section above and through the black composition surrounding It.
If this half-spherlcal superstructure Is an actuality, two questions Immedi-
ately arise, specifically: how does one set about enveloping a "model", lens
c a p , pie p a n , hub cap, or whatever within a dust ring? And how would he come
to conceive the Idea of attempting It? I say "dust ring" since I am disposed
to believe it to be composed of a collection of poluted atmospheric particles
prevalent to this area (So. Calif.) attracted through Ionization to the ob-
ject. On further examination of Photo 1, one will note the band of poluted
particles to be thicker on the left and tapering to the r i g h t . I am con-
vinced that this Is the effect caused by the slipstream created by the flight
of the craft to the right. The existence of this black composition Is the
one eleaent that makes this sighting unique and Is the most plausible result
of the nsture of our California atmosphere. For nearly two years w e were not
aware that the black area was not part of the craft. N o w , w e suspect that It
was only Incidental to It.

..3-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.A.H.html

 APPENDIX 1 2 - C 56 I

TOLEDO BLADE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1952

They're Homemade 'Flying Saucers'

WHEAT SHEAF

WASHINGTON, Aug. Physicist Noel Scott s U g e i a possible

answer to widespread "flying saucers" reports in the laboratory
at Fort^ Belypir, V i , By introducing molecules oI ionised air
into the partial vacuum of a bell Jar he has created miniature
masses of illuminated air. The masses have sufficient b o d j to
be picked up by radar and could account for some of the mys-
tery "blips" seen on radar screens. "Saucers" In the making
were photographed at various stages of development, right. Sauemra mad• to ordmr

,..2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 12.C.html

562 A P P E N D I X 12-B

15 N. Butler
Madison, Wis.
Oot. 23, 1967
Dear Kr. Hankow,
I Was a little surprised and highly gratified to see the series
of pictures of the Belvoir object in your artiole "The Ring Shaped
urn" (Flying Sauoers #4). I was also stationed at Ft. Belvoir
at that tine ?.nd had the good fortune to see the object from the
time of its origin and to be able to offer an explanation for lt.
Vihile on detail that morning I hardened to be in the vicinity
of a trajnirg area where a device which I believe was called an
Atonic Uomb Simulator was being used. This device consists of
i smn.ll char;;e of high explosive so contrived that it produces
a small black mushroom cloud, similar in shape to the Atomic
cloud. t'l.io particular morning Wan dead calm, and the air was
O'^ite cold n"d moist. When the explosive charge was detonated
i looked in that direction, watohirg +he smoke cloud rise. At
a height of perhaos 40 feet the "can" of the mushroom developed
into a rrrfcct nmoke ring vortex ana detached itself from the
main colunn of smoke. The column, being unstable, stocked rising
and slowly dissipated while the vortex continued to rise and
row. At'first it had a diameter of perhaps 20 to 30 feet and
the rinp was fairly thick. As it ro3e the ring diameter expanded
and itr thickness was reduced in proportion. I think Mr. "Stone's"
estimate of sixty feet may be fairly accurate for its later stages.
At firrt it wa3 Just a giant smoke ring (unusual and Interesting
enough in itself) but when it had reached an altitude of perhaps
150 ft. it started to gather a cloud about itself. It appeared•
to me PS if, as it rose into the cold, saturate.d air, the vortex
current "swept" the moisture out of the air through which it passed
and the smoke particles on the periphery of the vortex provided
condensation nuclei for the formation of the visible cloud. At
first the cloud was only a faint shell around the vortex itself.
The center rapidly filled in, forming the lens-shaned body
with the vortex still visible within it. As it continued to
rise the cloud increased in density until the smoke vortex
could no longer be seen. The riboing effect you mentioned may
well have been due to slight variations in velocity at different
points around the periphery of the vortex. At about that point
I had to sto~ watching the cloud, since 1 wa3 on detail and had
ot er things to d o .
3 fl- ri't kn©» en->u»*h ni.out atnos ')'Tlc S-.jsica and the behavior
of vortices to advnnce an explanation of why the center clouded
in so ranidly, but I imagine that an explanation may be easily
'lerived, given the conditions. The phenomenon has always been
very clear in my memory because it was so striking and unexpected,
and 1 am very happy at last to have a series of pictures of it.
1 believe the combination of atmospherio conditions which produced
it may not be too uncommon, but the presence of a stable ascending
vortex containing particles suitable for condensation nuclei
must, in connection with such conditions, be very rare.

..3-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.A.H.html

 APPENDIX 18-C 563

Dr. William K. Hartnann

Ft. Belvoir Photos

Following our phone discussion of January 12 concerning

your recent findings at Ft. Belvoir, I continued to think
about some of these points that we considered.

On thinking over the whole picture that emerged from

your discussions at Belvoir, I continue to feel uncomfortable
about that explanation. I think you ought to secure some
further details from the J.riny people to bac); up the explana-
tion towards which your analysis in now pointing. When a UFO
is being "shot down", I like to see it shot down rather more
thoroughly than seems yet to bo the case witli ti.e Belvoir
photos.

I'd like to urge t^at you ./rite tu the officer with whom
you spoke and request tnat he put down in writing answers to
a number of specific questions. I suggest certain questions,
and, doubtless, as you think it over, you might have still
others to add. One advantage of getting it in writing is
that it can be either included in you* report or at least
referred to as somewhat more documentary evidence than the
verbal discussions on which you would have to rest the matter
now.

Here are some of the points that I would like to see the
Army make some very definite written statements upon:

1. Whereas Jack Strong in his letter to Rankow described

this as a "training device", you were told that it was a
"demonstration device" for visiting firemen, if I understood
you correctly. I must say that I do not find either of those
very convincing. Certainly one would not simulate any battle-
field situation at all realistically by exploding charges (as
Strong described it) to make vortex rings ascend over the heads
of troops engaged in battlefield maneuvers. Explosions, yes;
but not vortex rings, in my opinion.

And, on the other hand, I really wonder if Congress-

men and visiting generals wouldn't regard it as child's play
to come to Ft. Belvoir, in this age of multi-megaton H-bombs
and be shown a demonstration of ai "atomic bomb", the most

...2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.B.html

564 APPENDIX 1 2 - F

January 10, 1968

M r . Clayton H . Reitan
Department of Meteorology
University of Wisconsin
M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n , 53700

Dear Clay:
I am still pursuing the UFO problem as energetically
as I c a n , and a problem has arisen in w h i c h 1 wonder if I
might ask a b i t of assistance from you? B r i e f l y , it involves
trying to locate a person in Madison whom I have not been
able to run down by t e l e p h o n e .

The person in question is Jack S t r o n g , 15 North B u t l e r ,

Madison, Wisconsin.

Let m e give you a little background of the problem and

then p o i n t o u t w h a t information I would like very m u c h to
g e t , if you could possibly stop by Strong's place and talk
to him b r i e f l y .

A b o u t a year a g o , a set of very odd photographs was

brought to m y attention through NICAP c h a n n e l s . I think it
is likely that you have seen the p h o t o s , w h i c h were reportedly
made a t F t . Belvoir in about S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 5 7 . X enclose, from
a recent UFO m a g a z i n e , some poor reproductions of the six
p h o t o s , along w i t h the accompanying text which w i l l give you
more background than I can put down in this letter a n y w a y .
The author of that article is Ralph R a n k o w , a professional
photographer in New York City and former NICAP photographic
c o n s u l t a n t . A s a result of his a r t i c l e , he received a letter
from Jack S t r o n g , a copy of which I enclose for your informa-
t i o n , indicating that Strong was fairly certain w h a t had led
to this peculiar condensation phenomenon and vortex r i n g .

As you w i l l see from Strong's letter of O c t o b e r 2 3 , he

describes it as a result of "an atomic bomb simulator" which
involved detonation of a c h a r g e , formation of a vortex r i n g ,
and ultimate condensation of atmospheric m o i s t u r e . Because
there seemed to m e to be some difficulties w i t h that explana-
tion, I attempted to contact Strong earlier this m o n t h , but
no telephone is listed at the address that he g i v e s . I have
written to h i m , hoping that he m a y contact me; b u t because

..4-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 12.F.html

 APPENDIX 1 2 - G 565

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

HEADQUARTERS
U. S. A R M Y ENGINEER CENTER AND FORT BELVOII
F O R T B E L V O I R . VIROINIA 22080

O f f i c e of the Deputy Chief of S t a f f , Operations

13 F e b r u a r y 1968

M r . Ralph Rankow
1 145 B r o a d w a y
New York, New York 10001

Dear Mr. Rankow:

In r e s p o n s e to y o u r l e t t e r of F e b r u a r y 4, I s h a l l e n d e a v o r to a n s w e r
the q u e s t i o n s you have p o s e d .

An a t o m i c bomb s i m u l a t o r device h a s b e e n used m a n y t i m e s a t F o r t

B e l v o i r and, a t the t i m e of t h i s i n c i d e n t , i t was being used in f i e l d t r a i n i n g
exercises. A c t u a l l y , i t was u s e d a s a m i n i a t u r e s i m u l a t o r f o r the r e a l
bomb. The t r a i n i n g d e v i c e e m p l o y e d looked l i k e an oil d r u m ; h o w e v e r ,
i t was r e a l l y a l a r g e c a r d b o a r d c o n t a i n e r , s o m e t h i n g like a giant f i r e -
cracker. S o m e t i m e s t h e s e w e r e i m m e r s e d in a n oil d r u m , oil p l a c e d in
the c o n t a i n e r , and when the d e v i c e blew u p w a r d to give the m u s h r o o m -
cloud e f f e c t , the e x c e s s oil gave a b u r n i n g e f f e c t on the g r o u n d . There
was no h a z a r d to p e r s o n n e l in the a r e a , s i n c e the d r u m s w e r e a l r e a d y
open on one end; and t h e r e was no r u p t u r e . In m o s t c a s e s , t h e s e c h a r g e s
w e r e s e t off by an e l e c t r i c c a p . I have o f t e n s e e n the r i n g e f f e c t f r o m t h e s e
simulators. I do not have any p i c t u r e s of the d e v i c e .

It m i g h t i n t e r e s t you to know that D r . H a r t m a n , w o r k i n g f o r the

D e p a r t m e n t of the A i r F o r c e , under A i r F o r c e C o n t r a c t Reg. AF 80-17A
f o r the U n i v e r s i t y of A r i z o n a and the U n i v e r s i t y of C o l o r a d o , had a l r e a d y
b e e n a p p r i s e d of t h i s i n c i d e n t .

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 10. C.pdf

566 APPENDIX 1 2 - H

mm Oil I L C 7

DIX - ITEM H
.PTF.R 12

' W^ll^ fW S l i t

112 /
USflF FIELD ~

, /.
CROUP
F O R T BE L V O I R . V I R G I N I A

1 3 MAR 1985

REV}?(*f D M

1 J u l y - 3-1 D e c e x j i b . e r 1 9 6 (

3-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 12.H.html

 APPENDIX 1 3 - A 567

McDonald's list of Condon's "code numbers ", which McDonald

identified with specifics such as date, location, type of sighting,
and Condon Report "explanation. "

CONDON REPORT CASE MATERIAL REFERENCES

S^CJlflO I V , C h a p t e r I - Caaa Scudiei Predating T e r m of Project

1 Name, etc. CU Explanation

Cn go Coe . . ,n D a c e Place
* 1 42-3 5/20/SO Plagataf f , A r U Hess P o s s a i r b o r n e debt
2 . .3 8/13/56 Lokerhsath , Ens Radar-via Unidentified
3 4—C 156 2/5/57 Manhattan Beach, Cal Radar chaff
* 4 1.7 9/ /57 Ubatuba, Brazil fragaanta Inconclusive
5 49-C 260 9/19/57 i't W o r t h , T e x a s a r e a Chase radar Unidentified

" 6 346-3 266 4/22/66 Beverly, Maaa Kodugno P a r t u n l d / p a r t est

7 5! — C Surrrnar 66 Provo, Utah - Idaho photos
Fllcklnger
Probable hoax
Unidentified
* 8 --CA _ '3 8/19/66 Dotuiybrook, N D
* 9 1--B : . -i 8/24/66 H i n o t AFfl, N D Nike radar Poss astro/Inconcl
10 8-C 1". 7 12/30/66 Haynaaville, La Unidentified

"11 217-B 280 12/30/66 W of G u a y a q u i l , P e r u Mlllbanlc Poss re-entry

12 9—C 282 1/ / 67 New Richmond, Mich E-M Unidentified
"13 27—W 28 5 1/15/67 Gramvllle , Maaa Godard Unidentified
"14a 3—CA 2 G 7 1/13/67 Joplln, M o | Hickman Unidentified
"14b 3-CB _8f 1/147/67 Pittsburg, Kama Pinley Poss aatro/lnconcl
14c 1 - - 7 - U 288 1/16/67 Coffeyvllle, Kans Barium yapor launc
14 d 1272-P? 288 1/17/67T Joplln, M o t Unidentified
14 a 289 1/ /67 Astronomical
14 f 289 1/ /67 Astronomical
15 5-C 250 2/24/67 Bellevue, Colo Astronomical
*16 7-c : . 3/2/67 Alaaiogordo, N M R a d a r A F / p o s a seed
17 14-c k.. ; 3/ /67 Dry Creek Baaln, Colo Inconclusive
"18 12-C 4/1/67 Boulder, Colo Hoax balloons
19 13—C 305 4/15/67 Bonneville Plata, Utah Non-event
"20 15-C 306 5/2/67 Seattle, Wash area beep series Saw whet owl

21 21-C Sli 5/13/67 Colorado Spgs, Colo l radar Unidentified

>••22 22-C 313 5/20/67 Falcon Lake, Manitoba Mlchaladt
Drlacoll
Inconclusive
Aircraft (prank)
*23 23-C 3:-.i 5/27/67 Scenic, SD
26-C 3-S 6/2S/67 N e w C a s t l e , Pa photos Hoax
*2S 27-C 3U-3 7/5/67 Coventry, Conn outage
Are flashes
"26 31—C 3ii 7/18/67 Wilmington, Calif Hill
•'27 28-C 3- : 7/10/67&C H a r r l a b u r g , Pa
Pacheoo Pass, Calif
aeries
Hlgglna
Hoax
Inconclusive
••>280 3 S - C a 3; •• 7 / 2 8 / 6 7
*28b 3 5 - C b 33-- 8 / 1 5 / 6 7 Coarsegold, Calif eta series I g n o r e d In r e p o r t
"29 34-C 33* 6/2/67 Cape A n n , M a s s Aircraft refueling
A i r c r a f t fla-ea
30 341 9/1/67 Edwards AFB , Calif X - 1 5 pace Rumor
'••31 342 9/9/67 Winchester, Conn Ritchie Unidentified
*32a 34/, 9/7/67 Alamosa Colo Snippy Inconclusive
32b 34J E a r i n g 67 Colo N o Investigation
32c 34 3 S/ /67 Colo No Investigation

32a 346 C u m m e r 66 Colo N o Investigation

3 2o 34 6 all 1 9 6 7 Colo No Investigation
32f 34- .all 1967 Colo No Investigation
Fall 1967 Colo cloud cigar N o Investigation
32g 347 Unreliable
33 42-C 347 9/15/67 Wlnsted , Conn

....5-pagedocument at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. l2.A.html

568 A P P E N D I X 12-B

McDonald's alphabetized outline of numerous UFO aspects of the

UFO problem, which he planned to address in a comprehensive
book he intended to write.

File Index

AMS Notes
Accidents — Cars and Aircraft
Airships
Angel Hair and Gossamer
Animal Reactions
Arizona Oases
Assurances (USAF, etc-)
Astronomical Sky Surveys
Astronomer Reports
Ball Lightning
Beehive Effect
Breakup and Merging
Burns , Irradiation, and Hcsat Oases
Cemetery Observations
Children
C loud- Re la ted UFOs
Coverup vs. Foulup
Cross—Cultural Evidence
Depressions, Graters, Rings
Disappearances — Aircraft
Disappearing Gases — Abrupt
Dogfights < 4/c v- «••
E—M Effects
Flying Magazine Notes
Foo Eighters
Formations and Multiple—UFO Gases
Ghost RocJcets
Green Fireballs and Meteor UFOs
Halation Around UFOs
Heating Effects
Hoa>ces and Fabrications , „
X ne xplicab i1ity
"Ionized Layers"

..3-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.A.H.html

 APPENDIX 18-C 569

moat membera of the public appear to have

UFOa AND THE CONDON REPORT« accepted the periodically reiterated claim
A DISSENTING VIEW that the best scientific talent available to
the U. S. Air Force was being uaed to atudy
UFO reports — and that the findinga indi-
James E. McDonald cated nothing unexplainable in terns of
Institute of Atmospheric Physlca existing science and technology.
The Univeraity of Arizona
6) Although the UFO atudies within
Air Force Project Bluebook have repeatedly
(Presented to the Pacific Missile Rang* Sec- been officially deacribed aa acientific in
tion, American Institute of Aeronautics and nature, that ia very far from the case.
Astronautics, Pt. Mugu, Cal., Feb. 18, 1969) Superficial and often quite incompetent UFO
evaluationa have issued from Project Blue-
book over the paat 15 yeara. Major Air Force
"Further extensive study of UFOe probably laboratoriea (a.?., AFCRL) were never brought
eannot be justified in the expectation that actively into an extended atudy of UFO phe-
eeienoe vill be advanced." — Dr. E. U. nomena, yet it la juat auch laboratoriea
Condon, in Soientifio Study of Unidentified where the requisite Air Force talent lay.
Flying Objeote, Bantam Books, 1969. 7) When one examines the 20-year hia-
tory of Air Force efforta to aecure outaide
scientific advice on the UFO problem, one
RESUME encountera repeated inatancea of negative
advice, recommendatlona to downgrade or even
As a result of more than two years of to abandon the Air Force UFO atudiea. In my
rather intenaive atudy of the UFO problem, view, the acientific advice that the Air
interviewing about five hundred witnesses in Torce haa received, over the years, from the
selected caaea here and abroad, talking to acientific community haa been exceedingly
most of the persona who have been concerned poor advice, in almoat all instances, and is
with recent aspects of Air Force handling of a major factor in its quite inadequate
the UFO problem, exchangee with many of the reaponae to the UFO problem. I have come
major independent UFO inveatigating group*, to regard thia, and not some high-level
and repeated diacuasions of the UFO question cover up, a a the reasoiTUSAP has repeatedly
with aciantific colleagues. Including members failed to reset to atriking UFO reporta com-
of the Condon Project, Z might summarise my ing from their own flight personnel.
main findinga and concluaions aa followst
t) In the Condon Report, I believe the
1) The number of substantial reports of Air Force and the federal government have now
entirely unconventional, structured objects received the largeat aingle piece of bad
exhibiting performance characteristics far scientific advice on UTOa that has ever come
beyond the atate of any known terrestrial out of a segment of the scientific community.
technology aeema too great by one or two Despite a great deal of publicity to the con-
orders of magnitude to juatify further acien- trary, I believe that thia Report ia not the
tific neglect of this body of evidence. definitive, exhauatlve atudy it ia being made
out to be. Rather, I think it la a very weak
2) All evidence points to the global atudy, aa meaaured by uaual atandards of
acale of the phenomena* reports from essen- ecientlfio investigation, and that it ia
tially all parts of the world exhibit a auf-
ficient degree of similarity to rule out characterised by numerous defects of serious
hypotheaes that these are secret test vehi- nature.
cles of any nation. Many other considera- 9) T h e m i s c h i e f haa, i n my opinion,
tions support that concluaion so atrongly bean aoraly compounded by a quick and almoat
that it may safely be rejected. certainly superficial aasessment and atrong
endorsement of the Condon Report by an ad hoo
3) Despite many superficial efforts to review panel within the National Academy of
explain away thia body of reports on meteoro- Bciencea. I believe that none of the 11 NAS
logical, astronomical, optical, or paycho- paneliata had any extenaive prior inveatiga-
logical grounds, and deapite obvious opera- tory experience in the UFO problem.
tion of auch factora In many reports of low 10) All of the above appeara to indicate
evidential quality, theae factora seen quite
incapable of reaolving the puzzling nature of that no further aignificant scientific prog-
hundreds to thousands of reports from reli- reaa towards elucidation of the 20-year
able obaervera made during the 1947-69 myatary of the UFOa, their nature and origin,
period. will be possible until the serious inade-
quacies of the Condon Report are expoaed to
4) There ia certainly no evidence that general diacuaaion in scientific and tech-
any nation has mounted any major acientific nical channels.
program to explore the UFO problem in depth.
Nor is there evidence Indicating clandestine 11) The AZAA, through its UFO Subcom-
investigatlona anywhere in the world. mittee haa (12/68 issue Aero. 4 Aetro.) been
urged to give serious scientific attention to
5) With the exception of persons affil- the UFO problem. I wiah to heartily second
iated with the aeveral Independent UFO lnvea- that excellent suggestion. The AIAA ia per-
tigatory groupa auch aa NICAP, APRO, etc., hape the aingle moat appropriate profeaaional
who have been checking UFO caaes for yeara.

...2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.B.html

570 A P P E N D I X 17-C

ITINERARY McDonald, April 15 - April 24, 1967

Sat. 4/15/67 Lv TUS at 8:15 AM on AAL 198, arr DAL at 11:48 AM

Lv DAL at 5:50 PM on Braniff 110, arr Dulles at 9:29 PM

Sat. 4/22/67 Lv Washington National at 5:30 PM on AAL #273, arr

O'Hare at 6:27 PM

Sun. 4/23/67 Lv O'Hare at 10:25 AM on TWA #157, arr ABQ at 1:45 PM

Lv ABO at 4:45 PM on Carco #25, arr LASL at 5:15 PM

Hon. 4/24/67 Lv LASL at 3:30 PM on Carco #8, arr ABQ at 4:00 PM

Lv ABQ at 4:30 PM on TWA #183, arr TUS at 5:30 PM

In Washington, I'll be at the Francis Scott Key Hotel, 20th £ F ,

Tel NAtional 8-5425. on several of the days, I can best be contacted
during the daytime through the office of M r . James Hughes, Office of
Naval Research, Code 412, Tel. 696-6739 (AC 202) or NICAP office,
667-9434 (AC202).

In Chicago, I have been unable to get airport motel accommoda-

tions ahead of time.

In Los Alamos, I will be at the Los Alamos Inn. Phone unknown.

Present schedule of talks and briefing sessions:

1. Sat. 4/15/67: Will see Drs. R^rltner and |Tphnson of Southwest

Center for Advanced Studies at the North Park Inn, Dallas, 1300-1600.

2. Mon. 4/17/67: At National Science Foundation to brief scientific

staff on UFO problem at 1000. Contact D r . Edward P . Todd, if have
to get me there.

3. Mon. 4/17/67: At Secretary of Air Force Office of Information,

Pentagon (Col. Stanley, Rm 4C922) to discuss UFO matters with
SAFOI and AFOSR staff.

4. Tues. 4/18/67: Confer with Congressman Roush and staff in AM.

5. Tues. 4/18/67: Talk to scientific staff. Office of Naval Research,

1330, RM 0428, Navy Dept.

6. Wed., 4/19/67: Meet with staff of Astronautics and Space Council and
others, office of Capt. W . E . Berg, 1815 H St., N W , Federal Bar Bldg,
1000.

7. Wed. 4/19/67: Talk to acientific ataff at Naval Research Laboratory,

Anacostia, 1330, main auditorium,on atmospheric and optical aspects
of UFO observations.

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 17. C.pdf

 APPENDIX 18-C 571

August 9, 1967

Mr. John A. Anderson

Sandia Corporation
Division 1514
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Dear John:
Thanks again for looking after me so considerately on
last week's visit to Sandia. It was a very productive and
very enjoyable day, thanks in considerable part to your
efforts.
I enclose the rough-draft of my expense account and
a reproduction of the ticket with appropriate annotation.
You might be casually interested to hear that the honorarium
which Sandia kindly gave me has already been spent on a new
sewing machine for the use of the three of my daughters who
are still at home and competing for tightly programmed time
on the existing Singer. The girls are delighted with the
new "Sandia" sewing machine.

I enclose a carbon of my letter to Georgia Tech,

inquiring about the location of Roy Chapman. If I learn
anything, I shall let you know.
In a separate package, I have sent over about 20 addi-
tional copies of my ASNE talk for distribution to persons
who might contact you for that purpose.
The afternoon interviewing session was, I want to say
again, quite worthwhile. I am in the process of making
follow-up phone calls to secure further information on
several of the sightings reported in that session. I spoke
last night to Joe Wistor, and secured a mora complete account
of his extremely interesting sighting (three witnesses) at
Naval Ordnance Test Station in late 19 4 7 or early 194 8.

I followed up a message that you handed me from Calvin

Smith, and am going to get on tape from him a very pertinent
piece of information concerning the outstanding sightings at
Levelland, Texas, back in 1957. Another message that came in

...2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.B.html

572 A P P E N D I X 17-C

Los Angeles, California

June 2 4 , 1969

Dear Dr. McDonald:

W e w e r e t r e m e n d o u s l y r e l i e v e d to l e a r n t h a t y o u r l u g g a g e h a d b e e n r e t u r n e d .
We h a v e r e a d y o u r l e t t e r ( 6 - 4 - 6 9 ) o v e r s e v e r a l t i m e s - - and s t u d i e d i t c a r e f u l l y .
We m u s t a g r e e that the c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g the d i s a p p e a r a n c e of j y o u r
l u g g a g e i s a " v e r y m y s t e r i o u s m y s t e r y . " It a p p e a r s t o l e a v e n o a l t e r n a t i v e but
t o s p e c u l a t e a l o n g " c l o a k and d a g g e r " l i n e s ! ( A n d I d o n ' t m e a n t h e " m e n in b l a c k ! )
I d i s c u s s e d t h i s m a t t e r w i t h D r . R o b e r t W o o d ( h o p e t h a t y o u d o n ' t m i n d ) . He, t o o ,
t h i n k s the w h o l e t h i n g i s e x t r e m e l y c u r i o u s a n d m y s t e r i o u s . W e l l , it g i v e s us
s o m e t h i n g t o t h i n k a b o u t - - and s o m e t h i n g t o t r y to a v o i d in the f u t u r e ! I h a v e m y
own thoughts about a l l t h i s ; s o m e t i m e when we a r e t o g e t h e r w e ' l l d i s c u s s it. It i s
in the r e a l m o f s p e c u l a t i o n - - b u t I f e e l that t h e e v i d e n c e d o v e - t a i l s t o o w e l l t o b e
ignored. ( J u s t n o t e d t h e q u o t e a b o v e in l i n e 4 s h o u l d h a v e b e e n " a v e r y c u r i o u s
mystery. ")

P a u l W i l s o n ( D o u g l a s A i r c r a f t ) has r e c e n t l y l e f t f o r R e d M o u n t a i n (near Butte

M o n t a n a ) t o s p e n d s e v e r a l w e e k s s t u d y i n g b a l l l i g h t n i n g f o r D o u g l a s . I p r e s u m e he
w e n t in t h e i n s t r u m e n t e d v a n I h e a r d a b o u t that D o u g l a s w a s f i t t i n g up f o r t h i s w o r k .
I h e a r t h e r e h a v e b e e n a s m a n y a s 600 s t r i k e s in o n e d a y ! W h i c h r e m i n d s us of the
m a n y r e p o r t s o f f i r e b a l l s d u r i n g the 1 9 6 4 l f l a p . T h a t w a s t h e y e a r that M a r i l y n
put f l a g s on a m a p a n d s o m e t i m e s t h e r e w e r e t o o m a n y r e p o r t s o f f i r e b a l l s in
e x a c t l y t h e s a m e p l a c e ( i n M o n t a n a ) ; i t w a s v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g t o s a y the l e a s t . It i s
p r e t t y e a s y t o g u e s s t h a t P a u l W i l s o n w i l l keepe h i s e y e s o p e n f o r m o r e t h i n g s than
b a l l l i g h t n i n g w h i l e he is t h e r e .

I h e a r t h e L o r e n z e n s h a v e a n e w b o o k out c a l l e d " U F O s - T h e W h o l e S t o r y . "

A l s o that t h e y h a v e a n o t h e r in t h e w o r k s t o b e out s o o n ; t h i s o n e w i l l h a v e a c h a p t e r
by a d o z e n or s o s c i e n t i s t s . What I m e a n i s t h a t e a c h s c i e n t i s t w i l l w r i t e a c h a p t e r .
She h a s a s k e d D r . S e f f ( R e d l a n d s ) t o w r i t e t h e s t o r y o f t h e R e d l a n d s s i g h t i n g . He
hasn't t i m e s o he g a v e h e r p e r m i s s i o n to w r i t e it under h i s n a m e . Please remember,
this is h e r e s a y . H o w e v e r , t h e r e is m o r e to the s t o r y ; it s e e m s that D r . S e f f is v e r y
d i s i l l u s i o n e d w i t h t h e L o r e n z e n s and r e c e n t l y m a d e a c o m m e n t a b o u t J i m b e f o r e a
g r o u p w h e r e h e w a s g i v i n g a t a l k - and h e n o t i c e d s o m e o n e t a p i n g h i s t a l k and a s k e d
t h e m t o e r a s e w h a t h e had s a i d ( a b o u t J i m ) . N e x t t i m e w e a r e on the p h o n e , r e m i n d
m e and I w i l l t e l l you t h e s t o r y - i t ' s q u i t e h u m o r o u s . I f h e f e e l s the w a y h e d o e s ,
I w o n d e r why he c o n t i n u e s t o a s s o c i a t e with t h e m . ( I g a v e i t up a l o n g t i m e a g o ! )

I w o u l d l o v e t o h a v e m o r e c o p i e s o f the R e s u m e o f y o u r t a l k to t h e A I A A ,
S a c r a m e n t o S e c t i o n , M a y 28, 1969. ( T e n o r 15 i f y o u h a v e t h e m t o s p a r e . ) It i s
e x t r e m e l y e f f e c t i v e and t h i n k I c a n s o n d t h e m t o t h e r i g h t p e o p l e . A L L . of y o u r
t a l k s a r e e f f e c t i v e - I r e a l l y m e a n i t . I c a n c e r t a i n l y s e e t h e r e s u l t s (and I m e a n
g o o d r e s u l t s ) f r o m t h e o n e s I h a v e s e n t out a l r e a d y . W e w o n d e r if you r e a l i z e what
you h a v e a c c o m p l i s h e d - and a r e a c c o m p l i s h i n g . Y o u m u s t b e a s e r i o u s t h r e a t t o
t h o s e w h o w o u l d d i s c o u r a g e w i d e s p r e a d i n t e r e s t in t h e U F O p r o b l e m . P l e a s e g i v e
this a little thought.

Best regards.

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 17.C.pdf

 APPENDIX 18-C 573

Q f t n i U r r g i t p of (SSuernglnnb
. sw reply to KcyiHtrar

... reply pica** ST. LUCIA. BRISBANE

Department of Botany

February 3 069

A Report on G r a s s SainploB f r o m Tully

T w o s a m p l e s of g r a s s , H y m e a a c h n e p s c u d l n t e r r u p t a , from a lagoon
at T u l l y , Q u e e n s l a n d w e r e r e c e i v e d at the D e p a r t m e n t of B o t a n y , U n i v e r s i t y
of Q u e e n s l a n d a b o u t U p.ra. on T u e s d a y 11 F e b r u a r y 1 9 6 9 . One sample,
now d e s i g n a t e d w a 3 r e p o r t e d to h a v e b e e n taken from an area w h e r e the
g r u s s h a d been d i s t u r b e d and thrown I n t o a c i r c u l a r p a t t e r n ( " n e s t s " ) , and
the o t h e r , n o w d e s i g n a t e d B, w a s r e p o r t e d to b e a s a m p l e of the u n d i s t u r b e d
v e g e t a t i o n in the w a t e r . W a t e r d e p t h w a s r e p o r t e d to be b e t w e e n five and
six f e e t .

Comparison of specimens

Specimen A: E x c e p t f o r o n e l i v i n g , g r e e n s t e m the m a t e r i a l w a s
dead and in the e a r l y stages, of d e c o m p o s i t i o n . Some l e a v e s b o r e d i s e a s e
l e s i o n s r e p r e s e n t e d by e i t h e r d i f f u s e b r o \ m a r e a s or w e l l d e f i n e d b l a c k
spots. T h e f o r m e r a r e v e r y s i m i l a r to l e s i o n s c a u s e d by lluluiintlioiiporluin c p .
on o t h e r g r a s s e s , and the l e t t e r w e r e c a u s e d b y P h y l l a c h o r a sp.

S p e c i m e n B; T h i s c o m p r i s e d p l a n t s w i t h r o o t s , s e e m s and l e a v e s
that a p p e a r e d to liava b e e n g r o w i n g in n o r m a l f a s h i o n up to the time of
sampling. S o m e l e a v e s b o r e l e s i o n s s i m i l a r to those r e f e r r e d to a b o v e as
p o s s i b l y b e i n g c a u s e d b y llol m i n t h o s p o r i u m sp . N o Phy 1 lacliora sp. w a s seen
on S p e c i m e n H.

S p e c i m e n A s h o w e d n o e v i d e n c e o f h e a t d a m a g e , n o r w a s t h e r e any
sign that the g r a s s had b e e n s q u a s h e d or c o m p r e s s e d by a n y h e a v y object
lying o n it.

T h e d i s e a s e s p o t s on the l e a v e s w e r e l o c a l i s e d l e s i o n s and the

f u n g a l o r g a n i s m s r e s p o n s i b l e for t h o s e l e s i o n s b e l o n g to w e l l k n o w n and
widespread pathogenic genera. Neither He1minthosporium or Phyllachora have
been k n o w n to k i l l p l a n t s and t h e i r e f f e c t s are r e s t r i c t e d to s m a l l areas
a d j a c e n t to t h e i r p o i n t s of p e n e t r a t i o n . T h e c o n d i t i o n of S p e c i m e n A could
not b e a t t r i b u t e d to d i s e a s e caused by the m i c r o - o r g a n i s m s seen on the
leaves.
Conclusions

S p e c i m e n B showed that s u b m e r g e d s t e m s tend to root r e a d i l y and

f r e e l y at n o d e s . G r a s s e s w h i c h h a v e this c a p a c i t y can u s u a l l y e x i s t for
some time, or e v e n i n d e f i n i t e l y , w i t h o u t b e i n g rooted in soil or m u d . If
S p e c i m e n A h a d b e e n u p r o o t e d w i t h i n a few d a y s of its c o l l e c t i o n , it w o u l d

...2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.B.html

574 A P P E N D I X 17-C

June 1969

• >r. I'- • 'J. C o n d o n

1006 JTLA Bl-lg.
'Jnlvej'slty o f Colorado
B o n H e r , C o l o . SO

r>e ^ r Or. Condon:

Since neither v o u nor* t h e A i r F o r c* a r e w l 1 1 1 n p t o

release witness nnmep on oarep analyp^d in y o u r report,
T hove C o n g r e o t n a n U-1 a T 1 o T o u r i I s t r i ot t oQ JLoo 1c
into t h i s . H© has onntHcted A Lr P o r o a ^ e c r e t a r y e a ma n.*
9 nd Conrreaeirian M o r s t n t h e ma t r .

T h a n k y o u Tor t h e oopy of y o u r A P S iraft. T h e A P?

office Informs m e It 1. a s l a t e d for D e c e m b e r oubll c a t i o n .
X am surprised at v i e w o l n t s therein. If» a s s e e m s al-
most c e r t a i n , X a m the " a t m o s p h s r l o physicist" y o u al te ,
you misrepresent my p o s i t i o n . 5>o d i d D r a n s o o m b ; a n d the
same m i s r e p r e s e n t a t I o n appears In y o u r Re o r t . Tt is
perhaps not w o r t h trying here to clarify lt; b u t if you
w i s h c l a r i f i c a t i o n , lrt me know.

Enoloaed are copJ.ee o f a n u m b e r o f s u m m a r i e s of

recent talks in w h i c h I h a v e c r i t i c i s e d your Report.
Your conclusions d o n o t at a l l s e e m to b e s u p p o r t e d by
the H e n o r t ' s contents. The contents o f t h e re-,ort ar-
e-ue n e f d f o r n u o h m o r e c a r e f u l e x a m ' n a t i o n o f t h e UF'O
problem. And this In s p i t e o f w h a t I must view as
many gross inadequacies of s c i e n t i f i c aspects of the
Investigations you headed. I am unable to understand
how you approached this t a s k as y o u d i d . f Your Phila-
delphia and I r v i n e talks Indicate you m u t have no
r e a l a w a r e n e s s of the w e a k n e s s o f the p o s i t i o n you
have d e v e l o p e d . I am in p r o c e s s of p r e p a r i n g dis-
c u s s i o n s of m a n y features of the R e p o r t w h i c h s e e m to
me to a t t e s t to t h a t w e e k n e s s .

In giving the Academy such a R e o o r t , I believe

y o u did science a direct disservice. That the Academy
processes could l e a d t o e n d o r s e m e n t ; Is disturbing.

i n oe re l v ,

J. F. McDonald

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 17.C.pdf

 APPENDIX 1 8 - C 575

.. S I G H T I N 6 LETTER . C " .. J.- f o rrest 0. P e r k i n s

T S C T
i-v • ( / ( ' ' x AF15253257 v,
i ^ ^ /'•i-.".^ USAF- RET I RE 0 . "w

£ V/ Dear S i r : c <•> ' _

« R e f e r e n c e y o u r UFO S t u d y : y o u p r o b a b l y a l r e a d y h a v e this item in

* y o u r file, b u t , In case y o u d o n ' t . I will b r i e f l y o u t l i n e It and you can
r c o n t a c t m e for full details If y o u w a n t them.

I retired (20 y e a r s s e r v i c e ) I April 1967 from the U S A F . I have

^ . xv PI a cad my n a m e , rank, and serial n u m b e r at the top of the p a g e If y o u w a n t
N v to c h e c k on my a u t h e n t i c i t y . I w a s an A t r T r a f f i c C o n t r o l l e r throughout
vS m y s e r v i c e c a r e e r and utilized radar the last 16 y e a r s In the control of
-j Air Traffic. I w o n ' t b o t h e r listing the types and l o c a t i o n s , a l t h o u g h I
could s u p p l y all this Is n e e d e d .

A I h a v e n e v e r m e n t i o n e d this i n c i d e n t , as I w a s pretty s u r e It Is
c o n s i d e r e d (or w a s ) c l a s s i f i e d , and the o n l y reason I feel free to give you
v d e t a i l s Is b e c a u s e y o u are an o f f i c i a l g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c y .

•J • In 1956, s o m e t i m e between January and S e p t e m b e r (I c a n ' t r e m e m b e r

the e x a c t date o r m o n t h ) , I w a s o n duty as W a t c h S u p e r v i s o r at L a k e n h e a t h
^ v' RAF S t a t i o n . E n g l a n d (a USAF base) in the R a d a r A i r T r a f f i c Control C e n t e r .
,3J It w a s the 5 : 0 0 p . m . to m i d n i g h t s h i f t . I had e i t h e r four o r five o t h e r
c o n t r o l l e r s on my s h i f t . I w a s sitting at the S u p e r v i s o r ' s C o o r d i n a t i n g
desk and received a call on the d i r e c t line ( a c t u a l l y , I'm not sure w h i c h
>. line It w a s ) . A n y w a y , It w a s Scul thorpe GCA Unit calling and the radar
... o p e r a t o r asked me if w e had any targets on o u r scopes travelling at U ,000 m p h .
'>•, They said they had w a t c h e d a target o n their s c o p e s p r o c e e d from a point 30
' i o r U 0 m i l e s e a s t of S c u l t h o r p e to a p o i n t AO m i l e s w e s t of Scul thorpe. The
target passed directly o v e r S c u l t h o r p e , E n g l a n d RAF S t a t i o n (also an USAF
Station). He said the tower reported seeing It g o by and just a p p e a r e d to be
- ' 1 • blurry light. A C**7 flying o v e r the base at 5 , 0 0 0 feet a l t i t u d e also
reported seeing It as a b l u r r e d light that p a s s e d u n d e r his a i r c r a f t . No
report as to actual d i s t a n c e b e l o w the a i r c r a f t . I Immediately had all
N. c o n t r o l l e r s s t a r t scanning the radar s c o p e s . I had e a c h s c o p e set on a
\ d i f f e r e n t range - from 10 m i l e s to 2 0 0 m i l e s radius of L a k e n h e a t h . At this
* __ ' time I did not c o n t a c t a n y o n e by telephone as I w a s rather skeptical of this
report. W e w e r e using full MTl on o u r r a d a r , w h i c h e l i m i n a t e d e n t i r e l y all
•» r. • g r o u n d returns and s t a t i o n a r y targets. T h e r e w a s very little o r not traffic
o r targets on the s c o p e s , as I recall. H o w e v e r , one c o n t r o l l e r n o t i c e d a
s t a t i o n a r y target on the scopes about 2 0 to 25 m i l e s s o u t h w e s t . This w a s
unusual as a s t a t i o n a r y target should have been e l i m i n a t e d unless It w a s
-V m o v i n g at a speed of at least AO to *»5 k n o t s . And yet w e c o u l d detect no
* m o v e m e n t at a l l . W e w a t c h e d this target on all the d i f f e r e n t scopes for
several m i n u t e s and I called the CCA Unit at L a k e n h e a t h to see if they had this
' target on their scopes also. They confirmed the target w a s on their scope in
%J the same g e o g r a p h i c a l location. As w e w a t c h e d , t h e s t a t i o n a r y target s t a r t e d
' m o v i n g at a s p e e d of UOO to 6 0 0 m p h In a n o r t h , n o r t h e a s t d i r e c t i o n until it
reached a p o i n t about 2 0 m i l e s north n o r t h w e s t o f L a k e n h e a t h . There was no
s l o w s t a r t o r b u i l d - u p to this spaed - It w a s c o n s t a n t from the second it
<- N started to m o v e until it s t o p p e d .

I called and reported all the facts to this p o i n t . Including S c u l t h o r p e

{' C C A ' s Initial report, to the 7th A i r Division C o m m a n d P o s t at L o n d o n . They
• V in turn n o t i f i e d 3rd A i r Force C o m m a n d Post and had them h o o k e d Into the

...2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.B.html

5 7 6 A P P E N D I X 12-B

APPENDIX - ITEM D
CHAPTER 16

( R e p r o d u c t i o n of a telex i n c l u d e d in P r o j e c t B l u e B o o k ' s r e p o r t o n the

L a k e n h e a t h - B e n t w a t e r s s i g h t i n g s of A u g u s t 13-14, 1956. D e l e t i o n s (...)
i n d i c a t e u n r e a d a b l e letters or n u m b e r s , w h i l e blanks ( ) indicate
censored w o r d s a n d phrases. T h e text is in l o w e r case instead of caps, a n d
a d d i t i o n a l p a r a g r a p h s are inserted at a p p r o p r i a t e places, to m a k e f o r easier
reading.)

"MHAS...S...LGC 4GAB615
PP RJEDEN RJDLGB RJF.DWP
DE RJDI..GA 44
P
FM COMAEGRU 3S18 RAF LAKENHEATH E N G L A N D
TC RJEDEF/COMDR ADC ENT AFB COLO SPRINGS COLO
RJEDWP/ COMDR ATIC WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB O H I O
Z E N / D I R E C T O R OF INTELLIGENCE H Q USAF WASH DC
BT
/ / F R O M BOI 435. SECTION T W O OF T W O .
Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight and w o u l d
investigate. At thirteen (13) miles west he r e p o r t e d loss of
target and white light. Lakenheath RATCC vectored him to a
target 10 miles east of Lakenheath a n d pilot advised target
was on r a d a r and he was "locking on". Pilot reported he had
lost target on his radar. Lakenheath RATCC reports that as the
Venom passed the target on radar, the target began a tail chase
of the friendly fighter.
RATCC requested pilot acknowledge this chase. Pilot
acknowledged and stated he w o u l d try to circle and get behind
the target. Pilot

..3-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.A.H.html

 APPENDIX 1 6 - E 577

"Lakenheath-Bentwaters August 13-14, 1956 case report

issued from the 4602nd AISS. "

„..,. > I s o p - p ; ::c ( : z ) .

( H. Aug)
MOTCi
O"La«fvcr J , AT' p i _ o t
w... Ar.ar.. F t - f * i©r.
NGTH O* CiliFUVATISN S. 'mwmSCR o» cuects t. CUv«kC
il: A p p r o * -j n r s '/•-urlud V.vriod

(AT1C)
v r. 1'. ••u.-.uut, tiovvoor. 2xT.-0-w'5420 £ 1 A t f i x t t e l a r . e e , t h e 2 nrs3a,'/.-i
•'/•l.cvuci's r u a i r r e p o r t e d 3 • • « « r » t e W O (1*1' M o s s r X J I - * 6 5 , i o > u a:..-i
r c V.u ii.'Jio.'. i y a p p ^ n r i a r . i ! 1aappc irins . I D O - 7 3 3 b , 2 1 A u g S o ) rcpcrti.-.t
or. -.r.elr s c r c c n s , vitijTi 2 purled. ai r ;ntir.K g i v e t e e i n p r e a M o n *Jiat
1 "•. r o r . i w a t u r ; titakion n l c r t c u .'.Ai' r'-iar o b a v r v a t l c n o , rr.dnx, y o u n d a n d n - r ,
1 A r e v i e w o r dct»»i.«i«J
ur.it i t L a k o n h e a t h . On Au.; t h e H A T ur.it w e r e s irzu _ tar.*? o u s .
; r e p o r t e d obju v c r u o b s e r v e d .iaorsitta::tly report I i < - I - 5 6 , d t d 31 Aug isii:cau>s
iro:r. OOIC:*. t o 0 3 3 0 £ » g o inf. i'roa W t o S W , v n a t , a l t h o u g h t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s too"*
! s t o p p i n g l"or 5 c l n u t e o , t h e n c e N W d i s a p p e a r i n g p l a c e wltr.in t:;e p e r i o d s g i v e n , t r e y
i i'rox s c o p e a t 0 3 3 0 2 . cauoot be considered as concurrent.

atic ropm jw <*isv a* s

-SC. C y n t ' l n u o d ) . 11. Continued

3. A.-, '.i^'upr - c o l o r e d o b j e c t w-is o b s e r v e d This is confirmed b y the original report

v i s u a l l y w i t h V X J O b i n o c u l a r s n e n r tr.o w h i c h c w t e c t h a t tli'j r<ular
n o r A s u n t o w o r d u E . .lii. *rhis o b j e c t , t h e s i g h t i n g s o c c jRrd a t a l a t e r tiiao th..-
apparent size o f a p i a h e a d , r e m i n e d in cround s . ^ h t l n c " . CoaxjCL-.s, or. £.i.e bttsio
J i ^ u Tor approxirvtweiy i h o u r . o f s p e c i f i c a s : « c to o f e a c h s i g o t i r y j i
. p i l o t s c f r» l o c a l Ar* I n t e r c e p t o r IV.dar: T h e w i d e l y d l v e r c e z x t tr-ic..j -i:.u
s - . u a d r o a w..o w e r e v e c t o r e d t o tiie a r e a s p e e d s o b s c r v e l o n t h e s c o p e s (~W t o IP.:,
returned after a r.lnute s e o r c n . E t o W , S B t o S W , a n d uL> t o JsOOO M T : i ) , t h e
.'Jotainn r o u n d . Both stated, aowovwr, sudden a p p e a r i n g , diuappearing lri*rnltt«»n:
tiiUt r.t.ere o n e n Vri-'iit s t a r i n t h e - . t o p p i n g , s m a r t i n g ar.d .. t l o n . e s
nor.BPii _ r i o x * ioji'.watcrc, t i n t c o u l d u;.U o t h e r e r r a t i c b o a u v l j r o f .-;
."iH'/n see:, n . i a t n k e n f o r a U K O b y v i s u a l c h a r s c t c r 1 s t i c o f we a the; r r e t u r n ; . n:.u ci.11.
in,- i i t c o u j i h r r l c e o n d l t l o i u t . T h l b on. oi-o
.. wrouad oooervcrs reported an _ be C o n f u s i n g t o t r a i n e d o : a r i a . . i - , I ..<;•.• j
w . o u n t o f " s l i o o t i n g o U r a " i n t h e a Icy r.ot I m p l y i a c k o f c a p a b i l i t y c f r o p o r i . : . , ;
curing this period. personnel *
Visual Croand: It should be noted r
visu.il s i g n t i r . g b y t h e c o n U r o l - t;/vrr
e h l e f , u s i n g 7 X 'JO O i n o c - l a_r:;, v n s mi
•wber-colored object lo to
d e g r e e s a b o v e t h e h o r i z o n t o w a r d s t n e .--J.
T h e o b s e r v e r f u r t h e r s t a l e d Lr.at. ;i«ls
o b j e c t rcnalr.ed i n s i g h t f o r niiprnxiuii-ci;
APPENDIX - ITEM (CONTINUED)
CHAPTER 1 6

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 16. E.pdf

578 APPENDIX 1 7 - A

. uirreD states Govt, .men

A / o r a n d u m
CCNFIUntiu
y
OAT»: 6-24-60

SUBJECT:

.. w «vvn. U I I W R U M , DC.
^UNAUTHORIZED DISCEOSUHB 0 iSIPIED IKP0B)UII(nr
OESPIOXAGB - X

™
O n "2 J
"6 - •
Pore*, furnished -3 f-"o" Captain
vap H. J U l l T U . OSI, Alx-
Id „
memorandum relating Liaison
L l l i a m
Agent
I i t m *
allegations Plaid*
m . u .
bv t . . '
letterhead
allega t' w that Top
?* c r , t docuMnta relating
relatln
Objects (UFO), war* bain ••rreptitlously removed ad Plying
from ti
Pentago "

ebiaT^edfroT^ou?? ^ J " t *?h. T =r e t ch"the£" Ji^d '

g^^Jrtan such docujnente vara displayed by ^
Sullivan notad . . . mJ
. persons contacted at A i r
f±-'-»J
Porca Intelligence UPCZX) wnloh handle, UP
UP0
—>«
— documents at thS"S2ITI.. or
baan requested to deter^ln! SieiS!^ JCffS""* H * •*«*•<« APCIS has

a P P « r s doubtful the a l l e g a t i i i j fra 11

^ ••/^Bureaa of results of ^ i ^ S n ^ f c ^ H i l 1

negationsNationalities
harala Intelligence
- - - Sactlon
—— b. bean» adTlead
U Y ] ,f
• J » 6 - 7 6 6 3
A S S t . :a. r 2
S - H ^ ^ - S ^ S r - S S K l E - wr .
?Jl^L/-
1 feTC^

evw

....2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 11 .C.html

 APPENDIX 18-C 579

NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE ON AERIAL PHENOMENA

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
December 3, 1969

A apecial meeting of the Executive Committee of the

Board of Governors of NICAP Was held, pursuant to waiver o£

notice (attached hereto), at the offices of Wald, Harkrader,

and Rockefeller, 1225 Nineteenth Street, N. w., "Washington,

D. C . , on Wednesday, December 3, 1969, at 10i30 a.m.

Colonel Joseph Bryan, XXX, and J . B. Hartranft, Jr., were

present in peraon and Major 'D. J. Fournet waa present by

proxy (attached hereto), thua constituting all members of

the Executive Committee. Also present was Thomas C .

Matthews, Jr., NICAP counsel.

C o l o n e l Bryan p r e s i d e d and M r . M a t t h e w s was

designated secretary ad hoc for the meeting. The chairman

reported on studies and investigations into the operational

and fiscal operationa of NICAP and on the basis of those

studies the following resolutions were duly passed!

...2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.B.html

580 A P P E N D I X 17-C

PROXY

I, Major D. J. Fournet, do hereby grant toy

proxy to J. B. Hartranft, Jr., constituting and appointing

said Colonel Hartranft to vote and act for me and in my

name, place, and stead, at the special meeting of the

Executive Committee to be held at the offices of Wald,

Harkrader, and Rockefeller, 1225 Nineteenth Street, N. W.,

Washington, D, C., on December 3, 1969, at lOi30 a.m.,

hereby granting him power to'act as fully as if I personally

were present.

Dated» December 2. 1969

Major D. J. Fournet

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 17. C.pdf

 APPENDIX 18-C 581

Reprinted from Proceedings 14th Radar Meteorology

Conference, November 17-20, 1970, Tuceon, Arizona.

MKTP.OROLOCICAX. FACTORS IN UNIDENTIFIED RADAR RKTI'RNS

Jmc* E. McDonald

The University of A r i z o n a
Tucson, Arizona

1. INTRODUCTION mllltery and air traffic radars, intermittently

over s psrlod of sbout twsnty years, yet never
Radar meteorology might be aald to hsvs it« subjscted to any very c a r e f u l , systematic, and
ssrllsst roots in at temptH to account for un— extended scientific scrutiny, aa near ss I hsve
explained e c h o e s detected with Nsvy shipboard been eble to sscertain.
CXAM radar on the U.S.S. Yorktoun 4 5 0 miles off
the southern C a l i f o r n i a coast in ths summer of
1940 (Page, 1962). T h s echoes were demonstrated 2. PAST STUDIES
to be z u l t l p l e - a w e a p returns from ths distant
Ssn Diego cosstal a r e a , seen v i a ths now noto- It la to ha understood that I exclude from
rious anomalous propegstlon CAP) conditions this discussion (s) sll areelly extenslvs layer-
prevalent In that area. Similarly, productive type returns of ths sort now fairly famillsr to
ressarch on what ultimately proved to b s s wide rsdsr s w t e o r o l o g l e t s from many studies, (b) dot-
vsrlsty of types of " r s d s r sngels" stemmed fro* a n g e l s of both wind-independent (Insects, b i r d s )
efforts to account for peculiar echoes not iden- and wind-dspendent (etnoepherlc refractive anom-
tifiable as aircraft or precipitation or ground a l i e s ) types, (c) ring sngsls, and (d) intense
returns. Lightning e c h o e s went through s slot- but generslly srsslly extensive and only slowly
liar period of exlatence as unidentified returns, chsnglng ground returns due to AP. After thst
aa did thoae caused by lntenae tornado vorticea, e l l m l n s t l o n . thsre still rsmalns a class of
sea—brssse fronts, etc. C l e a r l y , unldentlflsd wind-independent rsturns, often highly localized
radar returns, and the meteorological factors snd oftsn exhibiting sppsrent speede of propsgs-
contributing to t h e m , hsvs provldsd s fruitful tlon w e l l sbove ambient wind speeds and some-
aource of stimulating new problems In radar times even well above known slrcrsft speeds. In
aateoroloiy over the past three decades. Per- Plank'a (1956) rsvlew of engcl phenomens, he
haps the most recent exsmple thereof ia found appeera to h a v e been cognizant of such a resid-
in current studies of the m e t e o r o l o g i e s ! 1mp11 — ual class, which he lsbeled Type III Angels
cstlons of ths sstonlshing bresklng-wave echoes ("Echoes, frequently e r r a t i c - m o v i n g , from locsl-
eeen on certain u l t r a s e n s i t i v e , ultra-high lzed, non-wind csrrisd sources"). Thst h s hsd
resolution radars, such as the new CW/FM verti- in m i n d returns of ths category here under con-
cally—pointing set developed st the Nsvsl Elec- slderetlon eeems further confirmed by hla sub-
tronics Laboratory. T h e curious scalloped and sequent treatment (Plsnk, 1959, p. 2 3 ) of whst
braided e c h o - p a t t e r n s went unldentlflsd for s h s tersad "a type of nonairoraft eoha that
time after b e i n g first noted some years b a c k , muddanly appear a, mouea for a matter of minutee
but are now reliably attributed to index dls- in a aami-atraight Una path at velooitime of
contlnuielss w h o s e shear—generated undulatione aome 600—B000 mph, and then diaappeare." Echoes
and refractlvity variance must come as a dis- of this nature w e r e discussed earlier by Borden
tinct surprlss to every meteorologist o n first end Vlckers (1953) following two widely publi-
aselng graphic records of these phenomens. In cized episodes st U a a h l n g t o n Nstlonsl Airport on
these snd othsr esses of Initlslly unidentified July 19 and 26, 1952. (See also A i r Weather
rsdsr returns, experience hss shown thet closs Service. 1954.) Plank (1958) has also briefly
sttsntlon to rscurrent features of the petterna discussed thoee two episodes snd dsscrlbsd the
of puzzling rsturns hss paid o f f in new and prevailing conditions ss "exceedingly super-
important u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the stmosphare and refractive." H o w e v e r , my o w n computations of
its electromagnetic p r o p a g a t i o n characteristics. the relevant N—gradients In the w e a k surface-
Inversion layer pressnt showed s vslue of only
sbout half the ducting v a l u e , snd subsequent
Ths present pspsr w i l l comment upon snd cite checks by Plsnk (psrsonsl communication)
some examples of a category of unidentified rsveeled thet s fsctor o f two hsd been Inadver-
rsdsr returns that do not seem to bs w s 1 1 — k n o w n tently omitted from his earlier computationa
to lnvestigstors In rsdsr s e t e o r o l o i y , despite
ths fsct thst ths p h e n o m e n s h s v s frequently
been sttrlbuted to a n o m a l o u s p r o p s g s t l o n and factor of two. on the high side. Thayer*a
other w e a t h e r effecte. These are a type of gradient computations confirm this (he does show
returns o b s e r v e d on operational r a d a r s , chiefly s thin duct on 7/26/52. but its e l e v a t i o n of

...2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.B.html

582 A P P E N D I X 12-B

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

T U C S O N . A R I Z O N A 83721

INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHKRIC PHYSICS

March 8. 1971
Hon. S i l v i o 0. Cont«
House o f Representatives
Washington. 0. C . . 20515
Deer Mr. Conte:
accompanying l e t t e r I s my formal response to your I n v i t a t i o n t o add
f u r t h e r comments to my remarks made l a s t week, when you asked me about my
« » r k on the UFO problem. This note I s an Informal l e t t e r o f transmittal.
As you mey have guessed, I wes taken e n t i r e l y by surprise by your bring-
ing up the UFO problem, and f a i l e d to grasp the essential purpose o f your
question. For that reason, I probably did not g i v e you very s a t i s f a c t o r y
answers; I was put too much on the d e f e n s i v e by my misinterpretation o f your
objectives. ,
Hence, against the p o s s i b i l i t y that you s t i l l artglit be able to use a
somewhat formal l e t t e r In response to your I m i t a t i o n V elaborate on those
p o i n t s , I send you the enclosed l e t t e r . T > < s jirobably^too l a t e to I n s e r t
I t Into the published version o f l e s t weeiT's headings, but conceivably I t
might be o f some use to you I f you do dlkeuas^Sny o f these points on the
House f l o o r .

In any event, even I f t h l j ^ l s o f nd real use to you In connection with

c l a r i f y i n g or evaluating my SSt testimony. I em delighted to have this oppor-
tunity to underscore to^ny m e « k e * n * t o n < j r e s s the point that there are
responsible sclentlsto^who have taken a good look a t the UFO problem end
conclude t h a t , f a r frfcm being/a l o t o f nonsense. I t 1s a matter o f poten-
t i a l l y highest s c i e n t i f i c s M n l f l c a n c e . The l a t t e r I s very much my view,
a f t e r more then four y i s r s - o f rather d e t a i l e d studies In that area.
1 ot th,t ou
. -< •l'?Ll V jr r 0"B , p a r t i c u l a r l y In the
spring o f 1966 and continuing on Into 1967. has been the s i t e o f many out-
standing UFO r e p o r t s . I have I n v e s t i g a t e d , in q u i t e a b i t o f d e t a i l , f o r
e u m p l e . one that occurred In the middle o f B e v e r l y . Mess.. Involving a
number o f witnesses. Including two p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , and represented a
sighting a t extremely c l o s e range o f an o b j e c t f i t t i n g no known technological
description. I t ' s a f a s c i n a t i n g problem, and one that has been ellowed to
s l i p Into a most r e g r e t t a b l e s t a t e . Perhaps a t soaw future time, we might
have an opportunity t o pursue these n e t t e r s f u r t h e r .
S i n c e r e l y yours,

James C. McDonald
Professor
JEM/msr
Enclosures

..3-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.A.H.html

 APPENDIX 1 8 - C 583

McDonald's last known scientific paper, addressing a problem in

atmospheric physics, but found among his UFO files material.

A VARIATIONAL DERIVATION OF YOUNG'S EQUATION FOR THE CONTACT ANGLE

ABSTRACT

Young's equation for the contact angle in a solid-liquid-

vapor system is d e d u c e d , b y a straightforward variational method,
as the m i n i m u m surface free energy equilibrium condition for a
small mass of liquid resting on a plane insoluble solid surface.
Shape variations are subject to the two constraints of uniform
internal liquid pressure, to assure mechanical equilibrium, and
constancy of liquid volume under the allowed variations of the
shape parameters. The analysis includes a proof that the Young
contact angle is n o t simply an extremal condition on free energy
but actually a minimal condition, so that it corresponds to
stable equilibrium for the case considered.

INTRODUCTION

In analyses of solid-liquid-vapor systems, use is frequently

made of the Young equation.

e is the contact angle, y ^ is the specific surface free energy

of the solid-vapor interface, and y ^ is the specific surface
free energy of the solid-liquid interface, as shown in Fig. la.
(
1
Work done with the support of the O f f i c e of Naval Research.

...2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.B.html

584 APPENDIX 18-D

THS U N I V E R S I T Y OF ARIZONA

A P P L I C A T I O N FOR S A B B A T I C A L LEAVK
( S u b m i t This F o r m I n Q w l n l u p l i c a t * )

Applicant's Name McDonald James E D.lo: June 8 , 1*71

Loit R n l Middlm Initial

Department Meteorology Highest Earned Degree

Period Requested for Sabbatical L e a v e : July 1, 1971 ,n December 31, 1971

L i s t B e l o w A l l P o s i t i o n s H e l d at T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a . S t a r t w i t h t h e l a t e s t p o s i t i o n , a n d d e s c r i b e a l l l e a v e s o r a b s e n c e .
E a c h year should be accounted for.

Academic ( A )
_ ,. Full T i m e or o r Fiscal ( F )
Position Dates Fraction of T i m e
Senior Physicist 195/ - Pull time""
Sabbatical
Scientific Director, JAP
. . . IAP _

Additional Compensation During Sabbatical Leave:

Granted: Sources and A m o u n t s Applied for: Sources and Amounts

Description o f Sabbatical L e a v e Project (State purpose briefly here; see instructions below):
To engage in a number of limited studies of new techniques cacable of
meeting the demands of teaching and research duties with perhaps special
attention to the expanding undergraduate field. In addition. the sabbatical
leave willHBe employed" £n drafting several manuscripts for publication. .
N a m e s and A d d r e s s e s o f P e r s o n s C o m p e t e n t t o E v a l u a t e t h e P r o j e c t ( D e p a r t m e n t h e a d s will attach o n e c o p y o f each letter o f
evaluation):— n i e l t K^RSflnrfpy
Lou BflLttan
George Pawsnn

O n a s e p a r a t e s h e e t . 8 V i x I I . d e s c r i b e in d e t a i l t h e s a b b a t i c a l p r o j e c t , g i v i n g a l l p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e g o a l s , a n d t h e p o s t -
sabbatical benefits t o be a c h i e v e d — publications, teaching m e t h o d s , etc.

If g r a n t e d s a b b a t i c a l l e a v e . I a g r e e t o a b i d e b y t h e t e r m s o f t h e S a b b a t i c a l L e a v e P o l i c y , a n d t o s u b m i t a final r e p o r t t o t h e V i c e
P r e s i d e n t f o r A c a d e m i c A f f a i r s , f o r r e f e r r a l t o t h e P r e s i d e n t , d u r i n g t h e first s e m e s t e r a f t e r r e t u r n i n g f r o m s a b b a t i c a l l e a v e .

(/ (Signature o fApplicant) (Date)

( F o r m s a v a i l a b l e at t h e O f f i c e o f t h e V i c e P r e s i d e n t F o r A c a d e m i c A f f a i r s )

....2-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 11 .C.html

 APPENDIX 1 8 - E 585

N o t e d UA?Rys!cTsT

Shertfrs"~deputles y e s t e r d a y reported t h e 'Donald wag worldwiden

finding of the body of D r . J a m e s E. l f c D o n s l d . m tmldenllflsd flying otgects and also on
»l. «>et*l University of A r i x m a atmospheric t h e health e f f e c t ^ of the gnrngmA supersonic
t r a n s p o r t Jet plan—, }
ft H o s t k a l Sunday b y taxi.
Sheriff Waldon V B u r r s Tucson police r e c o r f c Indicated McDonald McDonald testified March t . 1V71. before a
body w a s discovered about 11 was blinded when he shot himself in the head House t r a n s p o r t a t i o n subcommittee in Wash-
April I at Ms h o m e st M l E. Znd St. He w a s - ington, D.C., about possible environments!
Frank Flores. of 1*7 E Lee
S I . who told detectives he beine treated at the hospital for visual prob- h a z a r d s of flying a large fleet of SSTs.
lero< I'olice r e c o r d s said he also left a note at
and his children were hiking
the u.iie of the first f hooting. The sltitude the planes would be flying, he
when Uiey discovered t h e
body n e a r the bridge s t Can- said, would place t h e m in the stratosphere,
McDonsld c a m e to the UA In 1954 s s the
yon Del Oro. next to I n a which he noted is about 100 times more sensi-
associate d i r e c t o r or the school's Institute of
Road on Interstate I t . tive to technological contamination than the
Atmospheric Physics.
lower regions w h e r e current a l r e r a f t cruise.
The deputies ssid UA President R i c h a r d A. Harvlll said of
McDonald apparently had McDonald: " H e kad Man very productive la H a said the supersonic a
committed suicide. They t h a amount a n d q u a l » of r e s e a r c h , and be h i t h e reduction of oaoae, i
found a 31-caliber revolver b e c a m e weO-kftown fcoughout t h e United t h e s u n ' s ultraviolet radlatic
next to the body along with a said, i n c r e a s e tha U.S.
note. " H e apparently killed hln
S W f f i J S V ? w" - " b y a b o u t 10,000 n W i
* ~

m a j o r i t y of U F O sightings to t
loons, birds and other objects

He told the House subcommittee that '

problem of U F O ' s Is a very serine* «r»emtnc
problem " He also said "the .• n i f l a t i i n be-
1
tween I KO ! «•••
turbine."
•MeltONAI.D. J a m e s K.. i \ McDonald, in the carN •'•
of 3461 E. 3rd St pa«Md C o m n u l l e e Against Rin^m;; l u i - n a i t h 1 >•
• w a y J u n e U . 1W1. Survived tans. The group protested the selection of Ti-
by his wife. Betsy Ann; t a n intercontinental missile sites around Tue-
daughters. Nancy Kay
McDonald. Gail Elian
McDonald, and J a n Lorraine McDonald received his doctorate from Iowa
McDonald, all of Tucaoa. also State a n d s e r v e d with the U.S. Ngvy during
RooOyi Louise M c D o o f t l l of World W a r H a s a n a e r e t a g M .
Loe Angeles. Calif; a o o T L e e
Hunt McDonald, of Tucson H e w a s t h e author of " P h y s i c s of Cloud
and Kirk T. McDonald, of Modification" and served a s a contributing
P a s a d e n a . Calif. Memorial editor of " T h e Glossary of Meteorology "
services will be held Thurs-
day, J u n e 17. l t n , 7: JO p.m.. Ha is survived by his widow. Betsy; four
Unitarian Church. O i l E. d a u g h t e r s . Ronlyn. Nancy. Gail and Jan. and
a n d St. P r i v a t e interment, t w o sons. Kirk a n d Lee.
in Ueu of flowers, friends
may contribute to Books for A m e m o r i a l s e r v i c e will be held Thursday
the Blind of Arizona, 2021 E. P.®, Unitarian Universalis!
5th St.. Tucson. Ariz. Ar- O i u r c h , 4831E. B a d . St
rangements by Arizona Mor-
l u a i y . Eastalde Chapel., 4601 F u n e r a l a r r a n g e m e n t s a r a being handled
E P i n t St. (one block west b y t h a Arizona M o r t u a r y E a s t , 4601 E . 1st SL
of Swan Rd.)

http://5thworld. com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 18. E.pdf

586 A P P E N D I X 12-B

MEMORIAL RESOLUTION
JAMES EDWARD MCDONALD

1920-1971

James E . McDonald, professor of Atmospheric Sciences and

Senior Physicist in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the
University of Arizona died on 13 June 1971. He was born on
7 May 1920 in Duluth, Minnesota, earned the B.A. degree at the
University of Omaha in 1942, the M.S. degree at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 19 45 and the Doctor of Philosophy
degree at Iowa State University in 1951. During World War II
he served in the Navy as an aerologist, was a meteorology
instructor- at M.I.T. and reached the rank of lieutenant junior
grade. Dr. McDonald spent 1953 at the University of Chicago
before joining the staff of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics
in 1954 as the associate director. lie later relinguished this
post to devote all his time to teaching and research.

Dr. McDonald worked in many ways to make the University of

Arizona a better school. He served on the Faculty Senate from
1959-1962 and 1965-1969 and was a member of the Committee of
Eleven for several terms. Many of his suggestions for change,
proposed in written memoranda, have now become University policy.

Dr. McDonald was a scientist and a pfirson having most unusual

qualities. He was a voracious reader and had an encyclopedic
memory. There were few scientific subjects which escaped at least
partial scrutiny and in many areas, his knowledge made him an
authority. Anyone who encountered Dr. McDonald in the midst pf
a research endeavor will surely recall his relentless pursuit of
knowledge and understanding.

The contributions to the atmospheric sciences by Dr. McDonald

extended far beyond the contents of his published papers. He
was a brilliant teacher and lecturer who was an inspiration to his
students. His courses in cloud and precipitation physics were
outstanding in content, challenging in presentation, successful
in exciting interest and curiosity, sometimes sprinkled with
sarcasm and often lightened with humor. In his lecturers, he
invariably impressed audiences with his attention to details and
his extensive documentation.

One of Dr. McDonald's early important papers published in

1954 dealt with the shape of raindrops. During the fifties and
sixties he published a series of articles dealing with problems
of cloud physics, particularly nucloation and other aspects of
physical meteorology. The subject of radiation and atmospheric
optics was one of his favorites. Of particular note was his work
in the field of weather modification. In 19 50 he wrote a lengthy
article entitled "The Physics of Cloud Modification" which serves
as a standard reference on this subject.

..3-page document at http://5thworld.com/Firestorm/Apps/ch. 14.A.H.html

 Glossary ofAcrortymns
A A AS: American Association for the Advancement of Science
ADC:Air Defense Command
AEPG:Army Electronic Proving Ground
AFIN:Air Force Intelligence
AFOSR:Air Force Office of Scientific Research
AFSCA: Amalgamated Flying Saucer Clubs of America, Inc.
AFSWC:Armed Forces Special Weapons Control
AIAA:American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AISS:Air Intelligence Service Squadron
AMC:Air Materiel Command
AMS:American Meteorological Society
ANS: American Nuclear Society
AP:Anomalous Propagation of radar signals
APRO:Aerial Phenomena Research Organization
ASME: American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASNE:American Society of Newspaper Editors
BMEWS:Ballistic Missile Early Warning System
CAUSrCitizens Against UFO Secrecy
CIC:Counter Intelligence Corps
CNOPS: unknown
CSA:Committee on Science and Astronautics
CSI:Civilian Saucer Intelligence
CSIRO:Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Org.
CSM:Christian Science Monitor
CUFOS:Center for UFO Studies
D/F: Direction Finders
DIA:Defense Intelligence Agency
DoD:Department of Defense
DoT:Department of Transportation
ECM:electronic countermeasures
EM:electromagnetic
EPA:Environmental Protection Agency
ESSA:Environmental Space Science Administration
ETH:extraterrestrial hypothesis
F.A.G.: 1127th Field Activities Group
FOIA:Freedom of Information Act
FPC:Federal Power Commission
FSR:Flying Saucer Review
FTDiForeign Technology Division
FUFOR:Fund for UFO Research

CPS ' p t f & b ?

Firestorm - Ann Druffel
588 FIRESTORM

GCI:Ground Control Interception

GM:General Mills
GOC:Ground Observer Corps
GRCS:Graduate Research Center of the Southwest
GSW:Ground Saucer Watch
IAP:Institute of Atmospheric Physics
IEEE:Insitute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
IGY: International Geophysical Year
IRPOS:Interdisciplinary Research on Problems of Am. Society
JEM James E. McDonald
JPL:Jet Propulsion Laboratory
JRDB:Joint Research and Development Board
LANS:Los Angeles N I C A P Subcommittee
LAX:Los Angeles International Airport
LEM:lunar exploratory module
MCAS:Marine Corps Air Station
MJ-12:Operation Majestic Twelve
MS:multiple sclerosis
MTI: Moving Target Indication
MUFON:Mutual UFO Network
NAA:National Astronomical Association
NACA:National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics
NAS:National Academy of Sciences
NASC:National Aeronautics and Space Council
NCAR:National Center for Atmospheric Research ,
NIF: unknown
NL:night light
N M I M T : N e w Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
NO+:nitric oxide
NOAA:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOTS:Naval Ordnance Training Station
NRC:National Research Council
NRL:Navy Research Lab
NSA:National Security Agency
NSC:National Security Council
NSF:National Science Foundation
NWC:Naval Weapons Center
NZSSR:New Zealand Scientific Space Research
0/SI:0ffice of Scientific Information, C I A
ONO:Office of Naval Operations
ONR:Office of Naval Research
ORNL:Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OSAF:Office of Special Projects, USAF (uncertain)
OSD:Office of the Secretary of Defense
OSI:Office of Special Investigations, USAF
G L O S S A R Y OF A C R O N Y M N S 589

PIC:Photographic Interpretation Center, USN

PK:psychokinesis
POWACM:Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, NAS
QRA:Quick Reaction Alert
RAAF:Royal Australian Air Force
RAPCON: Radar Approach Control
RESA:Scientific Research Society of America
RTCC: Radar Air Traffic Control Center, Lakenheath
R-V:radar-visual
SAC:Strategic Air Command
SCAS:Southwest Center for Advanced Studies
SRI:Standard Research Institute
SST:Supersonic Transport
TCE:trichloroethylene
UAC:United Aircraft Corporation
UFO:Unidentified Flying Object
UFOIC:Unidentified Flying Object Investigations Centre
USAF:White Sands Missile Range
USC:University of Southern California
USGS:United States Geological Survey
USN: United States Navy
USO:unidentified submarine object
VOA:Voice of America
VUFORS: Victorian UFO Research Society of Melbourne
WSMR: White Sands Missile Range
 Table of Figures
FIGURE I. The McDonalds' spacious, rambling home, set amid
desert landscaping in Tucson, Arizona. 4
FIGURE 2. In a semi-technical article intended for public information,
McDonald described the shape of raindrops as "like a
hamburger bun." 9
FIGURE 3. In a room designed originally as a memorial for
McDonald, his most important works are displayed in a
locked cabinet. 12
FIGURE 4. Dr. James E. McDonald in his rooftop office at the
Institute. 110
FIGURE 5. A 60-km long Arizona ring cloud. 112
FIGURE 6. The happy McDonald family. 119
FIGURE 7. Lois McDonald Riley,
sister and only sibling of Dr. James E. McDonald. 120
FIGURE 8. Charlotte Linn McDonald, at far right, mother of
Dr. James E. McDonald. 121
FIGURE 9. James Patrick McDonald, on right, father of
Dr. James E. McDonald 122
FIGURE 10. John Coyle's photograph of a dark rim around a
UFO. 174
FIGURE 11. Jim Kibel's photograph of UFO flipped onto its lower
edge. 178
FIGURE 12. James E. McDonald (right) with John Pearse, at the radio
station 2GB in Sydney, on June 26, 1967. 184
FIGURE 13. A "Tully" nest," a type of UFO "landing trace." Dead
reeds, swirled clockwise, are seen floating on top of a
shallow lagoon. 186
FIGURE 14. Some of the members of the Los Angeles N I C A P
Subcommittee, 1967. Top, from left, Idabel Epperson,
visiting guests Richard and Marty Hall from Washington,
D.C., N I C A P headquarters, L A N S chairman Dr. Leslie
Kaebum. Bottom, from left, Marilyn Epperson and Ann
Druffel (author). 257
FIGURE 15. George W. Earley, head of N I C A P * C O N N Affiliate in
Bloomfield, Conn. Although an aerospace administrative
engineer with United Aircraft Corporation, Earley was
also a high-profile UFO researcher with NICAP. 266

Firestorm -Ann Druffel

T A B L E OF F I G U R E S 591

FIGURE 16. The "supergroup" which met at the home of George and Margo
Earley on January 26, 1968. From left: Dr. Thornton Page, Dr.
David L. Morgan, John G. Fuller, Richard Hoagland, and Dr.
James E. McDonald. 269
FIGURE 17. The Yorba Linda photograph, taken January 24, 1967, through
the window of the 14-year-old photographer's home.
Developed by a 14-year-old friend, the picture is stained and
also shows scratches caused by a faulty winding mechanism in
the inexpensive "Imperial Mark XII" camera. What seems to
be a "string" holding up the UFO was proven by four
photographic analysts to be one of these scratches, and the
UFO was verified as "free-flying" and at least 100 feet from
the camera.. 275
FIGURE 18. A photo of a UFO which was accepted by the UFO field as
"possibly genuine" for years but was eventually proven to be a
model carved from a potato. 288
FIGURE 19. Rex E. Heflin's first photo, taken as the unidentified flying
craft crossed his line of vision, as seen through the windshield
of his work truck. 289
FIGURE 20. Heflin's second photo, taken through the truck's passenger
window as the craft tipped, revealing a dark underside. 290
FIGURE 21. Heflin's third photo, taken as the UFO changed course and
sped north out of sight. 291
FIGURE 22. Heflin's fourth photo, showing a bluish-black smoke ring
which the craft apparently left behind as it rapidly sped
away. 292
FIGURE 23. The second photo of Private George L. Stofko, Jr., showing a
cohesive black ring, low over a building at Ft. Belvoir,
Va. 309
FIGURE 24. The third Stofko photo shows the ring surrounded by what
appears to be whitish vapor or smoke. 310
FIGURE 25. In Stofko's fourth photo the "smoke" has almost obliterated
the smoke ring, but a curious "ribbed" effect is noticeable as if
"projections" on the black ring are poking out through the
vapor. 311
FIGURE 26. In Stofko's sixth photo, the black ring is completely
hidden in a "rosette-shape" cloud, which is much lower
than other clouds in the sky. 312
FIGURE 27. A series of 16 photos sent to McDonald by an Australian
colleague, Dr. E. G. Bowen, show a long-lasting, perfect black
ring resulting, according to Bowen's statement, from the
explosion of some hundredweights of over-age explosives in a
pit at the Liverpool Army base near Sydney. 318
592 FIRESTORM

FIGURE 28. In a subsequent Bowen photo, clouds formed in and around

this ring, somewhat similar to the Ft. Belvoir photos, but
blacker. 319
FIGURE 29. In another subsequent Bowen photo the black clouds have
completely covered the Australian ring. Note, however, the
ragged cloud effect, completely different from the Ft. Belvoir
"cloud rosette." 320
FIGURE 30. One of the two classic McMinnville, Ore., photos "in which
all factors investigated.. .appear to be consistent with the
assertion that an extraordinary, flying object, silvery, metallic,
disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently
artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses." 334
FIGURE 31. Three RAF stations involved in the Lakenheath
sightings. 437
FIGURE 32. James E. McDonald (right) and Gordon Lore (left) at an
academic UFO panel sometime around 1969. Lore was
Assistant Director of NICAP. 459
FIGURE 33. Full view of photo from which the enlargement, Figure 32, was
made. The other panel participants are unidentified. 460
FIGURE 34. McDonald's parents, Charlotte and James Patrick, in the early
1900s, shortly after their wedding, and before their lives
changed tragically. 507
 Index
Acronymns are decoded in the "Glossary o f Acronymns" on page 587

Armstrong, Mary Lou 264,265,282,

AAAS 79,231,281,395,434,449 345, 394
UFO Symposium 431, 434, 449 dismissal 282
academic freedom 249 Arnold, Kenneth 357
Acuff, John 462,473 Arther, Bill 280
CIA agent 462 ASME 266
Adams, Dr. Mac C. 46 ASNE 162, 163
Adamski, George 111,311,312 Atmospheric Physics of Unusual Aerial
ADC 237, 380,447,482 Q f k C&* Phenomena 195
AEPG 30 235 atmospheric pollution 247,396,477,488,
Aerospace Corporation 351 489
AFCIN 451 atomic bomb simulator 314,316-318
AFCIN-2 452 Australia 169, 171, 172, 200, 201
AFCIN-3 452 autokinesis 128
AFCIN-4 452 AWS 476
AFIN 380,450 Ayer, Frederick 276
AFOSR 140,150,378,388,389
AFR 200-2 77, 97, 147, 153, 199, 439 B
AFR 80-17 439 B-36 42,62, 138,361,438
AFSWC 375 B-47 341
Agnew, Spiro 431 Baker, Dr. Robert M.L. 230,237,243,
AIAA 201, 203, 208, 279, 332, 344, 345, 353-356
349, 350, 367, 373, 398,400 ball lightning 19,64,131,232
Oklahoma City conference 208 Bailer, Albert H. 458
Aircraft Owners and Pilots balloons 25, 37, 72,472
Association 459 see also Skyhook
AISS 322 Barnett, Ken 480
1127th 448 baseball 10-11
4602nd, responsibility for secretly Cleveland Indians 10
investigating UFOs 448 Battan, Dr. Lou 10,48-49,123,207,466,
alternative energies 236 480,518, 520
AMC 375 Battelle Memorial Institute 343
!
American Airlines 328, 483 Bell Telephone Labs 515
American Optical Company 388 Bennett, Colin 422
AMS 49, 160, 346, 357, 369, 371, 395, Benton, Maralyn 298
414,419, 480 Bentwaters, see Lakenheath
Anderson, Dr. Gerald P. 476 Berkner, Dr. Lloyd Viel 374, 382
Anderson, Jack 204,210 Berliner, Don 103,310,465
Anderson, Jack, Drew Pearson's aide 365 Berson, Dr. F. A. 185
Anderson, John A. 200, 387 Bethurum, Truman 111
Anderson, John C. 451 Bickel, Walt 410-414
Andrews, Capt. Tom 372, 387 Black Panthers 338,419
ANS 218 Black, Dr. Stephen 298,304, 305
anti-gravity 233, 243 Blackmer, Roy H., Jr. 334
AP, see UFO explanations-radar blackout, Northeast
propagation Q-29 relay 145
APRO 18, 67, 105, 213, 214, 239-240, re UFOs 74,138, 145,151,397,499
277, 328 blackout, Yugoslavia 74
CIA infiltration of 429 Bloecher, Ted 93,97,103,197,268,426,
APS 433 450, 453, 454,460, 467
Archer, James 262 Blue Book, see Project Blue Book
Arizona, rainfall 11 Blue Cross 428
Armed Services Committee 221 BMEWS 359, 368
Armitage Field 403 Boeing 488,498
Boffey, Phil 282
Boone, Dan 245, 354 , a 3
594 FIRESTORM

Bowen, Dr. E.G. 319 CIA 56, 81,106, 137,138, 144,151, 163,
Boyd, Lyle 271 187, 191, 199, 205, 267, 270, 355,
Boyer, Elton 137 361. 375, 379. 381. 382. 386. 428.
Branch, David 414, 420, 479 429,457,460,462,485
Brennan, Prof. John A 433 defense by Kassander 466
Brewer, Mike 515 host to USAF 485
Bronk, Dr. Detlev W. 374, 385 infiltration of NIC AP 466
Brown Mountain Lights 126-129 monitoring group activities 429
Brown, Harold 69, 137, 150, 255, 333, 394 O/SI 452, 470
Brown, T. Townsend 470, 495, 504 Psychological Warfare Staff 470
Brownfield, John 276,277 civil defense 257
Brunt, Tony 169 civil rights 15
Bryan, Col. Joseph, III 457-458,469-474 Clark, Thomas 190-191
CIA infiltrator of NICAP 458 classification levels 356, 378, 457
CIA Psychological Warfare Staff 470 Clemence, Gen. 398
USAF colonelcy CIA cover story 471 Clemence, Gerald M. 341
Bryant, Bob 360 climate modification 45, 477, 488
Bryant, V.D. 482 cloud modification 155,210
Buchert, Gerald 45 cloud physics 45, 195,477,488
Mrs. 45 nucleation of cloud vapor 168
Bureau of Reclamation 339 Soviet 466
Bush, Dr. Vannevar 374, 375, 378, 382, 386 Cohn, Victor 514
Butler, Dan 399 Cold War 62
Byrnes, D. Arthur 213,214 Coleman, Al 470
Coleman, Col. 478
C Coleman, John 140, 150, 272, 282, 391
C-5A 379 Colton, Eugene and Mrs. 298
CAA 28 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Cacioppo, Dr. Anthony J. 53-54, 58-59,63, Research Organization 195
65,69,76, 137-144, 166,391 Communism 512
Cambridge, Mass., Police Department 427, Concorde 511
428 Condon Committee 167,173,200,225,230,
Cameron, A1 230,397,456 241, 257-263, 265, 268, 271, 294,
Canadian Aeronautics and Space 326, 344, 391
Institute 348 early warning network 258
Astronautics Symposium 198 Condon Report 82,229,230,244,265, 274,
Carpenter, Scott 350 282, 283, 284, 325, 330-333, 339-
carrier craft, see UFO sightings, carrier craft 348, 368, 370, 371, 372, 387, 395-
Carvalho, Bernard J.O. 470 400, 408, 421, 431 -442,447, 448,
Catoe, Lynn 394 449, 459, 461, 482, 490
CAUS 470,471 coded numbers 284,286,333
Central Air Traffic Control 27 conclusions 82, 283, 333, 335, 371,448
Cerny, Paul 61, 95, 143, 197, 199, 414 effect on NICAP 452
Charak, Mason T. 143 irrelevant padding 342
Chavez, Sgt. Sam 212,216 misspelling of Lakenheath 442
Christian Science Monitor 241 NAS review panel 341
radar section 334,348,371,435,448
rebuttal by NICAP 454, 464
shoddy reporting 441
tax funded 82
Thayer section 284, 333, 334
UFO sightings in 284
unidentified cases 286, 332, 483
unscientific methods 342
INDEX 595
Condon, Dr. Edward U. 151,229,243,257, Dearborn Observatory 67
272-274,285, 332, 344, 391,392, debunking 57, 77, 85, 138, 152, 153, 178,
400, 431-435, 449, 450,453, 454 187, 192, 361,362, 381
"sticking it to" JEM 433 see also UFO explanations
files resurfaced 523 DeGoesandCo. 76, 138-143, 166,391
outrage 431 DeGoes, Col. Louis, see DeGoes & Co.
contactees 109-116, 186, 229, 258, 333, dematerialization 160,481
347, 522 Deneault, Harold H. 95
Conte, Rep. Silvio O. 497-508 Dennison, David M. 341
JEM sends UFO data 508 Dentsch, George C. 143
ridicule of JEM 499,503 Detection and Tracking Center, Colorado
unethical editing 503 Springs 359
Cook, Joseph, barometer story 397 Dewey, Donald 363-366
Cook, Paul 308 Deyo, Jack 211
Cooper, Timothy 376 DIA 81
Cote. A.J., Jr. 281 Dittmer, Dr. Howard 219
cover-up vs. foul-up 61, 62. 80, 81, 83, 138, Division of Meteorological Physics 185
148, 152, 154, 164, 179, 187, 199, DoD 41. 137, 140, 163, 199,210,211,254,
268, 315, 361, 365, 369, 380,417, 255,283
457,480,492 Dolan, Maj. Bruce A. 137, 138-141
Coyle. John and Miriam 173 Donahue, Tom 487
crackpots 115,274 Dorrenbacher, Vice President 238
Craig, Dr. Roy 262,335 Dost, Dr. 410,418
Craig, Jack 20 DoT 514
Crane, H.R. 341 Douglas Aircraft 345, 351, 467
Crawford, Col. Robert 365 Douglas, Lewis L. 3
crop circles 188 Downs, Bill 284
Crowell Publishers 85 Drake, Frank 231,388,434
Cruikshank, Brig. Gen. Arthur 53-55,62, Druffel, Ann 100, 257, 276, 298,401,410,
76, 138-139, 143-144, 166, 353 466
Crum, Stewart 146 Druffel, Charles 298
Cruttwell, Canon Norman E. G. 183 Drury, Maijorie 175-177
CSA 327, 354 Drury, Paul 175
CSI 18, 93, 103 Drury, Thomas C. 174
CIA infiltration of 429 DuPont 357
CSI(NZ) 169 DuToit, Peter 197
CSIRO 185 Ducander, General Counsel 235-237, 327
CUFOS 523, 526 Duich, Paul 113
Cutts, Dr. 516 Dunham, Dr. Charles L. 489
Dzik, Harriet and Rochelle 407
D
Daddario, Rep. Emilio 225,265 E
Daly, Philip 298, 304, 305 Earley, George 94, 251, 265-272, 352
Damon, Dr. Paul E. 2, 119, 129, 516, 520 Earley, Margo 269
Danberg, Jim 143 ECM 481
Davis, Dr. Neil 411 Edmonds, Capt. C.H. 301
Davis, Isabel 58, 59, 93, 96, 97, 103-105, Edwards, Frank 106
160, 197, 225, 284, 370, 398, 426, Eggers, Al 47, 142, 143
450, 453,460, 461,467,475 Eisenhower, Dwight D. 374-381
Davis, John 327 electrostatic propulsion 414
Dawson, George 126, 197, 480, 514 Ellsworth, Dr. Ralph 433
de Gaulle, General Charles 70, 74 EM 161
de Rochefort, "Count" Nicholas 470 interference 19, 369
Deal, John 515 English, Mr. D. 180
Dean, William E. 145-146 EPA 499
596 FIRESTORM

Epperson, Idabel 155, 259, 292-301, 306- FTD 41,55,81,326,353

307, 321, 339, 372, 399,414, 415, FUFOR 524
416, 428, 453, 473, 479 Fuller, Buckminster 515
Epperson, Marilyn 257, 259, 298, 339, 398, Fuller, John G. 73, 240, 269, 272, 280
414,415,417 Look article 279-282, 392
Epstein, Dr. Eugene 94, 230, 351 Fulton, Harold 169
ESP 160 fused sand 218,219
ESSA 96, 97, 334
-Navy Stormfury 195,211,340,344,346,
349,401,421,478 Garland, Brig. Gen. William C. 61
Estes, Jack 34 Gaskins, LeRoy 30
ETH 73,98, 125,143,157,158,161, 189, GCI 342
202, 244, 250, 285, 333, 363, 371, General Dynamics 237
384, 390, 397, 431,455,479 General Electric 388,488
"Why no contact?" question 397, 456 General Mills 131
Evans, Gordon 105 Geochronology Laboratories 4
Evans, Juanita 373, 402 geomagnetic self-sustaining motor 378
Evers, Ed 292, 308, Gill, Fr. William B. 180-183,463,517
eye jiggle 128 Gill, Gary 371
Eyring, Henry 397, 455 Girard, George E. 207
Glenn, John 350
GOC 350
F.A.G. 446, 452 God, belief in 15
1127th 452 Goddard Space Flight Center 76,96
F-9 403 Goedeke, A. Donald 232, 351
FAA 42, 217, 329, 347, 373 Goldwater, Sen. Barry 502, 510
Fairway Corporation 470 Golovin, Nick 166
Fannin, Sen. 208 GwAsfft'tW i _Good, Timothy 376
FBI 81,205,213,367,450,452,457 So."* Government Accounting Office 229
371
secret participation in UFO Government Printing Office 230
investigation 213 Gray, Gordon 375, 386
Fenn, Wallace O. 341 Gray, John 292,298-306,317-321
Fern, Maj. Ben 451 GRCS 382
Field, Bill 280 Great Depression 506
Fielding, Lt. 208 Green, D. David 477
firestorms Green, Gabrie 111
energy related to UFOs 510 Greenbaum, Russell S. 195, 196, 210
firestorms,source of energy 509 Greenbert, Daniel 280
Fletcher, Wes 143 Greenwood, Andrew 184
flying saucers 22, 110 Gregory, Capt. George T. 446, 448, 482
FOIA 81, 205,214,373, 394,446,450,466, Grinder, Opal 215
469, 521 Gruner, Dr. Wayne 368
Ford, Eugene 30-31 GSW 469
Ford, Gerald 40, 254,55fc>
Forrestal, James 374, 375, 381 Guyler, Vice Admiral Noel 209
Fort, Charles 94
Fortenberry, William 18 H
Fournet, Maj. Dewey J. 244,457-^69,71 Halaut, Z J 310
Fowler, Raymond E. 8 4 , ^ 1 Hall, Dr. Robert L. 230,235, 242, 245, 381,
FPC 145-146,499 434
Friedman, Stanton T. 218,245,376,467 Hall, Marty 160, 244, 257, 263, 283,426,
Frosch, Dr. Robert A. 194, 205 450, 455, 456, 460, 504
Fry, Daniel 111,114 also see Lore, Marty
FSR (Flying Saucer Review) 39
Ft. Huachuca 480
INDEX 597
Hall, Richard H. 39, 66, 80, 88-100, 103, Hughes Aircraft 34
106, 115, 126, 138, 141, 160,210, Hughes, James 8, 10, 40, 41, 45, 59, 88, 96-
225, 232, 244, 256, 257, 262, 263, 98, 101-103, 105, 127, 165,191,
264, 265, 283, 284, 331, 342, 344, 194, 204, 205-211, 228-230, 241,
350, 361, 362, 366, 368, 378, 379, 245, 254, 260, 273, 280, 332, 335,
393, 426, 427, 450, 455,457, 460, 355, 364, 366, 371,416,487
460-464,467-478 humanism 15
Halpenny, Barry 359 humanoids 180, 182,188, 517,522
Harder, Dr. James A. 239-244 Humphrey, Hubert H. 246
Harkins, R. Roger 263, 264 Hunsaker, Dr. Jerome 375, 386
Harmon, Darryl 298 hurricanes 477
Hartline, H. Keffer 341 Huston, H. Wayne 45
Hartmann, Dr. William K. (Bill) 231, 286, Hutchinson, Rep. Edward 63, 70
297, 298, 304, 307,315,434 Hynek, Dr. J. Allen 47-56, 60-65, 66-85,
Hartranft, J.B., Jr. 457-459, 463-469, 474 104, 137-155, 161, 167, 193, 206,
Harvey, Paul 325-331 212,213,216, 218, 222, 230-231,
Mrs. "Angel" 328 237, 241-244, 254-259, 264, 274,
Harvill, Dr. Richard 35, 118, 123, 124, 207, 277, 284, 325-327, 340, 344-345,
249 350-356, 370, 380, 389, 393, 408-
Hasselhoff, Eltjo 524 412,421,422, 425, 431, 432, 447,
Hastings, Rod 14,496 465,467,491,501-507, 523
Hearst. William R. 36 escalation of hypotheses 61
Heflin, Rex E. 287-324 Hynek-checked month 61
Hembree, Ray 399 motivation 76,77
Henderson, Dr. Garry C. 245 re-writing history 154,475,491, 523
Hennessey, Julian 382 see also UFO explanations, swamp gas
Herman, Dr. Benjamin M. 7, 14,48-49,
125-129, 135, 363,422,480, 514, I
518 IAP 3,4, 14, 16,20,45, 121, 123, 125, 134,
Herwig, Lloyd 3 3 1 , 3 6 2 ? 206, 207, 211,218, 253, 272, 285,
Hess, Robert 227 356, 393, 396,421,428,466,477,
Hess, Seymour 230 480, 488,511,516,517
Hilgard, E.R. 341 ice falls 88
Hill, Betty and Barney 240,412 Ide, H.A. 30,31,33
Hill, Jeanine 372 IEEE 47, 479
Hillenkoetter, Vice-Admiral Roscoe 89-90, IGY 222, 354, 383
223-224, 375, 384-385,469 interdimensional 161, 522
member of MJ-12 469 International Weather Bureau 358
pressured by CIA 469 Inyokem Airport 402
resignation from NICAP 384 ionized air experiments 321
Hinfelaar, Henk and Brenda 169 IRPOS 368
hippies 249 Irwin, Chief Richard D. 97
Hippler, Col. Robert 149, 389
Hoagland, Richard 269, 272
Holder, Capt. Richard T. 213,215 Jackson, Col. J.H. 317
Holloway, Gen. Bruce 356 Jackson, Rep. 498
Holt, Capt. Edward L. 439 Jacobs from Raytheon 455
Holzman, Brig. Gen. B.G. 143 Jacobs, David M. 2
Hoover, J. Edgar 450,452 Jaffe, Michael 407
House Committees JANAP-146 97, 199
Armed Services 227, 327 Jet Propulsion Laboratory 246
Government Operations 234 /Johnson, A1 370
Space 223 Johnson, Frank S. 382
Space and Astronautics 386,500 A^1 Johnson, Lyndon B. 223
Un-American Activities 152 Jones, Barry 187, 193
 598 FIRESTORM

Jones, Sgt. 55, 60, 61, 64, 65, 337 Kwiatanowski, Henry 45
<TPL 151,271,298
fcjl JRDB 374, 382
Jung, Dr. Carl G. 158,427 Lacy-17 481
303' Junge, Chris 204 Lakenheath, see Lakenheath
Lamson, J.E. (Butch) 404
Langdon, Dr. R.N. 424
Kac, Mark 341 Larsen, Dr. Finn J. 166, 255
Kaeburn, Dr. Leslie K. 90, 155, 257, 295,A^a Lathrop, Russell L. 169
Kalstrom, G.W. 295 L A X 373
'ICassander, A. Richard 3-14, 28, 29, 35,98, Leahy, First Lt. 298
KcAV , 117-124, 195, 204,250,272, 273, Leary, T. Penn 209
P 5"aa7 362, 396,426,466,509, 511,519, least unsatisfactory hypothesis 125, 202
520 Lee, Gary 414
defense of CIA 466 LEM 213,216,217
Katchen, Lee 76,77,96 Test Facility 213
Kebler, First Lt. 209 LeMay, Gen. Curtis 511
Kellogg, Dr. Will 390,392,503,510 Leslie, Desmond 311
1000% error with JEM 510 Levine, Norman 258, 263, 264, 335
Kelson, Dr. Eric 323 lightning van 233,351,467
Keyhoe, Donald E. 39, 67, 79, 86-93, 99, Lindbergh, Charles 87
103, 106, 154, 179, 210, 221-223, Lindenheimer Observatory 67
234, 262-264, 279-284, 329, 342, Lindtner, Dr. M. 170
350, 361, 365, 377-380, 384-385, listening post 451
392-394, 450-474, 495, 496, 523, Little Listening Post 452
526 Lockheed 476
appreciated by JEM 459 London, Dr. Julius 498, 502
Dean of UFOlogy 468 Long, Alex 516
false USAF charges 451 Lore, Gordon 94, 95, 100-107, 160, 225,
fired from NICAP 457 286, 325, 384, 450, 454-475, 505,
locked out of NICAP 459 506
termination of presidency of NICAP 458 appreciated by JEM 459
Keyhoe, Helen 87 fired from NICAP 457
Kibel, James J. 179-180 locked out of NICAP 459
Killian, Capt. Peter W. 328, 380 termination of vice presidency of
'Kimball, Secretary of the Navy 487 NICAP 458
pf y j n ' Kimmel, Herm 297, 303 Lore, Marty 418, 456, 491, 520, 524
King, Dr. D. 207 see also Hall, Marty
Kirkpatrick, Jack H. 406 Lorenzen, Coral and Jim 67, 213, 239, 277
KittPeak 24 Low memo 262-286, 344, 347
Klass, Philip J. 164-166,194-198,204- Low, Robert 262-286, 326, 335, 344. 347,
210, 217, 225,241,271,280, 284, 392, 394,447
325, 330-331, 367, 376, 394,464- Lowery, Arthur 255
487,510 Luckie, Deputy Sheriff James 212,216
JEM white papers 196 Lunar and Planetary Laboratory 24, 250
refuted by JEM 198 Lundahl, Art 484-488
Kocher, George E. 199,298 Lyons, John H. 401
Mrs. 298
Kodak 422 M
kooks 115, 124 MacDonald, Gordon 136, 230, 390,379
Krantz, Dr. Reinhold 276 MacDonald, John 304
Krider, Phil 514 Mack, Duane 409-410,418,493
Kuettner, Dr. Joachim 231, 344-349, 371,a.7q Magee, Judith 167,173
Kuiper, Dr. Gerard 24, 35,52, 96, 124, 166, Magruder, Rep. 498
250, 254
INDEX 599
Malone, Dr. Thomas 40,49-54, 71, 105, McDonald, James E.
140, 142, 159, 229, 254, 282, 382, activism 116,118
385-389, 391-393,516 appreciation for Keyhoe and Lore 459,
Maney, Prof. Charles A. 311-313 465
Manhattan Project 380 bill of particulars 278
Mannon, Frank 51-53 blindness 517,518
Marano, Lt. Carmen 337,342,371,435, board of review clause 60, 65
478 book rebutting Condon Report 479,483,
Marcotte, Armand 527 496,513
Markey, Winston 149 rejection of Betsy's help 516
Marley, First Lt. Bill 61-62, 65 China Lake file 399, 404, 408, 415, 417
briefing 61 church association 120
Martin, Dr. Paul S. 4,11,107,119,159, close to the answer 524
249, 250, 520 concern about his UFO files 512
Massey, Harrie 508 concern for human welfare 494, 498
materialization 160,481 Condon Report, annotated copy 333, 335
Matthews, Thomas C., Jr. 458, 469 consulting 60, 142, 150
Matthews, William R. 36 contributions to atmospheric sciences 14,
Maxwell AFB, see USAF, Maxwell AFB 116, 121-122, 124, 193, 195,210,
May, Gene 236 211,426,497,508,513
Mayes, Mary G. 218-219 Controversies and Unorthodoxies
Mayo Clinic 80 file 251,332,496
McArtor, Marie 403^04, 408, 414, 417 counseling 516
MCAS 297 criticism of 192, 204,426, 484
McClary, Bob 407 criticisms of other scientists 393
McCroskey, Duke 351 cryptography 8
McDonald data, use of 398
Betsy Hunt 3, 5, 6, 34, 100-103, 134, depression 339, 425, 431, 478, 512
136, 224, 248, 259, 260, 358, 369, distress 517
416,425-431,478,488-521 double blow 504
activist 15,116,117,119,338, effect on media 162
364,419 encyclopedic memory 83
affair broken off 521 excellent reputation 499,510
affair with younger man 512 expert on civil defense 36
divorce dropped 514 family life 119-121,135, 365,478
divorce requested 512 files archived at U of A under FUFOR
Charlotte Linn "Hilve" 120, 371 grant 524
Gail 135,248 final hours 518
James Patrick 120,506 firestorms 509
never mentioned 506 first interest in UFOs 18
Jan 6, 135,248,259 first UFO investigations 20
Kirk 96, 135, 248, 364, 371,428,513 first visit to Project Blue Book 41-65
Lee 135,248,513 Flight 917 414
Nancy 135,248 funding quest 348, 368
Ronilyn 135,248 government grant 171,187
assault on 426-428 gun ownership 338, 420
thesis on psychological 0.38 Spanish-made revolver 518
aspects 427 handouts 156, 196, 371, 372, 398,430,
434, 435
handwritten journals 14, 100-102, 172,
369, 388,403,421,479
Heflin file 288
honest man plea 194, 209
humor 267, 398
hypotheses 49, 157,371,398,455,467
600 FIRESTORM

McDonald, James E. McDonald, James E.

ignored by scientific community 39 research into ozone and skin cancer 490,
influence on scientists 116, 173, 421 493,498, 499, 501, 502. 503, 508,
interview method 22, 24, 35, 53 510,514
Klass refuted 198 return to academia 516
lack of confidence in USAF 28, 39 rushing personality 254
lay journals 7 sabbatical leave 517
laymen's scientist 12 second journal 41-42,55-57
letters to editor 7, 114 small notebooks 101-102,201,240,487,
logic 398,416 524
luggage issues 55,416,417,418,455, suicide, first attempt, blindness 514
461 suicide, second attempt
manuals 256 body found 519
media attention 116, 252, 280,421 crumpled book cover 519
media errors 187,192,204 grief of colleagues 520
missing brieface, see luggage issues hypotheses 520-521
modus operandi 16 inconsistent news reports 519
mother's death 369,371 planning 518
mysterious events 207, 414, 416, 418, suspicions of government
419,428,513,519 involvement 520
NAS one-man study 254,385 taxi ride 518
NASA two friends 519
briefing 142-143 talking with "people at the top" 491^493,
funding 166,201 520, 524
cancellation 201-203 technical papers 7
NICAP involvement 526 testimony before Congress 242
non-terrestrial hypothesis 61, 116 UFO sighting 19
NSF funding 368 UFO talks before scientific groups 14,
blocked 504 202
ONR contract 192, 196, 203, 209 white papers 196,207
cancellation 201,203-208 Yellows 228
funding 513 McDonald, Sgt. John W. 27
ozone-layer research 349,497-499 McDonnell-Douglas 232, 236, 238, 239,
papers 7, 340-342, 369, 395,477, 521 355,422
final paper on McFall, John J. 499
thermodynamics 513 Mclntyre, Bill 462
self-published 395,477 CIA agent 472
parapsychological hypothesis 328 McLaren, Ian 171
parapsychology 515 McNicol, Dr. 425
personality 339, 369, 371,429,478,489, Mead, Dr. A1 247,425,493,505, 520
504,514 Mebane, Lex 93, 97, 103
changes in 505 media
childhood influences 506-508 CBS Presents 51
philosophy 398 Meinel, Aden 150,391
planned book 247 Mele, Vince 422
plans to re-enter academia while Menzel, Dr. Donald H. 25,47, 85, 132, 143,
blind 514 153, 154, 162, 164, 182, 225, 231,
public good 155 245, 268, 271, 333, 348, 370, 375,
public talks 82, 156, 157, 162, 202, 208, 380, 381, 384, 388, 393, 434, 448,
332, 348, 362, 367, 371, 373, 397, 476
398,414,421,434, 483,490 on MJ-12 list 381-382
"A Very Creditable Effort?" 398 vicious attacks on JEM 381
quiet, one-man study 46—47, 50 Menzelian 164
realization of government cover-up 504 Mercury, Inc. 450-452
relationship of NO+to UFOs 509
INDEX 601
meteorology 7, 11, 15, 25 NAS 40, 147, 149, 150, 230, 254, 274, 278,
glossary 7 333, 348, 356, 384, 385, 391, 398,
shape of raindrops 9 478,514
Michalak, Stephen 80,92 Committee of the Atmospheric
Michel, Aimd 70, 92, 140, 409, 412, 427, Sciences 40, 254
463 POWACM 421,489
cloud cigars 401,439 unattributed use of JEM's data 514
Miller, Claude 185 NASA 46-47, 52, 76, 139-143, 149, 166,
Miller, Clay T. 291 202, 348, 350, 374, 379, 388, 398,
Miller, Rep. George 226-227, 230, 278, 327 515
Minshall, Rep. William E. 501 Goddard Space Flight Center 354
ridicule of JEM 501 Spacewatch radars 353
missiles 13 NASC 246, 386
see also Titan and UFO sightings 13 Nash, William B. 18
missing time 240,412 Nathan, Dr. Robert 245, 298, 299, 304, 306,
Mitre Corporation 136 308,317, 323, 356
MJ-12 374-394 NATO 358
Mobius Society 494,527 NCAR 152,390,392,475,503,510
Mohawk Airlines 336 Neasham, Lt. R.S. 485
Moi, Stephen 181 Neff, Wilbur L. (Barney) 43-45, 144
monsoons 11 New Guinea 174
Montague, Gen. Robert M. 375, 381, 387 New Zealand 168, 169, 172
Moody, Conrad C. 143 Newhouse, Delbert 485
Moody, Sgt. 61 NICAP 16, 18, 39, 59, 66,70, 74,78, 80,
moon 59 84, 86-107, 111, 126,137,141,
Moorabin Airport 186 146, 148, 150, 152, 164,171,202,
Moore, Charles B. 47-49, 72, 77, 131-133, 214. 221-225, 232, 234-251, 258,
214-218, 230, 352,464, 509 262, 263, 264,280-284, 287, 292,
Moore, William L. 212,214, 321, 366, 374, 293, 301, 310-311, 326, 328, 332,
376, 389,450 337, 344, 350, 361, 365-370, 375,
Morgan, Dr. David L. 268, 269, 272 380, 384-385, 390-393,427,429,
Mormon Battalion 14 431,439,449,449^*79,515, 523,
Morrison, Mel 402 526
Morton, Larry D. 373 Acuff takes over 463
Mosley, Mr. Andy 345 affiliates 94, 258,472
Moss, Rep. John 234 Board of Governors 454, 455, 457,458,
mother ships 469
see UFO sightings, mother ships suspicions of 469
MS 508 destruction by infiltrators 457, 460
Mt. Lemmon 26,27 effect of Condon Report on
MTI 442 membership 452
MUFON 523, 526 financial troubles 457,467-469
Muir, Jeanette 185 ineffective after infiltration 461
Murphy, Captain 26 infiltration by CIA 450,462, 466
internal dissension 450
N LANS 99, 114, 155, 232, 259, 276, 288-
NAA 339,421 308, 316,321, 323, 339, 372, 373,
NACA 374 398,414,453,472,479
NARR 377 NICAP*CONN 94, 265, 269, 352
phones tapped 106,455,469
rebuttal of Condon report 454, 464
Report on Secrecy Dangers 223
SFO-NICAP 95, 143, 197
swift decline after Acuff takes over 473
nitrogen oxide 508
602 FIRESTORM

Nixon, Richard 359 P

Nixon, Stuart 370,453^66, 469-475 Page, Dr. Thornton 79, 231, 266-272, 282,
appointed acting secretary-treasurer of 352, 362
NICAP 458 minimization of JEM's research 521
dismantles NICAP structure 462 Palmer, Charlie 475
downgrading excellent evidence 472 Panzanella, Frank 44, 45
NICAP's suspicions 464-466 Peace and Freedom Center 512
participation in destruction of Pearse, John 184
NICAP 458 Pearson, Drew 365
sabotage of NICAP publications 463-464 Pennesi, Albert 188,190,423^25
takes all NICAP property 458 Pentacle Memorandum 343
NMIMT 214,216 Pentagon 163,450,451,452
LangmuirLab 214 UFO reports 452
NOAA 379 Perkins, Alice 410,411
Nonr-2173 203, 206 Perkins, Sgt. Forrest D. 435-437, 442-448
NORAD 293, 300-301, 322, 352, 357 Pestalozzi, Maj. Rudolph 42^16, 62-63,
Cheyenne Mountain 359 138, 361
Norman, Paul 167-176,189,190,193 Pettis, Rep. Jerry 327
Norris, Peter 167, 171, 180, 190 Pflock, Karl 471
North American Aircraft 299 Philosophical Society 523
NOTS 398,402,409,414,415 PIC 485
Noyes, Alfred 267 Pickering, Dr. 246
NRC 489 Pierce, Lynn 252
NRL 169 Pingel, Gale V. 404
NSA 81, 137 PK 160
NSC 375,381 Plum, Dr. 410,418
NSF 331,343, 348, 390, 396,504, 505 Pope, Capt. Ernie 209
nuclear war 12,135 Pope, Joe 370
accidental 242 Porter, Richard 388
NWC 398,400,401,402,414,415,493 POWACM 339,477,478
NZSSR 169 Powers, Bill 66-71, 146, 154, 344
Price, Dr. William 140,142,150,152,389-
O 391
O'Brien, Dr. Brian 51-54, 62, 140, 150, Project Aquarius 379
255, 388, 391 Project Blue Book 2, 16, 45, 52, 53, 55, 59,
O'Callaghan, Phyllis 224-227, 230, 233, 66-72, 76-84, 86, 87, 92, 105,
234, 237-238, 327, 392 137-156, 164, 166, 169, 172, 175,
OEG 410 187,192, 210, 212, 213, 234, 242,
Office of Defense Research and 254, 268, 285, 332, 337, 342, 343,
Engineering 166 349, 353, 361, 363, 366, 370, 371,
Olsen, Dick 225,227,371,386,478 388, 390-393,417, 421,432^142,
ONO 495 445, 445-448, 451-454, 464, 475,
ONR 45, 54, 97, 101, 112, 128, 165, 168, 478-483,491,501,512, 523
171, 187, 191, 193,201,206,254, incompetence 380
273, 343, 348, 356, 421, 487,495, JEM's first trip 42
513 no obvious physical solution 446
Final Report 209 photocopy fees 432,479
-UFO Committee 488 Project Grudge 60
Orlansky, Jesse 388 public relations scheme 446
ORNL 502 Special Report 14 60
Orth, Mrs. H.E. 36 USAF plan to destroy files 478
OSAF 326 Project Blue Fly 321,
Project Grudge 234, 366
OSD 451
Otter, Pat 358,359 Project Magnet 378
ozone layer 124 Project MKULTRA 521
OE«oA\ ( 2.G.W 30T
INDEX 603
Project Moon Dust 3r2i x Robertson Panel 56-57, 69, 76, 106, 234,
Project Sign 375,387 267, 270, 361, 362, 371, 382, 485,
Project Winterhaven 504 486
psychological effects of secrecy 242 declassified version 56
public right to know 13 infiltration recommendation 429
Pusey, Dr. Nathan M. 426-428 uncensored version 56
PX-5 410 Robertson Report 56-57,76, 138,143,144,
152, 153, 163, 362
Q Robertson Xerox 140
Q-29 relay 145 Robertson, Dr. Howard P. 56, 163
Q-mode 232 Rodeffer, Madeleine 226
QRA 359 Rogo, D. Scott 527
Queensland Flying Saucer Research Roth, Herb 357
Bureau 175 Roush, Rep. J. Edward 224-229, 233-246,
Quintanilla, Maj. Hector 41, 44-45, 61-65, 278, 281,325, 327, 392
68, 75, 84, 138-154,213, 222, RTCC 437
325, 326, 330, 362, 469, 501 Rubey, William W„ Shane, C D . 341
letter to Flatley 337 Ruckelshaus, William 499
Rumpf, Geoffrey 167,190
Ruppelt, Capt. Edward J. 56, 57, 79, 80,
RAAF 175, 176, 183, 185 342, 343
Radford, Admiral 495 Russell, Dr. John A. 411
RAF 359 Russell, Pearl 189
raindrops, shape of 9,121 Russell, Roy 171,176,189
rainmaking 155 Ryan, Rep. William F. 225, 241, 284, 499
RAND Corporation 141. 143, 169, 199,
232,391,453
Rand, Frank 201,203 SAC 27, 208, 214, 356, 359, 380
Rankow, Ralph 310-317 Sagan, Dr. Carl 231, 236, 242, 282, 345,
RAPCON 297 354, 388, 434
rape 426 minimization of JEM's research 521
Ratchford, Dr. Thomas J. 149-151, 225, Salisbury, Frank 230
281,388-394 Sambleble, Frank 185
Raytheon 455,487 Samford, General 179
RB-47 481 Sand, Capt. Pierre 485
Reese, Capt. Gary 352 Sanderson, Dr. Judson 276
Reichelderfer, F.W. 341 Sanderson-Rae, Margaret 8, 22, 33, 196,
Reichmuth, Capt. Charles F. 293-294, 3 0 0 ^ 3 - 253, 369, 428-431, 434, 493, 509,
Reitan, Clayton H. 316,324 513,514,519
remote sensing 41 Sandia Corporation 200, 375, 387
RES A 369,370,371,399,414 satellites 59
Rhine, Dr. J. B. 160 Saunders, Dr. Dave 167, 258,262-265,282,
rhyolite 216 284, 335, 345, 357, 432,494
Richards, Arthur 409,493 SCA 382
Richards, Jennifer 409 Schaefer, Frank 407
ridicule 178,187,213,278 Schaen, Paul 298
Riley, Lois McDonald 120 Schafer, Capt. William 359
Rincon Mountains 22,28,31,33 Schulgen, Brig. Gen. George 387
Rivers, Rep. L. Mendel 2 2 1 , 2 2 5 Schwartz, Stephan A. 494-496,504-505
Rix, Dan 475 Schwarz, Dr. Berthold E. 159, 325, 328-331
Roach, Franklin 258 5cWrt science 525
Roberts, Dr. Walter Orr 431,432,434 ^ V good 118, 125
Roberts, John 370 scientific establishment 504
Roberts, Walt 209 scientists, hidden 136
Sclampel, Leon 307
 604 FIRESTORM

scorched plants 219,423 Steed, Rep. Tom 502

Scott, Noel W. 313,321 Steelink, Cornelius "Corny" 8,20,39, 107,
scout craft 114 119,520
Sculthorpe RAF Station 437 Stofko, Pvt. George L., Jr. 309-316, 321
Seaman, Jr., Robert C. 285 Stone, Sgt. Clifford E. 322
Seers, Stan 171,176,422-425 Stormfury, see USN
Seff, Dr. Philip 276 Stranges, Frank 111, 114
Seitz, Dr. Frederick 273, 282 Strauss, Bill 209
Sellers, Dr. Bill 15,118,123,480,514 "Stringfield, Leonard 350
Senate Committee on Interior and Insulaiy lc ^ 0 Strong, Jack 314-320,324
Affairs 155 Strong, Philip G. 486
Senftle, Frank 129 subsun studies 206
Shady Hill 426 Suggs, Col. R.G. 476
Shandera, Jaime 374,375,376 Sullivan, Capt. William H. 450,451
Sheldon, D. 455 Sullivan, Walter 231,333,388,434
Shepard, Dr. Roger N. 230, 245 supergroup 269-271
Sherman, Herb 397 Sweigle, Don 371
\§hertze, Capt. Leavitt 451
Skyhook 72 Sydney UFO Investigation Centre 187
SKYNET 527
Sleeper, Col. Raymond 81,326 T
Smith memo 377 T-33 438
Smith, Dr. Wilbert B. 377, 378, 383 Tacker, Lt. Col. Lawrence 52,57,59, 325-
Smith, Gen. Walter B. 375,381 330, 451-452
Smith, Maj. Boyce M. 137,138-141,151 Tasmania 169
Smith, Mark 111 Taylor, Andrew H. 316-320
Smith, Robert C. 26 Taylor, Geb 424
Smithsonian temperature inversions 229
Astrophysical Observatory 25 Thayer, Gordon 334, 335, 348, 349, 371,
Snow, Dr. Joel 368 435, 448, 490
Socialist Workers Party 338 Thomas, Fred Lowell 488
Solandt, Dr. Omand 378 Thompson, Maj. 208
Souers, Mr. Sidney W. 375, 386 Titan missile controversy 12-13,36,41,54,
soundlessness 233,440 62, 118, 134, 224, 257, 260, 339,
Space Brothers 110 431,508,511
Spangler, Ken 357 Top Secret Estimate of the Situation 79,
244,375
Sparks, Brad 470,471
tornadoes 509
Spaur, Dale 43^5, 144
Townsend, Jack 340
Specht, Warren E. 406
training of the public 152
spin field 240
TRC 27
Sprinkle, Dr. R. Leo 230, 245
Triche, Marty 98, 103
SRI 335
trick memo 262-286, 344, 347
SSTs 488
Truman, Harry S. 374, 376, 386, 387
Congressional hearing on 496-504 Tucson Humanist Association 120
effects on ozone layer 489-491,492,496, Tully nests 186,422,423,425
498,499, 501,502, 503,510 Turner, Dr. Ray 248
secret presidential report Twining, Gen. Nathan F. 375, 386
condemning 514
Stacy, Dennis 375 U
Staley, Dr. Dean 7, 8, 24, 35, 36, 249, 260, U Thant, Secretary General of the UN 63,
480 73,76, 105,139, 168, 353
Stanford Research Institute 354 U.S. Weather Bureau 260
Stanford, Neal 241 UAC 265-267,268
Stanscombe, Mrs. 55,60
Stanton, Bill 227, 234, 327
INDEX G ^ O n fY\orV^ - 5 5 & 605
Udall, Rep. Morris 36, 70, 224, 225, 246, UFO photos 275, 287-324, 366, 466
278, 283, 284, 371, 386,432,478, Australia 167
502 Australian 363
Udall, Stewart L. 208,224 Balwyn 179
Uehling, Dr. Edwin A. 261 Bickel 411
UFO abductees, as resistors 522 by astronauts 350
UFO abductions 522 China Lake, Calif. 399
two hypotheses 522 CIA 457,485
UFO buffs 432 confiscations 174, 177, 277, 362, 379,
UFO explanations 399, 402, 422
advanced technologies 157 Coyle 174
afterimages 333, 448 Dewey 363
anomalous propagation, see radar Drury movie 174,177,277,362, 379,399
propagation Ft. Belvoir 75, 309-324
antennae 287 ribbing effect 314
atmospheric phenomena 157,256,369, rosette cloud 315
373, 381 government analysis of 378,448
atomic bomb simulator 314,316-318 Grumman 352
autokinesis 333, 448 Heflin 75, 271, 277, 286, 287-324, 356,
ball lightning 151, 165, 194, 197, 256. 399
369 blurring effect 306, 323
birds 400 flat skies 295
diffraction 343 mysterious return 322
EM phenomena 161 Polaroid film numbers 300, 305,
ET probes 157 307
ET saviors 157 smoke ring 290-324
experimental aircraft 467 smoke trail 323
fantasy 328 vapor cap 323
faulty vision 333,448 wedge-shaped light 308
Frisbees 287 Hembree 399
ground returns 448 Kibel 179
hallucinations 149, 157, 270, 328 lozenge-shaped white spots 352
hoaxes 157,288,374 McMinnville, Ore. 333, 334
hubcaps 287 Montana film 243
insects 335 Newhouse film 178, 237, 243, 277, 362,
inversion layers 343, 400 399, 484, 487
Jung's archetypal projections 158 NWC 402
lamps 287 Seers 422
LEM 216 USAF 457,485
meteors 350,400 _USN 485
mirages 164,256,381,400 UFO Reporting Center 379
misinterpretations 157,270 UFO research community 136
Mogul balloons 472
parapsychological hypothesis 328, 522
planets 57,68,72,75,85, 182
plasma 165
psychological 149, 157, 161, 270, 328
radar propagation 78, 149, 157,256,350,
400,438, 442, 446, 490
refraction and reflection 164, 196
rumor 149, 157
sundogs 381
swamp gas 53, 63, 66, 70, 71, 75, 78, 82,
425
turbulence 448
606 FIRESTORM

UFO sightings UFO sightings

abrupt disappearances 404, 406 Kimball 487
airships 94 Kincheloe AFB 437,490
and electrical malfunctions 401 Kirkpatrick-Specht 406
and missile malfunctions 372 Lakenheath, England 341, 349,434-448,
animal reactions 278,412 481
Ann Druffel and Aileen McElroy 357 Lamson-Pingel 404-409,414,417
Arthur Richards 493 "hazy feature" 404—405
Australia 167, 172 landing sites 105,215.258,409,472,493
Bass Strait, Victoria, Australia 358 laser-radar 354
Betty and Barney Hill 240, 522 Levelland, Tex. 19, 130-131, 138, 141,
burned witnesses 462 151,341,346
by astronauts 350 Long Beach, Calif. 357,409
by German dmigrd scientists 357 Long Prairie 227
by pilots 123, 153, 185, 223, 329, 336, Mantell case, Godman Field, Ky. 72
347, 358,417.418,483 Marie McArtor 403
by satellites 355 mass displacement 160 ** .{a
Capt. Schafer 359 McDonald's 100 best 168, 258, 2941, 337.,-
Capt. Tom Andrews 372 481
carrier craft 354, 401, 415, 439 Mel Morrison 402
see also —mother ships Michalak burn case 80
car-stopping 130, 188 Michigan 40
Cascade Mountains 260,261 military obfuscation 225
Case 35 vs. Case 53 400 military ships 72
Chiles-Whitted 346 x mother ships 114

China Lake, Calif. 240 see also —carrier crafj.

Cisco Grove, Calif. 95,96, 103,104 324 multiple witnesses 278, 372,402,404,
color changes 486 406,407,481
data kept from scientists 436, 448 National Airport 57
Dexter/Hillsdale, Mich. 51-52, 78, 99, Naval Air Station, San Diego, Calif. 490
149, 222 NWC 402
dumbbell-shaped 406,407 occupants 70,93, 103,180, 182, 183,
Edwards AFB 337 ' jdTl 188, 211, 214, 274, 328,412,463,
Exeter, N.H. 73,96 503,517, 522
Farmer Johnson 347 odors 412,414
fireflies 350 Oxnard, Calif. 372
Flagstaff, Ariz. 342 Papua, New Guinea 180-183,463,517
Flamborough Head 359 paranormal aspects 274, 328
Flora Evans 462 Pentagon 452
Foxtrot-94 359 percentage unknown 187
Gene May case 236 Peter W. Killian 328
Greenwood 184 Philippines 355
Haneda AFB, Japan 342,434,481 photographic 110, 223, 258
Herman 227 physical evidence 84, 105,110, 173, 179,
Hollywood, Calif. 242 186, 215, 218, 219, 243, 275, 344,
Hopkinsville, Ky. 58-60, 64, 93, 103 404, 422-425, 479
in Condon Report 284 physiological effects 278
invisible clouds 354 Portage County 43-45,57,58, 144, 149,
Italian 355 151,516
jittery motion 442 power outages 189, 229
Joach Kuettner 347 pre-1940 139
Juanita Evans 402 pre-1947 94
July 1954 18
Keflavik, Iceland 358
Kenneth Arnold 386
INDEX 607
UFO sightings UFOs
radar-visual 28,77,84, 110, 123, 138, and FBI 367
153,223, 229, 258, 260, 275, 285, animal reactions to 369
287, 326, 334, 334-337, 347, 350, as international problem 62
353, 358, 373, 399, 401, 407,417, Congressional hearing on 78, 89, 93, 99,
432,434,437,438,479,482, 512 104,220,221-223,229,230,241,
radio static 288,294,297 244, 247, 252, 332, 343,350, 353,
Ralph Joseph 302 489
RB-47 481,490 cults 236
Red Bluff, Calif. 60,68 defined 20, 157, 344, 523
Redlands, Calif. 276-278, 284, 327, 341, detector 423
346 diffraction-grating data 366
Ridgecrest, Calif. 373 flaps 105,362
Roswell, N.M. 472,492 governmw ^over-up 136, 183, 360, 431,
Russian 353 457,477
San Diego, Calif. 476 and SovieJJnion 362, 384
Santa Ana, Calif. 288 disinformation 374, 379
SaxaVord, Scotland 358 incompetence 381
Schlesweig Holstein 357 hardware 238,239
small objects 276 interceptions of 443, 445
smoke rings 111,290, 292,295,299,311, landing traces 215-219,423
324 percentage explainable 16,35,38,39
Australian 319 propulsion technology 495
vortex 314,315-324 propulsion theory 232-233, 238, 239, 243
sociological viewpoint 242 serious scientific question 203, 367, 378,
Socorro, N.M. 92,211,463 422, 501
South Pacific 399 spectrographic analysis 366
Syracuse, NY, fireball 146 tracking 208, 214, 243, 340, 343, 344,
Tinker-Carswell 77, 153 345, 350, 351, 352, 356,440,446
Tremonton.Ut. 484-487 ADC surveillance system 355
triangulation 126 Baker-Nunn cameras 351-353
Tucson, Ariz. 21-34 classified 354
Ubatuba, Brazil 243 Early Warning network 354
unearthly speeds 438,481 Newtonian Schmidt cameras 352
unreported 166,260,337 NORAD uncorrected targets 358
Utica, N.Y. 336 Samos 368
Vandenberg AFB 342 selectivity 355
Washington, D.C. 78, 105, 228-229, 313 Spacewatch radars 353
White Sands, N.M. 131, 133, 372 unidentified metallic aeroforms 98, 285
Yorba Linda, Calif. 275,472 waves 70, 105
Zamora 92,105,211-218,463 White House lawn 78
UFOIC 170 Uman, Martin 47
UN 168
Outer Space Affairs Committee 168
UNESCO 63, 353
Ungar, Sanford J. 514
United Air Lines 329
United Aircraft 251,362
608 FIRESTORM

University USAF 2, 12, 16, 18, 26, 27, 28, 51, 67. 69,
at Brisbane 176,422 72,74,78,80,81,97,123,143,
Baylor 490, 502 149,150,163,169,172,187,191,
CalTech 393 192, 199, 207, 210, 214, 215, 217,
Caltech 364,371 219, 227, 228, 230, 235, 241, 254,
Carnegie Institute 374 259, 262, 267,270, 278, 282, 283,
Cornell 231 285, 301, 305, 325, 326, 328, 343,
Duke 160 346,350,353,356,360,361,362,
Harvard 25, 375, 393,426,428, 476 375, 379, 394, 422, 433, 439, 449,
Harvard Center for Astrophysics 351 481,485,517,520
Institute of C&PE 390 andETH 363
MIT 3,40, 374, 3?5, 386, 393, 498 Boiling AFB 378
New Mexico Institute of Mining and cover-up 19,56,59,60,363,457,480
Technology 1 31 denial of 65
Northwestern 67, ?1, 25f. 344 Davis-Monthan AFB 22, 27, 28, 35, 62,
of Arizona 3,6, 10, 9f, 107, 119, 150, 305,466
155, 159, 195,356,373, 391,493 Edwards AFB 337
Board of Regents 118 Eighth Air Force 476
Planetary and Lunar Lab 254 George AFB 27
Space Sciences Committee 201 Haneda, Japan, AFB 342,434
of California 5,239 hosted by CIA 485
of Chicago 3 Kincheloe, England, AFB 437
of Colorado 256, 262.335,349.384, 393, Kirtland AFB 378
432-433 Maxwell AFB 84, 322, 432,435, 478-
of Illinois 235 482,490,491,496, 500,501,512
of Michigan 71 Aerospace Science Institute 479
of New Mexico 218 Michigan sightings 1964-66 40
of Pittsburgh 487 Minot AFB 326
of Queensland 424 Observations 91
of Texas 490 OSI 450
of Washington 260,262 Pease AFB 275
of Wisconsin 316,477 regulation AFR 200-2 77,97,147,153,
Redlands 276 199,439
Temple 490 regulation AFR 80-17 439
UCLA 390,428 SandiaLabs 199
Wesleyan 267,270 Scott AFB 476
university teams 51,52,54, 55,59,67,104, Stallion Site 212,215
148, 255-256, 388 Vandenberg AFB 112,342,399,400,
Urey, Harold 124 415,418
US Army Wright-Patterson AFB 53, 137, 219, 337,
509th Army Air Force Group 492 452,511
Ft. Belvoir 75, 309-324 USGS 129
USN 97, 108, 192, 193, 195, 199, 206, 207,
210, 211, 279, 355, 375, 384, 410,
412,455,471,484, 485,490
China Lake Naval Weapons Center 373
FENCE satellite 340
Pacific Missile Range, Pt. Mugu,
Calif. 372,373,415,418
Stormfury 340, 344, 346, 349, 401, 421,
478
USOs 271
Italian 355
INDEX 609
3SS Z
Valine, Dr. Jacques 1-2,49, 55,68-72, 74- Zamora, Deputy Marshal Lonnie 92, 105,
76, 142, 147, 161, 167, 192, 202, 211-218,463
231-247, 254, 257-259, 343, 352, Zamora, Moise 214
356, 376, 378, 389, 392, 393,401, Zipser, Dr. Edward J. 476
408-412,427,432,450-451,456,
463, 467,475, 503-507
van Buskirk, Lyman 399-408, 414
Van Ness, Capt. 279
Van Tassel, George 111
Vandenberg, Gen. Hoyt S. 79, 244, 375, 381
Vaughan, Valerie 7, 396
Vietnam 15, 168, 260, 425,462
Villard, Oswald G„ Jr. 341
Visitors 523
VOA 370,371

VUFORS 167, 172, 180, 190

W
Wadsworth, Jim 263
Walters, Mrs. Terry 397
weather modification 155, 339
Weaver, Dr. Albert B. 201
Webb, Walter 126,240
Webb, Wells Alan 239-240
Weinbrenner, Col. 326
Weitzel, William 44-45, 58, 393
Westhall High School 184
Whipple, Dr. Fred 78, 446
White Mountains 517
White Sands Missile Range 375, 387
White, Fred 368
Wilson, Dr. William R. 230, 260
Wilson, General 27
Woidich, Frank 495
Wolf, Rep. Leonard G. 223
Woo, Harry 485
Wood, Dean K. 30,33
Mrs. 29, 31
Wood, Dr. Robert M. 231-239,298,323,
345, 346, 350, 355, 376, 378,422,
432,457,467,492^493, 504, 513,
514, 520, 524
Wood, Ryan S. 376
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute 391
Wooten, Capt. Robert J. 373
WSMR 213

Wydler, Rep. John W. 243

X
X-15 236

Y
Yates, Rep. Sidney R. 490,499
 ,i f
•uw» ^ « " a

vV1
l-iv*"* J

Granite Publishing L.L.C.

has these imprints:

Wild Flower Press

Swan • Raven & Co

Agents of Change

Little Granite Books

Please contact us...

phone: 800.366.0264

fax: 828.894.8454

email: Granitepub@5thworld.com

- or -

Visit our Web Site at

www.5thworld.com

Firestorm appendices are available at:

www.5thworld.com/Firestorm