H 0

% *>£* to
**•-# ^ f S, « S < -, i'- r -
raH33!£&&NS ?& y*£M& Mm v J - &.
SstjkSfet i'i a&wSe ;S
M®%
> siS* •
iSS?
Jfttf .v •••'. N ••.»2 ':' •,*

•Psf^v
igepBg3!$

IP 1 >"4 < '

S$?Sp * 1
5^.' * ^
i$?#*«Iv» Wz'"'* -if«V .

mm

aninn i nim[im;n!i))i)i»l",>
Mmmmtram
W

mm ! ••WW f]M
O D c
StggajHRNi J H agtai
Mtanrs''*
JWt 281963s

,>Win)»^i-«««n

Infof
wwmamnanmi
HH| 1 |

iSt&#^ i* ?&v &

r: :
' """
 Chapter U

Case studies during the term

of the project

(Cases 11 - 45)

427
■ r •• »•»•'•* ■■•■ ».

Case 11
South Central
Winter 1966
Investigator: Roach

Abstract:
Four members of the crew of a ÜC-8 aircraft
on a night flight from Lima, Peru to Mexico, O.F. reported
sighting two bright lights which appeared to increase their angular
separation with tine. At the greatest angular separation the liphts
appeared to one of the observers to be connected by a body which had
a suggestion of windows. Protuberances from the main "bodv" were
reported. The object appeared to fly "in formation" with the air-
craft for about two minutes and then was lost to view behind the
wing of the aircraft.
It is suggested that the sighting may have been the result of
the reentry of fragments o* the Agena from 'icmini II.

Background:
During a regular flight of a DC-8 commercial airliner from Lima
to Mexico City four crew members reported an interesting sighting
to the left of the aircraft. Here is the description j;iven by
the captain.
Two verv bright lights, one of which was
pulsating; from the two lights were two thin beams
of light (liko aircraft landing lights) which moved
from a V initially to an inverted v finally. At
one point the object seemed to omit a shower of
sparks (similar to a firework). There appeared
to be a solid shape between the two white lights,
which was thicker in the middle and tapered out-
wards. There was also a strip of light between

428
 the white light» (not very bright and yellowish
in color). Much like cabin lights of an aircraft.
The chronology and circumstances of events are given below:
Time; Winter 1966; 0803 GCT; 0238 local time.
Position of aircraft: Latitude 60S; Longitude 81*42'W.
Moon: Almost full moon, high in the sky behind the
aircraft.
Heading of aircraft: 318° magnetic, 324° geographic
l3b*K of N).

Table l

Time (relative) Description

0 min. First sighting. Two lights, 70° left,

about 10° above the horizon. Esti-
mated separation of the lights about

4 min. Lights now about 90° to the left, bright-

er than the full moon, separation of
the lights estimated at about 9° or
10'. A suggestion of "windows"
between the lights. Shower of sparks
from more northerly light.

5 min. "Pacing" the aircraft

b min. "Pacing" the aircraft

7 min. | Object lost to view behind the left

wing.

429
Suggested explanation of the sighting:
The apparent "pacing" of the aircraft by the object for an
estimated two minutes is a puzzling feature of the sighting. Also
the captain's sketch is suggestive of some kind of a craft. These
add up to the intriguing possibility of an intelligently guided
craft which, in the words of the aircraft's captain, "is a craft
with speed and maneuverability unknown to us."
In a discussion with the captain, who has had some 26 yr. of
flying experience, I asked his opinion of the following possibilities

Table 2

Explanation Hvaluation by Captain

Aircraft Definitely no

Meteor No

Reentry of satellite Possible

The Agena from Gemini II (see Plate 20) had been

predicted to reenter at Ü730 GCT at latitude 21 N, and longitude
154 E (.\t of the Philippine I.). This is some 33 min. earlier than
the sighting and about 1/3 of the earth's circumference away.
NORAD has made a calculation of a reentry of a fragment or fragments
from the Agena which would have a much smaller drag coefficient
than the Agena proper. The final computer predictions to represent
an extended reentry of a low drag fragment in the vicinity of the
aircraft are shown in Table 3 . It is noteworthy that during the
last two minutes from 08h 04m 3Üs to 08h 06m 21s the object is
dropping almost vertically from 26 km. to 10 km. The aircraft was
presumably flying at about the latter height.
The closest approach of the Agena and the aircraft is about
250 statute mi. The rapid deceleration of the reentering fragment

430
at the end of its journey is consistent with the impression of
the crew that the object was pacing the aircraft since it could
have appeared close to 9ÜJ on the left side of the aircraft for
some minute» during its final descent into the atmosphere. The
time of the sighting was given by the report of the crew as 0803
liCT. It is not known whether this time was near the early or the
late part of the event. Also there is some uncertainty as to the
exact geographical location of the aircraft during the sighting.
Kith these uncertainties it seems that the proposed explanation
of the sighting as due to the reentry of the Agena from Gemini II
is reasonable (but not proven) so far as the relative paths of the
aircraft and the predicted reentry are concerned.

Table 3
N0RAÜ Computer Predictions for bxtended
Reentry of Low Drag Fragment of Agena

Date Hr. Min. : Sec. S. Lat. R. Long. Ht. (km.)

30 Dec. 1966 08 00 30 4°.498 268°.218 81

01 30 6 .390 271 .476 74

03 30 9 .264 276 .572 43

04 30 9 .558 277 .106 26

15 30 9 .577 277 .142 15

lb ' 21 9 .577 277 .142 10

431

A
 ■ »« «9•r'r*-**»- II «r ■

I
case i2
North lästern
hinter UUt?
Investigators: Fred lloovcn and David Mover of I'ord Motor Company

Abstract:
Witness reported that, while she was driving alone at night, a
\
luminous object hovered over her car for several miles, then moved
rapidly into the distance, and that several mechanical and electrical
functions of her car were found to be impaired afterward, lixamination
of the car two months later disclosed no faults that were not attribut-
able to ordinary causes, nor ai y significant magnetic or radioactive
anomaly in or on the car body.

Background:
Ihe witness reported this and an earlier sighting to a sheriff
who referred her to someone at a local university. The latter, in
turn, reported the case to the Colorado project staff. Because the
report indicated that the case would afford a good opportunity to
test the possibility of electromagnetic effects on an automobile by
an UIO. Hoover» and Mover were asked to carry out a detailed in-
vest igat ion.

Invest i i;.ii ion :

In the spring of \\H^ Moycr recorded an interview with the
witness and drove her car back to Pearborn, where lord engineers and
labor.it on staff under llooven's direction examined it in detail.
The witness, a professional secretary, reported that, while
driving on a rural road near her home about 2 a.m. one morning in
the winter of 1907, she first noticed that the scene in front of
her was brightly illuminated. Thinking at first that her head-
lamps were on high beam, she operated her foot switch but this

432
made no difference, although the indicator li^ht was responding '
She then turned the headlamps out, but the illumination was und'\n AI'i^ud
She then observed that its source was a luminous body over her c. r,
which she perceived in the rear-view mirror and from the side windows.
The object remained directly over her car for ten or fifteen minute-
as she drove along the road rather slowly. The car would not accelei«te.
She depressed the accelerator all the way. Though the car went straiftht, t
she felt that she was not steering it, rather it -- or her mind -- was
being steered from the mysterious object. She opened one window and
could hear no sound. At the top of a rise the object drew away and "made '
a big check mark in the sky." It disappeared rapidly into the distance,
growing redder as it did so. As it moved away, it resembled an inverted
mushroom having a short stem on top and a uniform yellowish glow and
two bright white lights and several smaller ones underneath.
The witness reported four instrument malfunctions after the
incident that she had not noticed before: (1) the radio was weak and
full of static; (2) the speedometer read low; (3) the battery did
not charge properly and the ammeter did not read as usual; (4) the
oil gauge was stuck at the maximum reading.
After his interview with the witness, Moyer drove her car, a
1964 Comet, to Detroit, where Ford engineers and research staff in-
vestigated its conditon in detail. With respect to the malfunctions
reported by the witness, they found that: (1) The radio antenna had
been broken off the car, so that only local stations could be heard
through the background noise. (2) The fan belt, which operated the
generator, was so loose that the generator was not delivering normal
charging power to the battery. (3) In the speedometer, a die casting
that provided alig.iment for the bearings had been broken, repaired,
and apparently had broken again, causing bearing friction that caused
the speedometer to read low. This condition was aggravated by sticky
lubricant from the speedometer cable that had worked up. (4) The
transmitter element of the oil gauge was malfunctioning because of
electrical leakage due to corrosion.

433

*
 •s'*m t ■••' uta&nsti **• if

r
i
All of the reported malfunctions were found to result from con-
ditions that are commonplace in cars of the age and mileage of the
witness1 Comet.
TTie metal-forming operations in the manufacture of a car body
produce a characteristic magnetization pattern for each model, which
persists for years with little change unless the metal is reworked
i or subjected to a ma^'etic field substantially stronger than that of
i the earth. An e.xaminaf ion of the magnetic "signature" of the witness'
car bodv revealeil no significant difference from that of three out of
four other randomly selected similar cars of the same age. It was
therefore concluded that no significant magnetic field had acted on
the witness* car.
A fielder beta-gamma survey counter showed no significant radio-
activity from the car body. Scrapings of accumulated dirt and debris
from hood and deck lid flanges, drip rail, etc., showed a low level
radioactive contaminations, the strongest being about 5 gammas per sec.
at 120 kcV. A similar survey of material from another 1964 Comet
showed a similar level of contamination, though with a different
spectral distribution. The radioactivity found is not unusual;
however, an accurate evaluation of its significance was impossible in
the absence of detailed knowledge of the environmental history of the
car.

Comments:
This case is especially interesting because of the specific and
detailed information given by the witness, and the "strangeness" of
the encounter Her recorded testimony indicates a competent, practical
personality, trained and accustomed to keeping her presence of mind in
unexpected situations. By her account, her first intimation of some-
thing strange was the abnormally bright headlight field, iier practical
response was to try the high-low beam switch, and she distinguished
between the dash-signal indication and the lack of change in the
illumination. Later she lowered the window to listen for any unusual

434
sound. Most interesting is her comment that, after she realized some-
thing strange was above the car, she remembered stories of alleged mental
influence by such apparitions ;ind kept talking to herself to keep her
mind actively busy. "I was not about to give it an opening." In short
her testimony presents the picture of a woman alone on a deserted road
confronted by a strange phenomenon, scared but coping intelligently
with the situation.
However, her account is not free of discrepancies. She remembered
bright moonlight, but the moon was at last quarter on 3 January, and
would not have been very high even on that date. Her description of
what she saw of the UFO through the rear-view mirror is open to question.
The Ford investigators noted that the internal mirror allows a field
of only 3° above the horizontal. The UFO would have had to be about
20 times as wide as its elevation above the car to be seen in the mirror
at all. She also reported several earlier UFO sightings by herself and
friends and family in the vicinity of her home. These reports suggest
the possibility of a preoccupation with the subject. However, she
apparently was not seeking publicity. She mentioned the incident early
in March to a local deputy sheriff, who reported it to a person at
a local university. All of the malfunctions of the car that the
witness stated had manifested themselves after the UFO experience were
found to be the results of gradual wear and deterioration except the
broken radio antenna, which was inconclusive. The case remains
interesting but unexplained.

435
^/»»iimM • • ^mnqn«M«t«iv' ^o--

Case 13
North Hastorn
Winter 1967
Investigators: Ayer, Wadsworth

Abstract:
Two women, joined later by a third, reported three appearances
of a disc-shaped object with lights while they were driving in early
darkness. Because of elapsed time and other factors, no evaluation
was practicable.

Investigation:
Interviews with the three women in autumn 1967 developed the
following account:
A woman (witness A), and her niece about 16 yr. old (witness B),
were driving north toward town at about 5:45 p.m. They had just
passed the lake and were about 0.5 mi. south of town, when they saw
a "classical" disc-shaped object moving toward them from the general
direction of the mountain on their right. The disc had several round
lights or "portholes" on its equator, and bright beams pointed in all
directions. It stopped and hovered about 200 yd. from the road at
such an altitude that it appeared to be below the crest of the
mountain. (Since the top of the mountain was 400 ft. higher than
the road and 2,400 yd. away, the object would have been 53 ft. off
the ground if it had been seen in line with the mountain top.)
The women stopped and observed this phenomenon for five minutes,
until the lights went out and the craft vanished. They stayed in the
car during this time, with the engine running and the lights on.
They then drove on to town to pick up a woman friend (witness
C). Just before arriving in town they looked back and saw the
same or another object overtaking them from the direction of the lake.
This second object looked and behaved like the first, hovering over

436
 ■ »mi»—>•»»*,<>" ("•'•'WWM'W

the ground, remaining for about the same time, and finally vanishing
when its lights went out. This time the women got out of the car, but
left the Jights on and the motor running.
The women continued their drive, picked up their friend, and
returned to a point just east of the town to see if the object(s) had
reappeared. Seeing nothing, they drove around to the east of the
mountain and continued south. About a mile south of the mountain,
they saw another object similar in shape to the first two, but
having dim red, square windows, hovering near the road on their right
at the same altitude as before. The three women got out of the car
and turned off the motor and lights, and watched the object until the
lights went out and it disappeared.

Comments:
This case is stronger than most eyewitness accounts, because two
original witnesses were corroborated by a third although the third is
not independent. Unfortunately, the incidents occurred eight months
before the interviews, thus affording opportunity for significant
distortions of memories. Because of the time lapse, a search for
other witnesses or other contributing evidence did not appear practi-
cable. The case therefore must be regarded as unexplained for lack
of knowledge of the context in which it occurred.
Huring the interview, the niece made a remark that seemed especially
relevant fo the numerous sighting reports in that region. When asked
whether she had seen anything like the disc before, she said she had not,
"But we frequently see moving lights." Questions about altitude and
azimuth, characteristics of the lights and frequency of appearances,
brought out that lights had been seen several times a week, mostly
toward the northwest (15 to 20 mi. away), at a low altitude just
above the tree line. The lights were white points and moved rather
rapidly in a random manner.

437

*
 Case I4
South Central
Winter l%7
Investigators: Low, Powers, Wudsworth, Crow

Abstract:
Six UFÜ reports in the area of two South Central cities were
investigated in the winter of 1967. Of the six, three were promptly
identified, two as astronomical objects and one as a chemical-
release rocket shot. The other three remain unidentified as follows;
(1) The city police chief and several officers reported
sighting an extended object of spherical shape one morning,
winter, li'bT. It was of whitish or metallic color and showed
no surface features as it drifted slowly near the outskirts
of the city. The officers watched it for about 1.5 hours
before it drifted out of sight.
(2") Several town policemen reported a red-and-grecn light
moving irregularly in the western sky in the morning in winter,
1967. The planet Jupiter wis low in the western sky also,
but according to the witnesses the object displayed movement
which would rule out identification as an astronomical object.
They also stated that a bright "star" was visible near the
object.
(3) Three teenage boys in the city reported to the police
that they had just seen a large elongated UFO at the edge of
town. Their description closely matched that of a recently
publicized set of pictures that have since come under suspicion
as a probable hoax. Credibility of these witnesses was con-
sidered marginal.

Background and Investigation:

First Sighting
One morning in the winter of 1967 about 1.5 hours before dawn,
the city police received a call from the town police reporting that
an unidentified object was headed southeast toward the city. A
police lieutenant drove to a location approximately four miles north
of the city, and within a few minutes saw what he described as a
huge silvery object moving slowly in his direction. The object was
low on the horizon at an estimated elevation of 1,000 ft.

438
 Several minutes after the object first became visible, it
turned in a southwesterly direction, hcadinp toward a nearby
town. At this point, additional officers were called a» wit-
nesses. They met at a point just west of the city, about four miles from
the town. The object was visible to all until it drifted out of
sight just before dawn.
There is no reason to doubt the credibility of the sighting; how-
ever, the question of what was seen remains unresolved. One bit of
corroborating evidence was brought, to light during the investigation.
A periodic glow or reflection from the object was described by the
Joplin lieutenant. He stated that the glow had a regular five-second
period. One-half mile from the witnesses' first location was the
local airport. The half-rotation period of the airport's two-way
beacon is five seconds, and thus consistent with the periodic glow
seen coming from the object. If the object was both low and nearby,
it might have been illuminated by the beacon.
The possibility of conventional explanation as a balloon was ruled
out when a weather check indicated that lower winds were from south
to southwest.
Second Sighting.
At approximately 5:00 a.m., the following morning, a sergeant of
the police department observed an unidentified object in the western
sky. He described the object as a bright light one-fourth the diameter
of the full moon, showing no distinct outline, and colored red on the
left and greenish-blue on the right. The object first attracted atten-
tion because of its apparent motion, which was irregular, involving
stopping and changing direction. After a period of observation dur-
ing which time several other officers were present, the object suddenly
dropped as though it were going to "crash", but stopped a short dis-
tance above the horizon. By comparing the remembered elevation of
the object to a pencil held vertically at arms length, it was estim-
ated that the object when first observed, was 12 degrees above the hor-
izon, and then dropped 9 or 10 degrees before stopping.
The sergeant was questioned about Jupiter, which was low in the
west at the time. He said that a bright "star" was also visible, but
that the motion of the object was too pronounced for it to have been
a star or planet. He also emphasized that all of the witnesses observed
the motion simultaneously, and that the object moved relative to

439

S
 ■♦ ^ »• . • ■*»*r m- r r '

the t'ixeJ hackground of stars. The object was still visible when
the witnesses left the scene.
On the basis of witness testimony, it seems unlikely that the
object spotted was Jupiter; however, evidence was insufficient to
establish this.
Third Sighting
A sheriff and a police chief reported seeing a bright bluish
cloud-like display for over an hour just before dawn on a winter
morning, IVfr?. As daylight approached the object disappeared.
\ This "obiect" was later identified as an active chemical
f
rocket launched from Hglin AI'B, Florida, at 5:40 a.m. CST. It rose
\ to an altitude of approximately 100 mi,, where it released for
scientific purposes a cloud of barium particles that glowed brilliantly
bluish through chemical reaction with the surrounding atmosphere.
It ha? been determined that this display would have been clearly
visible from the area where the sighting took place.
Fourth Sighting
Three teenage boys reported having seen a large UFO at the
edge of town about 11:30 p.m., one evening, winter 1967. They
described structural details, fins, and lights. After first seeing
the abject directly in front of their car, they followed it as it
drifted over a wooded area into which there was a narrow access road.
There they got out of their car, but became frightened when the
obiect appeared to move in their direction, whereupon they returned
to their car and left to report the incident. The boys' description
and a sketch drawn"by one of them closely matched recently publi-
ci:ed photographs, one of which had appeared in a local newspaper
a few days before the sighting. Nevertheless, during interviews,
the boys showed no evidence of falsification and seemed to have been
genuinely frightened by the experience. No corroborating evidence
was found to support this report.
Fifth Sighting
At 12:30 a.m., one morning, winter 1967, a report came into the
city police station from the state patrol. The report stated

440
 - •» «• «nn |(f»«l^'^•ruw•»^•^rtwr.-*•»,, »W

that ii UIÜ was at that moment under observation, that it was being
photographed, ami that it had caused an observer's car to stall. Low
immediately investigated this report and identified the object as
Jupiter. The stalled car was still at the scene with apparently a low
battery. The observer who had photographed the object said it had
moved "larkedly before coming to rest at its present position. Thus,
the possibility exists that initially he was watching something other
than Jupiter; but there was no doubt of the identity of the object that
he photographed.
Sixth Sighting
At approximately 1:50 a.m., one morning, winter 1967, the city
police dispatcher reported an object low in the Fiast. This was promptly
identified as Arcturus, which was scintillating markedly.
Weather Conditions:
The following are pertinent excerpts from the meteorological
report for the area on the dry of the first sighting as prepared
by Loren IV. Crow:
The semi-stationary weak cold front lay in a north--northeast-
south-southwest orientation approximately forty miles northwest
of [the city]. Behind this front cloudiness was generally
overcast at 10,000 feet or more above the ground. To the east
of the front, the sky was generally clear with some patches of
scattered clouds. Visibility was 15 miles or greater, and the
flow of the air was from the south-southwest at the surface in
the vicinity of [the city] . . . (at higher elevations).
CLOUDS: It is of some interest to note that the clear con-
dition being observed at [three local stations] at 5:00 a.m.
changed to reports of at least two cloud layers by 7:00 a.m.
at all three stations. Part of this woulu have been due to
increasing amounts of light for the trained observers to be
able to identify cloudiness which could not ha/e been seen
during the darker hours of the night . . .
Although the type of clouds being reported at 10,000 feet
over [the city] were not identified, the type of cloud in this
height range was identified as alto-cumulus over [nearby
cities]. It is the Author's opinion that this type of

441

mmmmmmacx? 'vvmrnsBi
"»'■•••1»»,* «H '

cloud would have been altocumulus eaiHellatua, which tends to

have rounded edges. The initial formation of such clouds would
constitute small individual cloud cells. Each may have shown
for a matter of a few minutes then may have been replaced by
another cloud cell nearby which may have been similar in shape.
This could have indicated movement from the position of the
first cloud parcel (.which now would have disappeared) to the
position of the newer cloud. At the same time, the individual
clouds would be moving with the wind, which was from a westerly
direction at those elevations.
It is fairly certain that cloudiness began to appear in
this area sometime between 4:ÜÜ and ():UU a.m. There may have
hi. ^n a few isolated cloud parcels visible with the limited
moonlight available at 5:ÜÜ a.m....

Conclusion
Of the six sightings investigated, three objects were identified.
In only one case of an unidentified object was the evidence strong for
both its reality and its strangeness. That was the first, which in-
volved a slowly drifting sphere, metallic in color. We have little
oasis for speculation about what the object was, since the sighting
occurred in pre-dawn darkness and no surface details or structural fea-
tures were seen. In the other two unknown cases the evidence is less
substantial, one case having low credibility and other marginal strange-
ness .

442
Case 15
South Mountain
Winter 1967
Investigator: Wadsworth

Background
A private observer had reported by telephone that for several months
he had repeatedly seen in the west at evening a green light as large as
a two-story building. Sometimes it appeared round, sometimes oblong.
He reported that the object had been landing five to 20 miles west of
his house several times per week, in the period about 4:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Observing through binoculars, he had seen two rows of windows on a
dome-shaped object that seemed to have jets firing from the bottom and
that lit up a very large surrounding area.

Investigation
The investigator visited the site on a winter evening, 1967, arriving
at the observer's home about 6:30 p.m. The observer pointed out as the
object of his concern a bright planet 10-15 degrees above the western
horizon. Wadsworth suggested that the object appeared to be a star
or planet. (Both Venus and Saturn were visible about 1.3 degrees apart,
Venus being the brighter.) The observer agreed, saying that, had he
not seen it on other occasions when it appeared much nearer and larger,
he would have the same opinion. Also, he held to his description of
the surface features that he claimed to havf seen through the binoculars.
His wife concurred with this statement, supporting his allusion to win-
dows. It was suggested that some object other than a planet might have
been involved, but no other bright light was visible in that area of
the sky.
The phenomena of scintillation and color change characteristic of
light sources low on the horizon were described to the observer, and he
seemed to accept the possibility that what he had seen was only a planet

443
seen under conditions unusual in his experience. Thus what he had
observed, even with the binoculars, apparently had not been suffi-
ciently clear to be conclusive to him. The possibility of a second
object seems very unlikely, although at times he may have observed
stars or planets other than the one he noted at this time. This
possibility would account for the long period during which the
sightings had occurred.

Conclusion
The reported "landings" apparently were the nightly settings of
the planet. The glow around the "landed" object probably was the
bright moonlit snowscapc seen through the binoculars. 'Hie motion was
described as always the same, a very gradual descent to the western
horizon, where the object would "land" and shortly thereafter cut off
its lights. It is believed that the alleged size, brightness, and
surface features were largely imagined.
The observer seemed quite sincere and curious; however, his des-
cription of the phenomena could not be considered scientifically reliable.
He demonstrated an inadequate grasp of basic scientific information,
and seemed unable to distinguish between objective observations and
subjective impressions.

444
 Case 16
South Mountain
Winter 1967
Investigators: Van Arsdale, Hynek

Abstract:
Daylight visual sightings of "silvery specks" overhead were
reported, but pilots of aircraft sent to investigate saw nothing.
Two radars concurrently detected several intermittent stationary
targets in the reported area, and then a single target that moved
slowly several minutes. Then it disappeared on one radar, and on
the other described an approximately circular course at high speed.
The visual sighting, and a later one, are impossible to evaluate.
The radar targets are attributed to propagation anomalies, a bal-
loon, and malfunction of one radar.

Background:
Reports of reliably witnessed visual and radar sightings in
an
the vicinity of Air Force base reached the project, leading to the
decision to send an investigator there. It was arranged that Dr.
Hynek, who was to be at the base on other business, should participate
in the investigation.

Investigation:
The investigators examined the radar plots and talked with
ba
the se UFO officer, the Public Information Officer, and the
radar operators who had reported the unidentified targets. From
these inquiries, the following account developed.
At 10:25 a.m. a young man telephoned the base Ul:0 officer to
report that he was seeing "silvery specks" passing overhead.
During about 30 min., he had seen two or three groups of 30 to 40
such objects moving southwest. Me was at a point (Point "1," Fig. 1 )
in the mountains NF. of the base.

445
I 11:31 FAOEOUT
17

»11:21.5
X 6

LOST ALTITUDE
PLOT

Fig. 1

446
 The UFO officer finished his conversation with the witness at
»
10:50. He then had two aircraft sent to the reported location; but
they reported nothing unusual .
He also asked range surveillance radar to seek the objects.
(Being inexperienced in such investigations, he told the operators
where to look, instead of simply asking them whether they had any
unidentified targets). Only two surveillance radars were operating,
one at Mission Control on the base and the other 35 mi. south.
About 10:55 both radars plotted four objects about five miles
south of the visual sighting, and a little later three other objects
(":" and "3" Fig. 1 ). All of these objects were intermittent,
appearing sometimes on one sweep of the radar screen and not on the
next, so that the radar tracking equipment could not "lock on" them;
but they appeared to be stationary.
Then at 11:08 both radars plotted a slew-moving object at 25,000
ft. altitude, and tracked it ten minutes while it moved three or four
miles eastward ("4" and "5" Fig. 1 ). At this point, at 11:18 a.m.,
it disappeared from the south radar screen, while the radar at Mission
Control showed it moving southward at Mach 1.2. It continued approx-
imately on a circular course centered on Mission Control radar, while
both radars scanned clockwise. At 11:21.5 both radars showed two
stationär)' objects ("6" Fig. 1 ) that also flickered intermittently.
Mission Control radar continued to follow the fast-moving target on
its circular course until it abruptly climbed to 80,000 ft. ("7"
Fig. 1 ], and followed it on around to the north until it appeared
to go out of range at 100,000 ft. altitude, at 11:31.
During the tracking of the circular course, the operator stated
that he thought the radar was not functioning properly. The UFO
officer accordingly was advised that he should not consider the plotted
tracks "firm and accurate." FAA radar did not confirm the circular
track, and range-data radars were not operating. The following day,
the radar supervisor reported that evaluation of the Mission Control
radar record indicated that the instrument had plotted a noise track.
Also, there exist unexplained discrepancies

447
■f» '.'.■»! -ft? vttw* nyiHg^jWWWwpi •«•'■ ^ ■^■*JTWP»'' ■<*»»»*-+-•'» ** ■."■•" «<■'*«*^^-n'- -♦...—(r-«-»»»»..»'»)-! w* www "»•••

of 5 to 15 mi. between the ranges of the various unidentified

targets displayed on photographs of the radar plotting boards,
compared with the written report issued by Mission Control the
next day. Positions indicated on Fig. 1 are taken from the
plots.
An electronics technician reported that at 11:20, while he
was at location "8" (Fig. 1 ), he saw a saucer-shaped object
moving rapidly away from him; it disappeared behind a nearby peak,
His line of sight to the peak was approximately toward the
point on the circular track traced at 11:20 by Mission Control
radar.

Comment:
Kith the limited information available, the two visual sighting
reports are impossible to evaluate. The "silvery specks" could
have been plant seeds of the type that float like parachutes, but
such a suggestion is speculative.
The radar observations offer a more substantial basis for
analysis, since they involved two trained operators and instru-
ment records (See also Section III Chapter 5). However, the UFO
officer remarked that the men on duty during the sightings were
second-line operators having little experience with "track" (sur-
veillance) radar. As noted earlier, they were told to look for
unidentified objects at a specified location and had perhaps in
consequence found them there ("2" on Fig. 1 ). it appears probable
that these intermittent, stationary targets were mirage-like
glimpses of peaks or other high points that were just below the
radar line of sight, and were brought into view sporadically by
fluctuations in the atmospheric path. There is the strong impli-
cation that the operators noticed these "objects" at location "2"
because they were directed to look for something there, and that
they could have found similar targets at other points on the
mountain landscape. In fact, they did just that, at locations
"3" and "6" (Fig. 1 ). These observations appear to be similar

448
 71:* '■;»''»»av-;Mr»A!» -»/^.^fr'w.Vfu

to some reported in other cases (c.j;., (iasc 35 ) in which operators

of highly specialized radar equipment have failed to notice ex-
traneous objects on their screens because they were intent on the
targets that they had been assigned to track. They become aware
of such commonplace objects only when a "UFO flap" has diverted
them from routine procedure and encouraged them to look for
anomalies. It should be noted that such a habit of ignoring ir-
relevant information in the perceptual field unless attention
is directed to it is common in other instrument observations, and
indeed in ordinary experience. It has accounted for many visual
UFO reports.
The slow-moving radar object ("4" and "5" on Fig. 1 ) was
entirely compatible with a weather or research balloon drifting
with the prevailing westerly winds.
The evidence indicates that the circular track plotted on
Mission Control radar, but not on the south screen was
an instrumental anomaly. The operator at Mission Control judged
that the instrument was malfunctioning, and the subsequent
evaluation by the civilian radar supervisory staff attributed the
circular trace to a "noise track." Why the slowly-drifting
object should have disappeared from both radars at nearly the
same time is not clear. However, if it is assumed that the cir-
cular track represented a real object, then it is much more
difficult to explain why the south screen never picked it up,
even though it passed within seven miles of that station when
the radar was working as attested by its plotting the targets
at location "6."
It is important to note that none of the radar targets ex-
hibited motions agreeing even approximately with those reported
in the two visual sightings. The "silvery specks" were moving
southwest. The saucer-like object of the second sighting was
moving "away from" the observer and disappeared behind the
peak, which was ENE of him, while the radar "object" was moving
south. Also, inspection of the contours of the region indicates
that the radar "object" plotted at 25,000 ft. altitude would have
been obscured by mountain ridges from the observer at location "6"

449
 ^■,V-'^?•)»-_ ii flMHPmp. mutv-.-smnm -.«»^..v.v...., ..^

I
throughout at least 25° of azimuth to the north of the peak.
This case is not fully clarified in all details; but the
> • evidence indicates decisively that it is typical of many in-
stances in which an initial sighting of dubious quality stimulates
unusual attention and induces an expectant emotional state in
which commonplace phenomena assume apparent significance.

450
Case 17
South Mountain
Spring 1967
Investigator: Wadsworth

Abstract:
A youth reported that a large, glowing object approached his
car and accompanied it more than twenty miles, lie described apparent
electromagnetic effects on his automobile. Investigation revealed
.-■

neither a natural explanation to account for the sighting, nor suf-

ficient evidence to sustain an unconventional hypothesis.
Other reported sightings in the area were investigated without
conclusive results.

Background:
The Primary Sighting
On a night in the spring of 1967 an 18 year-old high school boy
(Witness I) was returning from a first-aid class in town to his
parents' home, a general store. He reported that shortly after
11:00 p.m., when he was three miles west of the town, he noticed an
obiect high in the sky directly ahead of him. He compared its
apparent size and brightness to an ordinary incandescent light bulb
seen at about twenty feet, or a slow-moving ball of fire. As he
continued, the object descended at an angle toward his left, closed
on his automobile, and accompanied it at a distance and elevation
he estimated at one hundred feet each. He estimated the dimensions
of the object as approximately 30 by 100 feet. It was shaped like
an inverted bowl, flat on the bottom and arched on top. No surface
features were visible, only an overall glow that was blue at the
top and blended gradually through cream color and orange to bright
red at the bottom. At times he noticed a

451
white vapor associated with the object. The only other feature he
noted was a periodic on-off manifestation of the glow.
The witness also reported a sensation of intense heat coming from
the object, such that he began perspiring profusely even with the car
windows down. At this same time, the automobile engine began to sputter
and miss, the radio and headlights went out, the ammeter indicated
"discharge," and shortly afterward the temperature light indicated "hot."
To see the road, he used a battery-powered spotlight that was
independent of the car battery. It continued to function normally.
He drove as rapidly as possible (50-60 mph) under the adverse condi-
tions, and was paced the entire twenty-odd miles to his home. As he
approached the family store, the object moved off ahead of him for the
first time and stopped above the store as if to wait for him. As he
turned in, the object blacked out and vanished into the darkness.
The witness reported that after the incident his car never
recovered. Its condition worsened continually until it was beyond
repair.

Investigation:
Wadsworth investigated this and other reports in the area,
Spring 1967. Although no unequivocal corroborating evidence was
uncovered, testimony from a game warden who is regarded as highly
reliable by area residents, provided possible corroboration. He
reported having seen a round, reddish object in the sky a little
later on the same evening. He was travelling the same stretch of
the road that was involved in the sighting already described. The
object he saw was so distant that its identity with the other is
uncertain.
Witness' automobile was monitored for high-energy radiation.
Smear samples were analyzed for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation.
Alpha and beta were at normal background levels, and gamma was a
trace above; this result may relate to the presence of uranium depo-
sits in the vicinity. The magnetization pattern of the automobile
body was checked against a control auto and found to be normal.

452
 The auto engine was found to be badly out of tune and in generally
poor running condition. Unfortunately, it was impossible to determine
whether any specific damages resulted from the effects of ordinary
wear and tear. Nevertheless, the witness stated that his car was
in good running condition before the incident.
The route on which the sighting occurred was inspected under
both day and night conditions. No physical evidence was found that
could be related to the sighting; however, terrain and highway features
were consistent with the witness* account.
Additional Sightings.
After the initial report, additional sightings were reported in
the area. Many of these were of marginal quality and insufficiently
detailed to warrant further investigation. In a few cases, followup
attempts were made. Most of the witnesses were Indians, who
were difficult to locate because they live in remote places, and
were extremely difficult to interview once found because they speak
little English and are not familiar with such a procedure. It was
thus almost impossible to obtain more than the barest details.
The most useful materials obtained from these witnesses were
their sketches of the objects they reported having seen. These
sketches show a considerable range of variation, suggesting several
types of objects. It should be noted that the Navajo appear to be
unsophisticated as to UFOs. That is, they are less likely than a
member of the general population to know what an UFO is reported to
look like. Also, these reports cannot be assessed in terms of the
same psychosocial dynamics that are appropriate to most UFO reports.
Reported loss of UPO-caused power failures were checked with an
official of the local Power Association. He stated that nothing
out of the ordinary had been reported to him. In one case, an Indian
witness reported loss of power at his cabin when an UFO landed nearby.
Available Details of Additional Sightings.
(!) Evening of the first sighting, 9:00 p.m.. Duration 2 min.,
two witnesses.

453

_
 Object covered
with fire \

F i re from
bottom
Witness II Witness III (same objectj

(^) Following evening, 9:00 p.m., one witness.

Object appeared to be 100 to 150 yards away. It was a reddish-
white light, the apparent size of a car. There were lighted windows
all around the edge. Firo coming from the bottom of the object left
a trail; however, it left no evidence on the ground. The witness
stopped his car and shut off his lights. When his lights went out, so
did the lights of the object. It did not reappear.

windows around
edge

Witness IV

fire from
bottom
 1^1 II »la, after oriuin:il sighting, .■>:()() ■'.::<(i .i.iri,, duration
J minuto'., one witness, ist imatrd altitudf, ISO (ret; estimated '.!/«•,
JO feet long; weather clear.
Object had blue lights the color of a welding torch in a band
around center. It was reddish at the bottom. It moved up and out,
vanishing in the distance.

lights
side view Bottom view

Witness V

(4) 15 da. after original sighting, 11:20 p.m., duration

20 minutes. One witness.
Witness was on duty as hoistman at the mine at time of sighting.
Object approached the mine, hovered nearby, then departed rap-
idly at »»n uoward angle, lie reported that the incident so scared him
that he was still shaking when he went home.

Blue
Light blue

Dark blue Witness VI

Bright light

•Orange and yellow

Dark blue flashing

455
 '•' fl ♦*.-'-«.

15) 1? da. after original sighting, y:58 p.m.,

duration 5 minutes, three witnesses including witness VI above.

■
Witness VI said the object looked very much like the one he
had seen two nights previously.

White Blue

(b) Spring, 1%?, night, duration 6 min. Two

witnesses (IX and X).
Witness IX was in his cabin when the lights went out. Me put
on his miner's light, went out to investigate and saw an object on
the ground near his cabin. He then went inside to get a rifle. When
he came out apain, he saw the object departing into the distance. The
cabin lights came back on after the object had left.

Windows —

—«r- Snake-like thing came from

^ bottom
Witness IX

456
 The above list is by no means inclusive of tho sightings repotted
' in the area. For example, the mother of the witness I reported two
f sightings of marRinul quality. There were numerous others; but the
investigation began three weeks after the primary sighting, and the
signal-to-noise ratio was poor.
I
Conclusion
On the basis of available evidence, it is impossible say
whether or not the event reported is real.

457
 ■ -t* • «- fwriiifm"■ •>«* ■ «.r, ■*.*.*■«,9i'-*v*w• rtr •>!"^ -TO» ■. ■.•- ] f-,,.,» ,»« • ,*..

Case 18
South Mountain
Spring 1967
Investigators: Low, Wadsworth

Abstract:
Several reports of lights in the sky traveling slowly and
emitting sparks as they disappeared were attributed to hot air
>, balloons set off as a scientific experiment by neighborhood boys.
f
\ Background:
One night in the spring of 1967 four hot air balloons were released
by several college students. These balloons set off a small wave of
UFO sightings. Accounts of some of the sightings were reported in
local newspapers, and for several days the source of the objects was
unknown except to the students who launched them. Because of the un-
expected publicity, the students decided to come forth and give an
account of the event to this project.
This report is intended primarily to examine the degree of cor-
respondence between the reports of the event and the event itself. A
description of the event based on an interview with the students is
presented, followed by report summaries of a number of the sightings.
It should be noted that the students were not attempting to make
careful observations when they launched the balloons. Their ac-
counts were somewhat general and lacking in details.

Description of Event as reported by Students

Four balloons of the type recently publicized in various news
media and magazines were released. These balloons consisted of
plastic dry-cleaners' suit covers, sealed at the top and held open
at the bottom by crossed drinking straws attached to the edge of
the opening. Hot air was generated by a cluster of birthday candles

458
mounted along the straws where they crossed near the center of the
opening.
The first balloon was launched at 9:15 p.m. There was no ground
wind, and the sky as clear except for scattered patches of thin haze.
This balloon did not travel far from the launching site. It went up
a fairly short distance and then went out. The object appeared to the
students to be larger than a star. Duration of the event was estima-
ted at five to ten minutes.
By 10:00 o'clock, three more balloons were ready and were launched
one after another. They appeared to maintain three different altitudes
as they rose, and showed some flickering, growing dim and then brighten-
ing up again. The balloons quickly became unrecognizeable as balloons
and showed onlv as fire-colored lights. The plastic envelopes were
faintly visible as dim shapes. The lights appeared the size of bright
stars or larger.
One of the most obvious features of the event was the triangular
formation that the balloons assumed upon gaining altitude. This triangle
endured for some minutes; then upper level winds apparently began to
take the balloons in different directions. The lower one drifted apart
and went out. Duration of the entire event was estimated at 20 to 25
minutes.
Summaries of Observers' Reports:

1. Time: 9:15 p.m.

Observers: mathematics profsssor and wife.
Location: 0.25 mile KSW of launch site.
Description: gold or orange-yellow light, larger than a star
but smaller than a dime at arm's length, brighter than anything
else in the sky; through binoculars, observers could see an
area of "stronger density" adjacent to the light source.
Direction and disappearance: object first seen at an elevation
of 45° in the east; began moving north, receded toward the east
and faded out.
Duration: 5 minutes

459

■v- 4MUVi

A
 ' «V fH*-*: r-rjrt'Wtf tmrnxm

tI 2. Time: 9:15 p.m.

i Observers: language professor and public school teacher.
Location: 0,4 mile ENE of launch site.
Description: orange-yellow object larger than a star, smaller than
a plane (which passed by at the time) but larger than the lights
of the plane.
Direction and disappearance: object stopped, light varied and seemed
to fizzle out, sparks dropped and light disappeared.
Duration: 10 minutes
3. Time: 9:15 p.m.
Observers: two students
Location: same as (2) above.
Description: gold-yellow object, little larger than a star, first
thought it was a satellite.
Direction and disappearance: object was first seen slightly south
of west and moving slowly eastward toward observers. Object came
nearly overhead, dimmed, brightened, emitted sparks and went out.
Duration: 5 minutes
4. Time: 10:00 p.m.
Observers: two women.
Location: 0.7 mile F.NE of launch site.
Description: three lights in triangular formation; two on left
were yellowish, one on right was reddish. Objects were about the
size of a star when first seen, but grew larger as they moved
toward the observers. Other people in the parking lot seemed
not to notice the objects.
Direction and disappearance: Objects were first seen in south-
west at about 45 to 60° elevation. They then seemed to move
north, shifting from the triangle to a vertical line formation
and rising. Observers left while objects were still visible.
The objects seemed to have moved back to their original positions
and become smaller.
Duration: 15 minutes

460
 >mlmr-swvVJ**ml'*'P**1****

5. Time: 10:05 p.m.

I
Observers: fine arts professor and wife.
Location: 0.7 mile SK of launch site.
Description: three red or pink lights in triangular formation at
45° elevation. Size and speed compared to Echo satellite.
Direction and disappearance: Objects first observed in northwest,
then began to move southeast and shift from triangle to straight
line formation. Movement continued till objects were approximately
overhead and seemed to stop. Then one went south and went out,
one north and went out, and one west and went out.
Ti
Duration: 15 minutes |
b. Time: 10:13 p.m.
Observer: chemical research assistant.
Location: 0.5 mile ESE of launch site.
Description: three lights like large stars in the form of a triangle.
One appeared red, the others orange.
Direction and disappearance: objects were overhead and somewhat to
the south when first seen. One moved to the southeast and disappeared
in haze. One stayed overhead, then flickered, moved west, and blinked
out. One arched away to the east and disappeared.
Duration: 5 minutes

7. Time: 10:00-10:30 p.m.

Observer: man.
Location: 0.4 mile SB of launch site.
Description: three yellow-orange lights in a rough line formation.
Appeared as dull glowing objects with haze around them. Observer
thought they were small and low.
Direction and disappearance: objects were seen first in the north-
west at an elevation of about 35°. Motion was southward, slow and
haphazard. The first one continued to move south. The second
two passed nearby overhead, seemed to move closer together, and
drifted away to the southwest.
Duration: 5-10 minutes

461

ä
■ »f •f^ f*», •iWMWMMB'* tmS:W**.y<-<»*>***i*f • <■ ■ , ,

8. Time: 10:40 p.m.

Observer: astronomer.
Location: 1.0 mile SW of launch site.
Description: One object visible low in the east, yellow-orange
and glowing continuously except several times when it dimmed.
It was about 2nd or 3rd stellar magnitude, and 10o-15oabove eastern
horizon. Through binoculars it remained visible only as a point
of light.
Direction and disappearance: Position when first viewed was
about 10° nortli of east and 10-15° above horizon. Motion was very
slow and difficult to determine, because of the lack of nearby refe-
rence stars.
Duration: 3-5 minutes
9. Time: 10-10:15 p.m.
Observer: man.
Location: about 300 yards SE of launch site.
Description: two bright lights seen through the curtains of ob-
servers' apartment. From outside, they looked like blimps with
fire at one end, and were one-quarter to one-half the apparent
si:e of full moon. A third similar object appeared shortly after
the first two.
Direction and disappearance: the first two appeared at 30-40°
elevation in the northwest and drifted to an overhead position,
where they separated and diminished with increasing altitude. The
third behaved similarly.
Duration: 10-20 minutes

462
 o
4J
s J
(4 C ^
u 45 V •O 41 I
•H «TJ 4> 4) 4>
a 4J «J « x: « M M ki
&£
4) «M
^
•H S
O §§5 M
O <-< -H 4) s M |H O
h a ft-< *•-• ♦i O O u j «N
ca v ^-> C4 1 1 1 V
*> I-H <) 4) M :
M ^H JS X
3 7 4J «
4) «H *>
^
rH
M
£
|4
-H
S§ 4,
1-1 «^ f4
»H •-( .rt
^5
- •
e M
IM 4> 4) ft
3 «M «C c« ß ^-N 4J 4J «J i-l M 8-§,
• MOM -H C j; x ä -^ x x: M 4>
g .^ ~4 *> O M MM 9 MM • • • O U
c h "0 -i M 0 •H -H -H "O -H -H M W -H
^ rHrt Wrt *
ft 1^ 00 91 U M
4> 4> O
4-1 4> (t W 3 S ^
o •H >Z4>5«(« C
4> 4) « 4> « ft "Z'Ä
•e
o ^4 .H B O W ** JD U U U U U 81 M
0 o
o
ft
4»
oo-p 9
jn -H ix
rt -H
MO
1* U U U U-r>
9 3 3 3 3 »H
73 C 4)
4> .H M
h.
er hcd h
cd ^
o ti
o
iH 4J V »O -d 4) 4) i-l O 0 0 O CD rj -2 rj J» c
■A o > ft M o M M (A M M
M G UJP U O -H JC * U U &3>3> §J5C
o 4>-H J: 3 M M 4J M M
e e e c e 4>
O O o
§§§4,X^2
h O (4 4> Kl M 4>
CO aluSCSN'OOjD>'0« •H -H -H -H -H ,* -H «3 «O •H 'H •i-l C »^ 1"» M
v o ♦* -H c
b WIUCOW«Nj(»W4> 3 M
o c £ x O 0 0 O O -H
ft a. a. a. ft J ^££ ^^^•^S^g
1 ■<t m \o
r
to
v in vo i^* oö CT»

M H M j
^ in vo t^ oo Ok

-O 4J <-• i
^ m NO t^ oo o»

ps cd ca c« * •£.•£ o
B 4J M M ; -H MM i^

b M M M
tt ft t»
C1
a c
ft«>
-H .H i-H
-• ^ 4>
ko 4) r-Q 4) 4> ^8
■ sss
■ U O U U 4> -H »
oQ
p tn U *M
0
U U M<-l O
£ JS JS
ft p *J ♦< aa4
O 22O
O
e 4> -i
3 x^
M ^ «4 MM h I 4>
in M »4 h 9
*> *• h /-* *> M
O 4> X
^ M l
iH 4) 4) 4)
M MM e ä «s x c c •3 C T»
GI M fT C •H M 4J -H -H
O -H X-H O O
555 I ft -i Ä M ft ft S&S
• • •
i-l «vj M i-l «MM i-l <N K)

M
.« 4)
M O
e *
O 9 r
O O 1
|4 r-l M «
to
O
N
cd *J
A C
g
•H
£
o
a
s **
(4 ■H
•3 at
«J

a, M
ft
ä o
4>
M
« o
•H «J
i
•3
So«
M <M M
u.
o o
Ö
ä
^
rSt,
M 4)
so SMS
cd ex
z
loons
angul
n dis

R"4 fH •H Ä i-t
o
s ftp

5
o
(M
O Vi
4> M
> M
■H
e
1 u
1
^j 4> M M •* «
M N U M a u i-H -H O
a. H •H (4 •rt -H •H
SJJrg
tO -H U. Tl ft
u

E M S U
E^
a * C ♦*
ft 4> -H -H
KO ft ^ a o •3 u
m
1-4
s .O -H ft
•H
M
-d
O
1o o
X)
Öl
5 •H ••♦>
> c
i-H
o
o
M S-O 4) o 4>
4) M 0 4> U I 1 rt
M
M
M iHÄ h
Vl M M 3
4>
u S»
e
•H 14 -H O •H •H
5 u. x> e if> ft to

tu
jE z
H o to
X H U
u Of S0
&Ö
5
*c ~ 463
^
£ 1
so l 2o
o
to u ft
r

Conclusions
A comparison of the event as described by the launchers with
the reports of accidental witnesses reveals obvious similarities
regarding size, shape, color, and relative positions of the objects.
Taking into consideration the known inconsistencies inherent in most
eye-witness testimony, the degree of similarity between the reports
is noteworthy, especially since times of observations and locations
of observers were not the same. Certain dissimilarities should be
noted. For example, observer IX was located very near balloons. How-
f.;
ever, he was not able to identify the objects; nor did he mention the
triangular configuration reported by other witnesses, probably because
the objects seemed more scattered, suggesting separatencss rather than
relatedness. It is interesting to note the tendency of observers
to give more detailed accounts of the event than the launchers them-
selves gave.
The sightings all occurred within approximately one mile of the
launch site. With two exceptions, the balloons were first observed
in the direction of the launch site. The exceptions arc sighting
number 6, in which case they are nearly overhead when first seen; and
number 8, when only one object remained visible. In three other cases
the balloons were reported as being overhead or nearly so at some time
during the observations. These three sightings (5,7, and 9) along
with number 6 are all located in the southeast quadrant of the sighting
area, indicating that the balloons drifted southeast. It should be
pointed out that the balloons also were moving relative to each other,
and it was this motion that the students and most witnesses referred
to in their accounts. The limited area of sightings is probably
characteristic of cases involving these balloons, and could be considered
along with the slow aimless drifting, the flickering, and the red-orange
color as identifying evidence in future cases.
In summary, we have a number of reports that are highly consistent
with one another, and those differences that do occur are no greater
than would be expected from situational and perceptual differences.

464
 .1, -fj*.»*-»»- r^«^rt^.''■^-•^•l"■ '^

Many small discrepancies could be pointed out, especially with regard

to estimates of distance and direction, but these are not great enough
to affect the overall impression of the event.
It would be expected that a survey of witnesses' speculations
about the nature of the objects would have shown much greater diver-
gence, but this report is confined to observational data.

465
 1
,'»'**■-■* ■*■ . < .;

South Mountain
Spring 19t»7
Investigator: Wadsworth

Abstract:
A project investigator was at the site of a predicted UFO land-
ing. The landing did not occur.

Background:
This investigation was made in response to a unique sighting
prediction based on alleged telepathic contacts with UFOs. The
prediction came from a man who claims to have psychic abilities,
lie declared that his past predictions had been accurate, and he was
confident that this one would produce positive results, specifically
an UFO landing at a racetrack on a given day at 11:00 a.r.i.
On the night before leaving for the site, Wadsworth telephoned
the predictor to get any additional information he might have. He
confirmed the exact time and location of the predicted landing and
stated that he had received "a very strong indication" that the
event would occur. He assured us that we would not be disappointed.
The purpose, he claimed, was "just to show us" that UFOs are real.
He said that only one "saucer" would appear.

Invest igation:
Wadsworth was met in the state capital city by two officers of
the highway patrol. Patrol cars and a small aircraft were provided
for the trip to the site.
Weather in the capital was clear; however, a squall front was
moving into the racetrack area. When the party arrived at the race-
track at 10:1S a.m., the weather was still clear. The patrol plane
was circling overhead. Wadsworth decided that the best place to
wait would be the center of the large circular track. (There are
two tracks at the raceway: one is straight and runs NW-SE; and
adjacent to it is a large circular track which, as seen from the air,

466
would be a possible target area.) Before landing the plane, the
pilot directed the patrol car to the center of the circle by radio.
The predictor had been very definite about 11:00 as the time for
the event to occur. In his own words, the UFO would appear exactly
at 11:00 a.m.
At 11:00 nothing unusual was noted. The front was still moving
in; rain began at 12:00 noon. At 12:30 p.m. the group left the area,

467
h- Case 20
i
North Pacific
Spring 1967
Investigators: Craig, Wadsworth

Abstract:
I Reports of "beeping" sounds emaiating apparently from invisible
aerial sources were identified with the calls of small owls.

Background:
Spring 1907 this project received word that a state Depart-
ment of Civil Defense had been investigating an unidentified sound
in an area of the state. Wadsworth telephoned the same day to
obtain more complete information about the sound, and to determine
whether it might be connected with UFOs.
The- investigation was being conducted by the warning officer
and conununicat ions coordinator for the state's Department of Civil
Defense, who gave further information, lie described the sound as
a repetitious beeping signal of practically unvarying period and
pitch that had been heard regularly from the same location for a
period of several weeks, continuing for hours at a time without
interruption. The most puzzling aspect of the sound was the lack of
any visible source. Witnesses had approached the apparent location,
only to find that the sound seemed to come from directly overhead,
ihis location was at the top of a hill in a wooded area to which
access was difficult. However, local interest in the sound was so
high that many individuals had hiked into the area to hear it. The
sound reportedly began at 8:00 p.m. PST each night, and continued
until 3:00 or 4:00 a.m.
Other aspects that the Civil Defense official reported were:
The sound had been heard for about three weeks. It had been heard
as far as two miles away from its apparent source. A similar sound
(believed by some to be from the same source) had been received on
a police patrol car radio at 150 megacycles while the sound was

468
being heard by persons in the above-mentioned area; visual UFO
sightinps had been reported in the general area of the sound during
the same period. One sighting reported by two police officers and
several FAA men occurred two days before the reported onset of the
sound. A disc-shaped object was reportedly sighted passing over-
head beneath an overcast ceiling of 1,000 feet. The sound did not
alter perceptibly when people were in the area, even though they made
noise, shone lights, or fired guns. When local time shifted from
standard to daylight, the nightly time of onset also shifted an hour,
indicating that the sound was oriented to real time, not clock time.
The periodicity of the sound was approximately two beeps per second.
Sometimes the sound source seemed to move as much as a quarter of a
mile from its usual location in a few seconds, sometimes silently,
sometimes beeping as it moved. One explanation for the sound that
had been put forth was that it was the call of either a pygmy or a
saw-whet owl, both of which are found in that area and emit calls
similar to the reported sound.
A similar unidentified sound had been recorded elsewhere.
Kadsworth took a tape recording of the sound under investigation and
the other sound to an expert on bird calls. His opinion was that the
latter was probably a saw-whet owl. The former, however, seemed
unlike any bird or animal he had heard, although he could not be
certain without knowing what distortions had been introduced by
the tape recordings.
A decision whether to send out a field team was suspended until
more could be learned about investigations already in progress. Any
connection between the reported sounds and UFOs was speculation, and
continued visual observations at the site of the sound had revealed
nothing significant.
During the following week, significant new developments were
reported. Sounds identical to that near the original location had
been heard in other locations in the state.
The Civil Defense informant reported unusual animal reactions

469
 tfT&m—. -,'■ i.j-.^«..., .,1»...

in some cases. Frogs, which were numerous and loud in the

area, had all become silent 10-20 seconds before onset of the sound,
suggesting that they might be sensing sonic kind of energy other than
the audible sound. At other times, the cows and dogs in the area
had suddenly shown marked excitement, and then become suddenly quiet.
In one instance, this pattern had been repeated three times before
the beeping began.
On another occasion, a man whose house was at the bottom of the
hill where the sound seemed to originate had been frightened by the
sound, which he said came suddenly down from the hill and continued
beeping loudly just above his house. He was standing in the yard,
and the sound was so eerie that he could "take it" for only a few
minutes before going into the house.
The Civil Defense coordinator felt that he was at an impasse,
and urged that a team from this project be sent to investigate.

Investigation
Spring 1967, Craig and Wadsworth went with three primary ob-
jectives: 1) to gather more information on the sound phenomenon and
to experience it directly; 2) to obtain instrumented measurement.-,
if possible; 3) to check for possible correlative visual sightings
in the areas involved.
When the team arrived, they met with the Civil Defense coordi-
nator and staff to plan the investigation. It was oecided what area
would be the best location for a thorough surveillance of the sound,
and a base was set up in a bam about a mile below the hilltop where
the sound was usually heard.
Stereo tape equipment was set up in t.ne bam, and microphones
were located about a quarter of a mile apart. The sound usually
had been clearly audible at this location.
It was learned that, although the beeps had been loud in all
kinds of weather, there was a considerably better chance of hearing
them on a clear night. It was also reported that on some occasions
the sound was verv faint and of such short duration that no accurate

470
location could be determined. It was not clear whether the occasions
of fainter sound were due to distance or to a real drop in volume.
Equipment taken to the more inaccessible field site included:
portable tape recorder; directional ultra-sonic translator; mili-
tary infrared sniper scope; directional microphone audio detector »
j
("snooperscope"); cameras loaded with infrared, ultraviolet, and
conventional high-speed film; and two-way portable radios for commun-
ication with the operating base at the bam.
Shortly before the advance group reached the top of the hill (an
hour's climb through steep, heavily forested terrain), the sound was .
heard. It lasted not more than 10 seconds and seemed to come from f,
a direction different from its usual location. The team's subjective I
impression was that it sounded like a bird. i
Throughout the night, and until 5:00 a.m., the sound was heard
faintly eight or ten times for a few seconds each time. It did not
seem to originate from directly overhead at any time, and the appar-
ent direction and distance varied considerably. Part of this series
was recorded on tape, but the sound was of low amplitude and brief
duration. It was neve < a: j at the main base below, so no high-
quality tape was obtained.
Descriptions of an earlier observation had related that the
sound had come from the top of a tall tree, then left the tree top
and circled around it when someone climbed the tree. Although no
bird had been seen in the darkness at the apparent source of the
sound, and this description was similar in this respect to the farm-
er's account of the descent of the beeping source from the distant
hill and its circling over his farm yard, such behavior certainly
seemed owl-like. However, since the field team had heard only brief
and distant emissions of the sound, they could not positively iden-
tify it.
Early the next evening, this team drove to a second
site. The weither was rainy. Perhaps a dozen other cars
were parked or cruising slowly by the area. The team heard no
beeping sound during two hours of waiting.
The following morning, the team telephoned the county

471
 '■-•-.-■ ^mmf „fv-n-t

Sheriff's office, which had been handling the local investigation to

ask whether the sound had been heard during the previous night. They
were told that a bird had been shot by a fanner who lived adjacent to
the second location. He had told the sheriff that, when the
sound began the night before, he had gone out with a light and gun,
shot the bird while it was beeping, and brought it in as evidence.
The owl was identified as a saw-whet by a local biology teacher.
I
■■
Despite this identification, some local persons expressed skepticism
that the dead owl had been the source of sounds that they believed
to be too constant in pitch and period to be generated by a bird.
They questioned whether the farmer, who had been subjected to much
harassment by the public, might not have produced the owl, hoping to
put an end to these difficulties.
Tape recordings of the sound, made both before and & rng the
project investigation, were later analyzed sonographically and com-
pared with sonograms of recorded calls known to have been made by
pygmy, saw-whet, and ferruginous owls. The original comparison was
made with calls recorded in Peterson's Field Guide to Western Bird
Calls. Later, other recordings of these calls were obtained from
Cornell University's Laboratory of Ornithology. The comparisons
showed the same sound structure, pitch, and period for the uniden-
tified sound and for the saw-whet owl. Fewer overtones were dis-
played on the sonogram of the unidentified sound, but this difference
probably was due to lack of sufficient amplitude and recorder fre-
quency range limitations. It was concluded that the recorded un-
identified sound was made by a saw-whet owl.

Conclusions
None of the reported visual sightings of UFOs in the vicinity
was impressive enough to warrant more intensive investigation. While
the project investigators could not be certain that owls accounted
for all of the unidentified sounds reported from various areas of the
state, they felt confident that the audible beeping
was unrelated to visual sightings of UFOs, and that owls certainly
accounted for most of the beeping sounds. The latter conclusion was

472
 ' 'A"*-»»»?.!««!«-'

based upon:
1. The correspondence between sonograms of the unidentified
sound and of the beeping of a saw-whet owl;
2. Testimony that the dead saw-whet owl had been shot while
making the beeping sound;
3. The fact that the locations and movements of the reported
apparent sources were typical of those expected of owls.
The small size of the saw-whet owl (about six inches long) may
account for the difficulty observers had in seeing it, thus allow-
ing them to conclude that the sound came from a point in space that
was not occupied by a physical object.

473

.-r - | fXm \ i ii l^llll I

 Case :i
South Mountain (location M
Spring 1967
Investigators: Low, Rush

Abstract:
Operators of two airport radars reported that a target equi-
valent to an aircraft had followed a commercial flight in, over-
taken it, and passed it on one side, and proceeding at about 200
| knots until it left the radar field. No corresponding object was
visible from the control tower. On the basis of witnesses' re-
ports and weather records, explanations based on anomalous atmos-
pheric propagation or freak reflection from other objects appear
inadequate. The case is not adequately explained despite features
that suggest a reflection effect (See Section III Chapter 6).

Background:
A radar traffic controller (Witness A) at an AF installation
that serves as an airport for a nearby city (location A), telephoned
the Colorado Project in the middle of May, 1967 to report
an unexplained radar anomaly. The report was referred to Dr.
Donald H. Menzel for comment, and Witness A and three other witnesses
were interviewed at various times. The information so obtained is
summarized in the next section.

Investigation:
Witness A, an air traffic controller of 20 years' experience,
reported the following observations. At about 4:40 p.m., he and
three other men were in the IFR (radar) room at the airfield.
Two radars were in use: azimuth surveillance radar (ASR) , used for
early detection of arriving aircraft, and precision approach radar
(PAR), used to monitor both azimuth and elevation of an aircraft
approaching the runway (Fig. 2 ).
The controllers were monitoring the approach of a commerical
Boeing 720. They ^ot him onto the correct azimuth and glide path

474
 (0

.1
m
0
I
I

3
i
8
t I
CD
UJ IO
1
a
8CL CD
UJ 9
QC QC ä
Ü
'S
^
- Oi „
o .H
M
n O
< §f
•H

u "8

•H «H

•S t!
M
U.
US
•H

SI
•c ?
ÜJ u
UJ

i o
3 M
U UJ ft ^
U

UJ Q as
QC <
CL QC

^5
3 <
I
Z
D
K

o o ü. 3
810 o o
o
I

00
^

*
 just as he broke through the 3,000 ft. ceiling about four miles from
the radar receiver. Another commercial Hight, a Viscount, showed
on the surveillance radar about six mi. behind the 720. About the
time the 720 appeared in the field of the precision radar, operated
by Witness A, he noticed a very faint target on the elevation (glide
path) screen about two mi. behind the 720. He adjusted the sensi-
tivity of the instrument, and the unknown target became visible on
the azimuth screen also. It appeared to be following the 720 on the
glide path.
When the 720 had advanced about one mi.. Witness A asked the
operator of the surveillance radar. Witness B, whether he had the
unidentified target; he did. Witness A then reported the object
to the Viscount crew, about four mi. behind it. They iaw nothing,
though visibility under the overcast was 25-30 mi. He then re-
ported the object to the visual control tower; but none of the three
controllers there could see anything to account for it, even with
binoculars. At this point, the departure scope man (the sur-
veillance radar had duplicate screens for monitoring arrivals and
departures) and the arrival data position man walked over to
observe the precision scope. The target showed with equal clarity
on both the elevation and azimuth screens. The unidentified object
was overtaking the 720, and was about 0.25 mi. behind as the 720
passed the approach lighting system. At that point, the object
pulled over, moved eastward, passed the Boeing on its right side,
and continued on a parallel course at 200 ft. altitude and some
500 ft. east of the runway, until it passed out of the field of
the precision scope. Unfortunately, no one thought to see whether
the object appeared on the surveillance radar departure scope.
At disappearance, it was about 1-1.5 mi. from the control tower.
The controllers in the tower never saw anything to account for the
target.
The Viscount came in normally on the radar, with nothing
following. Its crew reported after landing that they had not at
anytime during the approach seen anything between them and the 720.

!i 476
 I
Witness A observed that the 720 had not been visible as far
out as six mi., where the "bogie" first appeared. It looked like
an aircraft target, though weaker than usual, and became quite
clear as it came nearer. He commented also that the bogie followed
the correct procedure for an overtaking aircraft, and that, if a
pilot is practicing an instrument approach but does not want to
touch down, his prescribed procedure is to level off and cross the
field at 200 ft., as the bogie appeared to do on the radar. In
fact, the object showed the flight characteristics of a Century-
series iet fighter (I:-100, F-104, etc.), making an approach at a
speed of 200-250 knots. However, such a jet makes a great deal of
noise, and should have been heard even in the glass-enclosed tower.
Witness A was interviewed in detail when he first telephoned
the project in Spring 1967, and questioned further on various
aspects at several later dates. Other witnesses unfortunately
were not contacted until Fall 1968.
Witness B, who had been monitoring the surveillance radar
approach scope, was unable to recall details of the incident. He
remembered only that it was "an odd thing" --a radar target, but
nothing visual.
Witness C was a controller of 15 years' experience, 11 on
radar, who had been in the radar room when the sighting occurred,
and had watched it on the precision scope. He recognized the dif-
ficulty in remembering accurately after such a time interval, but
felt that his memory for the key details was good. He had been
deeply impressed by the incident, and had discussed it with Witness
A and others on various occasions.
He confirmed the account of Witness A in almost all respects.
He was not certain that the bogie had come in on the ILS glide path
(.which is indicated by a line on the elevation screen of the pre-
cision radar); it was following the Boeing and must have been on or
near the glide path. Witness A had stated that the bogie overtook
and passed the 720 at about the approach end of the runway. Wit-
ness C, however, recalled that the bogie had overtaken the 720 and
flown alongside "like a wingman" (i.e., slightly behind and to the

477
I.

k right of the 720) for one or two miles before touchdown. Then,
I about a half mile from the runway, it had "pulled up" and flown on
ahead. The TZO's approach speed was about 140 knots.
Witness C emphasized that the bogie target was indistinguishable
from an aircraft. He said that, if the bogie had appeared ahead
of the 720, he would not have hesitated to warn the 720 off the
approach.
He noted also that the surveillance radar was an old, faulty
instrument that sometimes missed targets that were known to be in
the field.
Witness D was a controller in the tower during the incident.
He remembered that the radar crew phoned about the bogie; the tower
men looked and saw the 720 coming in, but nothing else, even with
binoculars. The conditions were such that he was confident that r.o
such aircraft as the radars indicated could have come in without the
tower crew having seen it.
Weather
The report of the project's consulting meteorologist follows :
Following is a brief summary covering the weather
situation near . . . [the airfield in location A]
at and near Ib40 MDT . . . [in the middle of] May
. . . 1967:
SOURCES OF DATA
Hourly surface observations from -
. . . [Location A, location B, location C,
location I), location E, location F]
Two and three hourly data from -
. . . [Location G, location H, location l]
Winds aloft and radiosonde data for . . .
[location D], at 12:00 noon and 6:00 P.M.
MDT.
GENERAL WEATHER SITUATION
The general weather situation prevailing in . . .
[the general area] was a condition of drizile and
fog with low ceilings at most all stations east

478
of . . . [location ll]. Amounts of precipitation were
generally light but the drizzle and fog continued for
many hours at most stations.
Shortly after noon colder air moved in from a
northerly direction in a layer from 1000 to 5000 feet
above the surface. At . . . [location D] the drop in
temperature measured between the noon and 6:00 P.M.
radiosondes was between 5° and 6° F. in this layer.
This dro;i in cloud layer temperatures was accompanied
by increasing winds near the surface. At 2:30 P.M.
gustiness at . . . [location D] reached 30 knots.
Similar increases in wind velocities began later at
. . . [location A, location B, location h, and loca-
tion j]. Some snow and snow pellets fell at various
stations as this mixture of colder air took place.
MOST PROBABLE WEATHER AT 1640 MDT AT . . . [THE] AIRFIELD
TVo layers of scattered clouds, at 900 and 2400 feet
respectively, would have been moving rapidly from north
to south in an air flow having surface winds averaging
nearly 30 mph. It occurred at 1630 MDT, Gustiness of
8-10 additional miles per hour was occurring at this
time. A layer of overcast cloudiness was estimated at
4000 feet above the station. Visibility was greater
than 15 miles.
A condition of very light drizzle had ended at 1530
MDT and light snow pellets began at 1710 MDT. The dif-
ferences in surface temperatures was only 1° (34 to 33)
indicating that the greatest amount of change was taking
place in the air at cloud level.
The snow pellets which began at 1710 MDT and
intermittent snow showers continued past midnight. It
is well known that water and ice surfaces mixed
together inside clouds tend to intensify radar echc
causing bright spots or bright lines to appear.

479
5-

The snow pellets would have produced an increased

intensity of the radar echos in some small shower
I|i areas. Although snow pellets were not occurring
f at the station at 1640 MDT it is highly probable
that some were in the vicinity.
Total amounts of precipitation were light.
Only .03 inch was measured in the 24 hours ending
at midnight.
At the same time that snow pellets and snow
showers were observed at . . . [the airfield, location

B] reported no precipitation.
SUKWARY
It is my opinion that fragmentary segments of
two layers of scattered clouds moving at variable
speeds beneath a solid overcast would have given
a rapidly changing sky condition to any observer
at or near the airport. Reflection of any lights
could have caused greater or lesser brightness to
the under surfaces of some of these scattered
clouds. The strong gusty winds were not only
capable of moving the clouds rapidly but could have
carried some light substances, such as paper to an
elevation similar to the lower cloud height. The
shafts of snow pellets at a mile or more away from
the base may have caused some distortion of visi-
bility in directions concentrated to the west and
northwest of the field.

Hypotheses
Anomalous targets on radar generally are caused by instru-
mental defects, birds, anomalous atmospheric propagation (e.g.,
mirage effects), out-of-phase echoes, or multiple reflections.
Instrumental defects appear to be eliminated in this case, since
the bogie was seen consistently on the surveillance radar and
both th? azimuth and elevation beams of the precision radar. The
speed of the bogie, its radar intensity, and the course it fol-
lowed all appeared inconsistent with a bird.
480
 91*1 - -.•«■

Neither did this anomaly show any of the typical character-

istics of the "angels" caused by anomalous propagation; moreover,
weather data indicate no inversion was present. Both witnesses
A and C had had many years of experience with all the usual types
of anomalies. The fact that they were mystified by the phenomenon
and considered it worth reporting indicates that it was an un-
common effect.
Sometimes a distant, strong reflector may return a radar
echo so long delayed that it arrives after a second pulse has been
emitted. It will therefore appear at a spuriously short range.
This possibility appears to be precluded by the different pulse
frequencies of the surveillance and precision radars (1000 and
5500 per sec, respectively), and by the behavior of the bogie,
which appeared to relate it to the Boeing 720.
There remains the possibility of multiple reflections. After
reviewing a report of the incident, Menzel suggested that the
bogie had been produced by reflection of radar energy from the 720
to a fairly efficient reflector on the ground, back to the 720,
and thence to the radar receiver. The superfluous echo would have
appeared on the line of sight from radar antenna to aircraft, and
beyond the aircraft the same distance as that from aircraft to
?fiector. Menzel suggested that a structure .nvoiving a cube-
orner -- e.g., a steel dump-truck body -- might act as a rather
■"fficient reflector.
This hypothesis would explain some aspects of the observations.
The bogie appeared about two miles behind the 72ü when it was
about four miles out, and gained on it at a rate roughly equal to
the airplane's own ground speed of about 120 knots, as would be
expected. This would imply that the reflector was about two miles
ahead of the 720, which would place it about half a mile south of
the approach end of the runway. The bogi? then should have over-
taken the 720 at that point.
Kitness V said that it was about 0.2S mi. behind the 720 as
the latter reached the approach light system; that would place the

481
reflector approxinuitely ;Jt the approach end of the runway. Witness
C, however (a year and a half yfter the incident), stated that the
bogie caught up with the 72U "one or two miles" before touchdown,
flew alongside, and pulled ahead about a half mile from the runway.
That would place the reflector about 0.5 to 1.5 mi. south of the
runway, differing by as much as a mile from the location resulting
from Witness A's account.
So far, so good. Men who were a bit excited, or trying to
remember details after such an intcival, might differ by a mile in
their estimates, particularly since the range scale on the precision
radar scope is logarithmic. Incidentally, half a mile from the
runway the elevation of the ILS glide path was about 200 ft. --
the elevation at which the bogie appeared to overfly the field.
However, a target produced by such a delayed reflection would
not have appeared on the glide path. In elevation, the glide path
was a line rising at an angle of 2.7° from the ILS transmitter
7,300 ft. south of the precision radar antenna. The line of sight
from the radar to the Boeing four miles out thus intersected the
glide path at a substantial angle, so the bogie reflection, seen on
the radar line of sight, would have appeared about 0.25 in. below
the line marking the glide path on the radar scope. It does not
seem likely that an experienced controller would have failed to
notice a discrepancy amounting to some 200 ft. in elevation that
if not corrected would have been disastrous to an aircraft.
The shift «f the unidentified object to the right as it over-
took the 720 can be partially explained. If it is assumed that the
bogie was a secondary echo from a reflector near the runway, then
the bogie would have been always the same distance behind the 720
as the reflector in front of it, and would have appeared on the
line of sight from the precision radar antenna to the 720. Since
the antenna was about 400 ft. east of the runway, the bogie would
have appeared projected to the west of the approach track. Its
apparent course would have been a gradual swerve to its right.
However, the bogie would have nearly coincided with the radar
image of the 720 as it passed low over the reflector; and immediately

482
thereafter, as the 720 passeil beyond the reflector, the bogie would
have stopped its forward motion and moved laterally to the west.
This hypothetical behavior contrasts sharply with the statements
of witnesses A and C, both of whom insisted that the bogie moved
over and passed the 720 on the right (east), and that it continued
on that course, ahead of the airplane, until it left the radar field.
The case is therefore not satisfactorily explained. In
general, the association of the unidentified target with the 720
and tne lack of a visible counterpart suggest strongly that it was
a radar artifact. Yet the details of its course can be reconciled
with the reflector hypothesis only by discounting the accuracy of
reports by observers who wore intimately familiar with the context
in which they were working.

483
Case 22
North Central
Spring 1967
Investigator: Craig

Abstract:
A weekend prospector claimed that a "flying saucer" landed near
him in the woods, and that when he approached the object and touched
it with his gloved hand, it soared away, its exhaust blast leaving a
patterned burn on his abdomen and making him ill.
Events during and subsequent to a field search lor the landing site
cast strong doubt upon the authenticity of the report.

Background:
A 50-year-old industrial mechanic (Mr. A) claimed to have observed
two UFOs while prospecting in the North Central area. The reported time
of the sighting was about 12:12 p.m., GOT.
According to Mr. A, his attention was distracted by the squawking
of nearby geese. He looked up and saw two disc-shaped objects descending
together from the SW at an angle of 1? -2(f above the horizon. One
stopped 10-12 ft. above the ground; the other continued downward, and
landed on the flat top of a rock outcropping 100 ft. from Mr. A. The
objects had domes and were about 40 ft. in diameter. They had flown three
or four diameters apart, keeping a constant distance. The first object
hovered in the air (one of Mr. A's accounts says it hovered about IS ft.
above him) for about three minutes, then ascended in the same direction
from which it had come, changing color from bright red to orange to
grey and back to bright orange as it disappeared in the distance. It
moved noiselessly, much faster than airplane speeds.
When Mr. A turned his attention to the landed craft, it, too, was
changing color from glowing red to the iridescence of hot stainless steel.
The craft had no markings. Intense purple light shone from apertures
around the dome of the craft. Mr. A noticed wafts of wann air, a smell of
sulphur, and a hissing sound from the craft. He sketched the object.
After about 15 min. he noticed that a hatch on the side of the craft had
opened. He could see nothing inside, because the light was too bright.
484
I It- waited in vuiu lor someone to emerge through the hatch,
About 3U minutes later, Mr. A approached the craft and heard human-
like voices froiii within. Thinking the craft was of U.S. origin, he
addressed the assumed occupants in bngiish. When no response was heard,
he tried Russian, German, Italian, l-'rcnch, and Ukrainian. The voices stopped.
Faucis slid over the hatch, through which Mr. A had noticed that the craft's
walls were about 20 in. thick, and honey-combed. After the hatch closed,
Mr. A touched the craft w^th his gloved hand, buminpthe fingertips of his
flove. The craft tilted slightly and started to spin rapidly, lie was
standing near a patterned ventilation or exhaust area on the craft's side.
When the craft started moving, a blast from this opening burned his upper
abdomen and set his shirt and undershirt afire. He tore off the shirts
and threw them to the ground, stamping out the fire. His outer shirt was
almost totally burned, but he retrieved the remains of his undershirt. A
hole also was burned in the front of the top of the cap he was wearing. He
was left with burns on his abdomen and sickened, apparently as a result of
inhalation of vapors from the machine. The craft disappeared in the direc-
tion from which it came at a bearing of 255 (determined by Mr. A's compass)
and at a speed estimated as far exceeding known aircraft capability.
Mr. A said he suffered headache, nausea, and cold sweats within minutes
after the experience. He returned to his prospecting site (160 ft. awayj
and got his coat and prospecting equipment. He put the remains of his
undershirt in his prospecting satchel. Feelinc weakened and vomiting frequently
he struggled to the highway to seek medical assistance. He was aware of a
horrible odor associated with his breath.
He reached the highway and requested help from a constable of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) who was driving by. The constable thought
Mr. A was intoxicated, and refused to help. Mr. A also failed to get help
at the park headquarters and went back to his motel at Lake X. After
several hours, he took a bus to Winnipeg. While waiting for the bus, he
telephoned the Winnipeg Tyibune to request assistance, asking, at the same
time, he said,that they give his experience no publicity.

485
 Mr. A was met by his son, who took him to hospital X for medical
attention. The burr, on his abdomen were diagnosed as superficial,
and Mr. A returned home. He continued to complain of nausea, headache
offensive odor from his lungs, lack of appetite, and rapid weight loss.
Two days after the alleged event, Mr. A was attended to by a
personal physician, whom he had not visited since Spring 1966. The
following day he was taken to hospital Y to be checked for radiation
trauma by the hospital's Department of Nuclear Medicine. A radiation
pathologist found no evidence of the effects of radiation on Lhe
burned area, in his blood, or on Mr. A's clothin';. He reported that
the burn was thermal. A week after his sighting Mr. A was checked in
the whole-body radiatio» counter at an Atomic POWT Installation. This
counter detects and measures gamma radiation from isotopes in the body.
The test showed no count above normal background.
Mr. A said he lost a total of 22 lb. over the next seven days, but
had regained his strength and some weight 11 days after his sighting.

Investigation:
The case involved close contact, and one of the most detailed
descriptions of a material object of this type on record. The site at
which the event allegedly took place had not be<Mi re-visited since the
event, and held promise of providing tangible physical evidence that an
unusual material object had actually been present. A project investigator
left for city A as soon as word was received that Mr. A was physically
able to search for the landing site. The investigator wanted to visit
and examine the alleged site before it was disturbed by others.
Nearly two weeks after the event, when Mr. A was interviewed by
the project investigator, he had regained sufficient strength to lead
a search, which was planned for the following day. Mr. A displayed
a rash on his neck and chest, which he associated with the alleged
UFO exposure. He said the rash appeared two days earlier, 11 days after
the sighting, and he had visited his physician the morning of the
interview to have it checked. Mr. A had, on the same day, cooperated
with authorities in a ground and air search which had not located the

186
UFO landing sit«. Mr. A reluctantly agreed to lead another ^ro1"^
search, indicating that the new rash made him uncertain of his physical
health.
Later, Mr. A led a party, including the project investigator, on
a hike in the Canadian bush, ostensibly searching for the landing site
which assertedly was about three air miles north of a highway, which
skirts the north shore of Lake X. The area searched was located
apMS' t l'N, 9S019' ± I'W, in a forest reserve. A fire-watch tower
stands between the highway and the area searched. The party began the
search within a half mile of this tower, and never got more than two
miles from it while wandering back and forth through an area within
which Mr. A said the site had to be. Most of the area was covered by
dense vegetation. Numerous beaver ponds, swamps, and rock outcroppings
were contained in the area, the outcroppings rising as much as 40 ft.
above the swamp level. It was on such an outcropping that the landing
allegedly occurred.
This "search" impressed the investigator, as well as other members
of the party, as being aimless. Mr. A expressed the desire to terminate
the search after a few hours of hiking. The rest of the party felt a
good effort had not yet been made, and pressed him to continue. In the
early afternoon, when it seemed obvious that a "landing site" would not
be found that day, the party returned to Lake X resort, where the
investigator interviewed other people who were in the vicinity on the
day of the alleged event.
Two youngsters who claimed they saw an UFO over the lake on the
date in question gave a description suggesting that they may have ob-
served a box kite or a balloon, but certainly not an object of the
type described by Mr. A.
According to Conservation Officer Jim Bill, the fire lookout
towers were manned on this date after 9 a.m. A ranger with Officer
Bell indicated that the forect was dry at this time. Both rangers
felt that a fire capable of burning a man would have started the forest
burning. They commented that watchmen in the towers generally notice
smoke immediately from even a small campfire, and felt that a small
fire in lichen and moss, such as Mr. A said he tramped out when he

487

A
 threw his burning shirts to the ground, would have been seen by the
watchman. They also believed objects as decribed by Mr. A would have
been seen by the tower watchman, had they been present for even a
fraction of the time Mr. A claimed. Watchtowers are 8' x 8'. About
six other towers are visible in the distance from the tower near the
alleged landing site. Although a 35-40 ft. metallic saucer only H-2 mi,
away should have attracted the watchman's attention, nothing unusual
was noted from the watchtower.
Weather Bureau information indicated the day of the reported
sighting was mostly clear with broken clouds, in agreement with Mr. A's
description.
The flight direction Mr. A gave for the UFOs would have brought
them within about a mile of the golf course at Beach X, at an altitude
of 4,000 ft. The course attendant said that there were hundreds of
golfers on the course on this date, none of whom reported seeing an
object such as Mr. A described.
The investigator sought other information supporting the claim that
an unconventional flying object had been in the area on the sighting
date. A check of several other UFO sighting reports in the region
revealed that they had no relation to Mr. A's sighting, having occurred
on a different day (except for the lake sighting already mentioned)
in a different area.
Radar observers at three other locations (60 mi. NW of the claimed
sighting, 85 mi. W, and 40 mi. E) reported noticing nothing unusual on
the alleged sighting date.
With Mr. A'^ permission, the project investigator reviewed the
case with his physician and with the other M.D.'s involved. Items of
particular interest which were revealed to the investigator by Mr. A
himself were (a) a rapid weight loss; (b) a lymphocyte count of 16%
climbing later to 21°*; and (c) the rash on Mr. A's throat and upper
chest which developed 11 days after his reported sighting.
The claimed weight loss of 22 pounds in seven days, including 14
pounds the first three days, could not be verified. Mr. A's physician
did not see the patient until two days after the alleged exposure and

488
 had not seen him during the previous year. There was no way to verify
the weight claimed prior to the event. A medical consultant considered
the claimed weight loss logically excessive for an inactive, fasting
patient.
The lymphocyte percentages were not outside the limits of expected
statistical variation of two routine counts of the same blood, and were
therefore not considered to be significant.
T.ie rash, which was not on the same body area as the original bum,
looked like the normal reation to insect bites. Mr. A said the rash
apperared on the day he had gone on the site search with RCMP officers.
In view of the great number of black flies in the area, the coincidence
in date, Cpl. Davis' report that he was severely bitten while on the
search, and the accessibility of the affected neck and chest area to
flies when the shirt collar is not buttoned (it was Cpl. Davis* belief
that Mr. A had worn his colar unbuttoned during the search), it seems
highly probable that the rash was the result of insect bites and was not
connected with the alleged UFO experience.
Comparison of recordings of separate accounts of Mr. A's UFO experience,
as told to an APRO representative two days after the reported event and
to the project investigator short of two weeks later, revealed minor
variations, as would be expected in any two accounts of an involved
experience. The inclusion in the account of a magnetic effect of the
UFO developed during the first interview. The APRO representative asked
Mr. A if the UFO had affected his compass. Mr. A first answered: "I
couldn't tell you if the compass needle was affected. I hadn't looked
before. It was kind of abnormal." Upon further discussion, the effect
developed to a definite spinning of the needle, then a rapid whirling
as the second object left the area. This latter description was repeated
in subsequent accounts. It ir hard to reconcile such a magnetic effect
with the facts that Mr. A not only reported a definite compass reading
for the direction of departure of the second UFO but also a definite
reading of 140° for the direction of approach and departure of the first,
which left while the second was still present.

489
'Jt&m & waEBTB^j»''^-?

The undershirt which Mr. A presented had been ripped apart in front,
where it was burned. It also carried a patterned burn centered high on
the back, the pattern matching, according to Mr. A, the pattern of the
UFO's exhaust openings from which the burning vapors had spurted, Mr. A
had been burned only on the abdomen, with slight singeing of the forehead,
The reason for »he presence of a patterned burn on the back of the under-
shirt was not obvious.
Mr. A was deemed very reliable by his employer, lie had convinced
representatives of the RCMP and RCAF, two of the several physicians
involved, as well as his family, that he was telling the story of a
real event. During the project intestigator's interview, he seemed
honest, sincere, and concerned. Mis presentation of his story was
convincing. His wife and son verified his claim of an unusual oder
coming from his body after his alleged UFO experience, indicating that
the odor permeated the bathroom after Mr. A had bathed.

Analysis of Subsequent Developments :

1. The claimed finding of the site by N'T. A and an associate
shortly over a month later.
The site was allegedly still obvious, with moss blown away in
a circular pattern. Samples of soil and moss from the area, portions
of the burned shirt, and a six-foot measuring tape which Mr. A had
left behind were brought to city A. All three were radioactive.
When sent to city B for analysis, they were found to be so strongly
radioactive that the Radiation Protection Division of the Dept. of
Health and Welfare considered restricting entry to the forest area from
which they allegedly were taken. A careful check of the site by a
representative of this department revealed that the perimeter of the
"landing circle" and beyond were free of radioactive contamination.
According to his report:
A thorough survey of the landing area was carried
out, using a Tracerlab SU14, Admiral Radiac 5016,
and a Civil Defense CDV 700 survey meter. One small

490
 1I

.irca was found to be contaminated. This was

located across the crown of the rock. There
was a smear of contamination about 0,S x R.O
inches on one side of the crack. There was also
some lichen and ground vegetation contaminated
just beyond the smear. The whole contaminated
area was no larger than 100 square inches. All
water runoff areas were checked for possible
contamination, but nothing was found.
No representative of an independent or official agency was present
when the circular area alleged to be the landing site was rediscovered.
In spite of an RCMP understanding with Mr. A that, no evidence should be
removed from the area should he relocate it, radioactive soil samples,
(fortuitously selected from the small contaminated area), remnants of
cloth, and the measuring tape were represented as having been removed
from the area. Why the cloth remnants and the tape were radioactive was
never explained. While these items could have been contaminated by
contact with the soil samples, reports received by the project indicated
that the items were in separate plastic bags, and major contamination
would not be expected. The partially-burned undershirt had earlier been
found not to carry radioactive contamination. The tape would have been
left some 160 ft. from the landing circle, in an area found tc be free
of radioactive contamination.
Other individuals checked the site for radioactivity later. One of
these was Mr. E. J. Epp of city A, who searched the site in Fall of 1967
and found no radioactive material. At the project's suggestion, he had
the records of the Dept. of Mines and Natural Resources searched for
mineral claims in the area filed by Mr. A. This was requested because
of the possibility that Mr. A had deliberately misdirected the earlier
searches in order to protect mineral claims. Such claims were filed
by him, but not until later in the Fall.
The project never received a final report of the analyses of the
soil samples taken by the Dept. of Health and Welfare. The origin of
this material is therefore on open question.

491
 Ilie site presented did not match Mr. A's earlier description of it.
An opening in the trees through which Mr. A said the UFO came and
departed would have required the object to leave the landing circle
travelling in a NNU direction, whereas Mr. A had said it departed to the
WSW. Other aspects also differed from the original description.
2. Claimed recurrences (in the early Fall and other occasions)
of tiv.' physiological reactions to the UFO experience.
Relation >f these reported attacks with Mr. A's alleged UFO experience
has not been established.
3. Commercial publication of Mr. A's story in a booklet.
This account differs in some aspects from Mr. A's original reports.
In the booklet, for example, Mr. A is reported to have stuck his head
into the open hatch of the "saucer" and observed a maze of randomly
flashing lights inside the craft. In earlier accounts, Mr. A stated
that he avoided goinjj near the hatch and was unable to see inside it
because of the brightness of the light coming from it. The account was
chronologically jumbled, and showed a carelessness with fact.
4. A claimed visit to the site by Mr. A and another associate a
year after the alleged sighting, at which time they discovered massive
pieces of radioactive material in a fissure of the rock within the
"landing circle." This material reportedly consisted of two W-shaped
bars of metal, each about 4.5 in. long, and several smaller pieces of
irregular shape. These items were said to have been found about 2 in.
below a layer of lichen in the rock fissure. They were later analyzed
as nearly pure silver. The results of the analyses of these pieces of
metal were sent to the Colorado Project by ür. Peter M. Millman of the
National Research Council of Canada. The analysis of the report by
Mr. R. J. Traill (Head, Minerology Section, NRC) showed that the two
fragments each consisted of a cental massive metal portion which was
not radioactive. One of thes . v ns 93?<. and the other 96% silver. Both
contained copper and cadmium, and nad a composition similar to thct round
in commercially available sterling silver or sheet silver. The mett^l
was coated with a tightly-adhering layer of quartz sand, similar to th^t
used as a foundry sand. This also was not radioactive. The radioactivity

492
was contained in a loosely-adhering layer of fine-grained minerals
containing uranium. This layer could be removed readily by washing and
brushing. The minerals were uranophane and thorium-free pitchblende,
characteristically found in vein deposits. Mr Train's conclusion was:
I would interpret the specimens as pieces of thin
sheet silver that have been twisted, crumpled, partly
melted, and dropped into, or otherwise placed in con-
tact with, nearly pure quartz sand, while still hot.
They have subsequently been covered with loosely-adhering
radioactive material which consists of crushed pitch-
blende ore, much altered to uranophane and containing
associated hematite. These naturally-occurring
radioactive minerals are found typically in the
uraniferous deposits of . . . [River X] area and in
parts of . . . [camp X].
In view of the thoroughness of earlier searches of the site for
radioacitve material, it is improbable that the particles discovered a
year later would have been missed had they been present when the earlier
searches were made.

Conclusions:
If Mr. A's reported experience were physically real, it would show
the existence of alien flying vehicles in our environment. Attempts
to establish the reality of the event revealed many inconsistencies and
incongruities in the case, a number of which are described in this report.
Developments subsequent to the field investigation have not altered the
initial conclusion that this case does not offer probative information
regarding inconventional craft.

493
J
[
Case -•>
North Central
Spring li>b7
Investigators: Foster, Peterson, Wertheimer

Abstract:
Three couples hunting raccoons at night reported that an aerial
object approached them, played a brilliant light on them briefly, then
turned it off and flew away. Individual versions of the incident
differed substantially as to motion, appearance, duration of sighting,
and the object's identity. Investigation attributed the sighting to
a prank by the crew of an airplane with a searchlight that had flown
over the hunt area at the reported time.

Background:
Witness A reported the incident to a" Ai-B two days after-
ward. A week later he wrote a reporl to NICAP, which sent a copy of
his letter to the Colorado project. A telephone conversation with
Witness A resulted in sending investigators to the area late in June.

Investigation:
The investigators interviewed seven witnesses and visited the
site of the incident with one of them. They also visited rne
AFB to check on aircraft activity on the night of the incident.
Witnesses' versions of what had happened differed rather widely.
For that reason, the situation as developed by the witnesses will bo
outlined, followed by a summary of the disparities in their stories.
Three couples were hunting raccoons on a ranch • Mr. A.
was a professional man, Mr. B an administrator, and Mr. C a rancher.
Witness Ü was another randier who was keeping an eye on the hunters.
"About 11:30 p.m." the men were about 0.5 mi. W of their truck, in
which the women were waiting. They carried powerful flashlights that
they turned on only briefly as needed.

494
 All of the men and women saw a lighted aerial object approach as
if gliding down toward them. When immediately over them, it turned
a brilliant beam of light on the men for a short time, then turned it
off and proceeded on its way. Witness D also saw the light.
However, the details of the individual accounts differed widely.
(On some points, some witnesses did not comment.)
Five witnesses reported that the object came from the NW; one
from the N; and one from the E.
Three reported that it flew a straight course; two thought it
turned 90° as it departed.
Three reported that it hovered while the bright light was on; two,
that it kept mm i ng.
All reported the light was blue, bluish-white, or white except
D, who said it was yellowish.
One witness reported the object was about 50 ft. in diameter,
alternately glowing dimly or brilliantly. Two reported several small
red lights; one, small white and red lights; one, small blinking red,
white, and green lights; one, no lights.
Four witnesses reported that the light from bright spotlight did
not mover the ground. Two of the other three thought a second spot-
light might have done so. All agreed that the beam was conical,
emanating from a narrow source. Witnesses disagreed widely as to The
location of the beam on the ground; each of those in the light path
tended to think it was aimed directly at him.
Three witnesses reported a sound similar to that of a small
airplane engine as the object approached; four noticed it some time
after the bright light was turned on.
Total duration of the sighting was estimated by two witnesses
as one to three minutes of the bright light; two to three minutes,
one and a half minute, "a minute or so," a half minute, 30-45 sec,
five seconds, and 15 sec, off briefly, then on again momentarily.
Only one witness ventured a guess at the time the sighting occurred,
"approximately 11:30 p.m."

495
'•

One witness rcportnl that he recognized the sound as that of a

small twin-engine airplane, and thought he saw Us outline as it
departed, lie suggested that the crew might have seen the hunters*
blinking flashlights and turned the spotlight on them.
At the AFB, the investigators learned that on the date of
sighting a rather slow twin-engine Navy airplane equipped with a
powerful searchlight had departed at 10:34 p.m. on a course to the
SE that would have taken him almost directly over the location of
ti.t sighting. The pilot was tlying "visual," not on instruments.
Further, an airman at the AFB reported that he had heard some con-
versation between the pilot and co-pilot before takeoff, indicating
that they intended to use the searchlight to set off some UFO stories
Evidently the rancher's surmise was right: they had seen the blinking
flashlights of the hunters and taken the opportunity to startle them.

Comment:
Unlike many comparable cases in which a mystifying apparition has
generated widely different versions of the experience, this one was
convincingly explained. It therefore affords an unusually good oppor-
tunity to study the reactions of witnesses to an unfamiliar and
unexpected situation. The most obvious inference, already familiar to
the legal profession, it that eyewitness testimony in such circumstances
in inherently unreliable.
It is significant also that the only witnesses who recognized the
object as an airplane wire the two ranchers and the wife of one of them.
They were in a familiar situation. The two couples from the city were
on unfamiliar ground, were disoriented as to directions, and may have
felt a bit of latent uneasiness that made them emotionally oblivious
of this possibility. Witness A reported that, when the brilliant light
came on, the rancher (Witness C) exlaimed to him: "My god, what's
that?" A: "I don't know." C: "Do you suppose it's one of those
flying saucers?"

496
 Witness C, who said he had recognized the object as an airplane,
conunented in his interview: "It seemed to me the light came right
out of the plane—after I got over tellin' it was a flyin' saucer.'"
Mrs, C, who had been in the truck with the other women, commented
in an interview: "We talked about it. First it was a plane — then I
1
said, 'Was that a flying saucer? and we just got to thinking..."

497
Case 24
North Eastern
Sununer 1967
Investigators: Craig and Wadsworth

Abstract:
A 50-year-old general machine handyman and his son,11, claimed
to have seen and photographed a "flying saucer" close to their rural
home. Neither the numbers on the backs of the two Pclaroid photo-
graphs nor the focus of objects in the field of view were consistent
with the account of the alleged sighting.

Background:
Two Polaroid photographs of a saucer-shaped UFO were said to have
been taken by the witness about 12:15 p.m. LOT.
The photographs showed windows or ports in both the upper and lower
halves of the object. According to Mr. A's account, he was taking a
picture of his 11-year-old son with his Model 800 Polaroid earner,
when a high-pitched humming noise attracted their attention. They
looked in the direction of the noise, and saw an UFO about 60 ft. in
diameter, some 500 ft. away, moving about 30 to 40 mph, at an altitude
of 500-600 ft. Mr. A snapped two pictures during the 15-20 sec. before
the object departed at a speed, estimated to be 2,000 mph.
According to his account, Mr. A immediately took the pictures
to a farm house, about 300 yd. from his home to show the pictures,
and learn if the neighbors also had seen the object. The neighbor,
Mr. B. says that Mr. A arrived at their house about 12:30 p.m.
t 5 minutes, and the pictures were still "wet." None of the family
had seen nor iieard the UFO. At Mr. B's insistence the incident was
made known to the public. Mr. A wanted to destroy the photos and
not tell anyone else of the incident, for fear of ridicule. Mr. B.

498
 ■ «ww"»'«»«^Wf* *'v«

with A's reluctant permission, notified the state police and local
newspapers of the incident and the existence of the photographs.

Investigation:
Although there are unexplained discrepancies in the story and
pictures, project investigators were not able, on the basis of their
investigation, to detennine that the incident was a hoax. Mr. B was
convinced the pictures were of a real object. Both Mr. A and his
son's stories were generally consistent, and presented seriously
with conviction. Neither witness was shaken from his original
statement after hours of conversation and discussion. The suggestion
that such pictures might result from deliberate deception brought
only emphatic denial. Although Mr. A would not agree to lend the
original pictures to this project for analysis, copies of the
photographs were obtained.
In picture number one the UFO is in sharp focus but is dimly
outlined against the sky because of overexposure. It appears to have
three dark windows or ports on its lower section (which has the
appearance of a pie tin) and a row of square dark windows of similar
size, but more closely spaced, around its top portion (which
resembled a lid of a frying pan, with a knob on top). A dark streak
extends about half the distance along the ridge-like juncture of
the top and bottom portions. This streak ends abruptly.
The image of the UFO in picture number one is just over three
centimeters long. The top of a near-by automobile, the top of a
ridge some 30 ft. from where Mr. A stood, and several trees and
a bee-hive on the ridge are also visible in photo number one. The
trees were not in focus.
Photo number two shows apparently the same UFO, somewhat more
distant (a 2.8 cm. image), not in sharp focus, but with good contrast
against the sky background. In this photo the UFO appears below a
wire clothes line located seven feet from the camera. Tops of trees
are visible in each bottom corner of the picture.

499

JL_
 '•* * "»)<»•.»-r

Botli plu>tos were taken within a few feet of Mr. A's house,
number two from a position about 20 ft. from where he stood while-
taking number one. Photo number one was taken at a bearing of
f 100°, photo number two at 300°. The tree tops visible in photo
i number two are at distances of 40-65 ft. away from the camera.
They are not the same trees that appear in photo number one.

Investigation Results:
i 1) Polaroid photograph numbers. Mr. A said the film had been
in the camera several months, and only throe pictures remained to be
taken on the roll, lie took t'umber six, a picture of his son. Numbers
seven and eight would then he the UFÜ photos. The numbers on the
back of the UFO photos, however, were one and seven respectively.
J) Disappearance of othe'- photographs and photographic material.
Mr. A "could not find" the picture of his son, although Mrs. B said
he had the three photos, including one of his son, when he arrived
at the farmhouse at 12:30. Mr. A. said he "had thrown away"
the negative back sheets of all photographs.
3J Lack of other witnesses. An object 60 ft. in diameter and
at 500 ft. altitude would have been over a point less than 100 yd.
from a major highway at the time the pictures were taken, and would
have crossed over the highway on departure. The highway carries
heavy traffic. A crew of gravel-company workmen would have been on
their lunch break in the gravel pits over which the object was
allegedly flying when it was photographed. No one reported seeing
such an object, in spite of a radio appeal for other observers to
identify themselves. No workmen in the gravel pit saw the object,
although when questioned several of the workmen expressed the opinion
that they are so accustomed to loud noises while they work that they
would not have noticed the sound from an UFO as described by Mr. A.
Neither Mr. B., who was on a tractor at 12:15, nor any of his family
or crew saw the UFO.

500
 ,.-, »,•..*-■ •«r.«<(

The only response to the appeal for anyone who had seen UFO
about noon on the date ot Mr. A's sighting to identify himself came
from youngsters. Project investigators checked what seemed the most
significant of these reports but they had no relation to the object
in Mr. A's photos.
One farmer did report that he and his brother, baling hay about
one mile from Mr. A's home, (in the direction of claimed departure
of the UFO), heard something that sounded like "many jet planes"
about noon on this date. They commented on the sound to each other at the
time, but did not see anything which could have generated this noise.
It seems probable that someone on the highway, or working in
the vicinity, would have seen the UFO if it were as described.
Inquiries were made at radar installations at Youngstown, Ohio
air terminal and with the FAA Cleveland Center. No observations of
unidentified objects were made at either place«
4) Position from which picture number two was taken. To reproduce
picture number two (minus the UFO), it was necessary for the photo-
grapher to lower the camera by kneeling on the ground. Mr. A. said
he merely stooped over a bit to take the second photo.
5) Preliminary examination of the photographs by W.K.H. Copies
of Mr. A's photographs were sent to Dr. Hartmann for preliminary
examination and evaluation. A summary of his response follows:
In picture number one, the object is in focus (showing square
comers on portholes), while the background trees and beehive are
out of focus. Since the trees and beehive are some 80 ft. away, they
should have been in fairly sharp focus if the camera were focused for
any distance close to or greater than 80 ft. Had the object been
some 5Ü0 ft. away, as Mr. A claimed, and the camera focused essentially
at infinity, the trees should be in sharper focus than the nearer car
top. Photograph number one shows the car top in sharper focus than
the trees, and the object in sharper focus than the car top.
In picture number two, the object is less sharp (portholes are
blurred, not clearly square). The clothes wire also is somewhat out

501

A
 of focus while the trees (40-65 ft. away in this case) are in sharper
focus than in picture number one.
One possible interpretation of these observations is that the object,
and the camera focal distance, was closer in picture number one than was
the top of the car. The object would then have been five to ten feet from
: the camera. Picture number two could have been made with the focus of
the camera set at about 30 ft. while the object was enough closer to
the camera to be noticeably out of focus.
If the object were five feet .'.way its diameter was ton inches; if
ten feet away, Jü in. Pictures duplicatinjj Mr. A's could be produced
with a 10-12 in. model, focusing the camera at five feet and 30 ft.
for the first and second pictures, respectively, and suspending the
model by find thread or monofilament fishing line. (In photo number
two the suspension could be either from the clothes line which appears
in the picture or from a fishing pole.)

Conclusions:
The relative focus ot objects in picture number one is not consis-
tent with the claim that the UFO was a large object beyond the trees in
the picture, but is consistent with an assumption that the UFO was pie
pan sized. The other discrepancies in the account discussed here also
contribute to the conclusion that these photographs would not merit
further analysis even if the originals were made available for detailed
studv.

502
Case 25
North Eastern
Summer 1967
Investigators: Armstrong, Levine

Abstract:
Reports of noise, flashes, and power interruptions were attri-
buted to power-line faults.

Background
A representative of APRO and NICAP phoned the project to
report the following incident. On a Wednesday morning at
4:10 a.m., a man employed by an aircraft company reported that
while driving in a northwest direction to won . lie saw a bright
light flashing to his rear, lie turned his car around, and drove back
to the location of the flashing light, and stopped at the intersec-
tion of wo roads. He saw a ball he estimated to be two and one-half
feet in diameter above trees to the northeast. He was frightened,
and left the scene to report to the police. Me said he saw
the flash five times. The next day he stopped at the home of the
woman on whose property the trees were located. She told him that
she had seen the light.
The NICAP and APRO representative learned of the incident from
the police. He interviewed both witnesses. Me then looked about the
scene of the sighting and discovered a place in some tall grass, about
30 inches high, where the grass had been flattened. The depression
in the grass was circular and about six to ten feet in diameter. The
grass was bent in a counter-clockwise direction. At 8:00 p.m., he
took three Polaroid pictures of the area, one of which was a close-up
of the depression, lie reported that the close-up came out "white"
and suggested radioactive fogging. On the basis of these reports,
Armstrong and Levine went to this area.

Investigation
The investigators met with the APRO-NICAP man three days later at

SO 3
11:00 a.m. The aircraft employee was not available, so they copied
a tape recording of a statement he had ^iven to the APRO-NICAl' man.
The investigators then talked with the woman witness. She
reported that shr had been awakened at 4:40 a.m. on Wednesday by a
noise she described as rumbling, crackling, or a "thunder sound",
but she knew it was not thunder. Through a small crack in closed
Venetian blinds, she had seen flashes of light that lit up her
bedroom bright enough to read by. The light went on and off several
times, and there were "nine or ten rumblings." She stopped watching,
but could still hear the noise. 1T»e bright light lasted longer
than lightning, but only a few seconds. She reported that the
power had gone off at about 5:45 a.m. for about 45 minutes.
The investigators next examined the grassy depression. They
found no radioactivity above background level. The depression was
roughly circular, but there was little e\/iuence of the grass lying
counter-clockwise. The grass was of a kind that, if pushed down,
stayed down for a long time. Foot tracks that had been made in it
two days earlier were clearly visible. The investigators concluded
that (1) there was no evidence of anything unusual about the depres-
sion, and (2) the depression could have been made at any time during
the past week or longer.
They then spoke with a man who lived nearby. Me reported having
seen the light and heard the noise, which he said sounded like a
power relay cutting out, between 4:30 and 6:00 a.m. He also noticed
that light came from two places, a power pole with a transformer
on it about 300 feet from his house, and an indistinct location
down the road in the direction of the woman witness* house.
A night-light in his room went out for 35 or 40 seconds when the
noise and flash came, and all of these effects coincided in time.
He noted that just before the sighting a heavy fog and rain had
made the branches of the trees very heavy. He had attributed the
noise and the flashes to the power transformers.

Conclusions
In view of the reported power interruptions and the heavy fog
and rain, it is probable that all three of the witnesses' sightings
were of flashing arcs associated with the power lines. The fog would
enhance the dispersion of the light and lend a strange quality to it
and would also facilitate high-voltage corona discharges.

sns

A
£*■"■■ • *"*"• ?

Case 26
South Pacific
Summer 1967
Investigator: Craig

Abstract:
A 67-year-old security guard, on night duty at a lumber yard,
reported firing six shots at a cigar-shaped UFO, and later, finding
four of the flattened bullets which he said had fallen to the ground
after ineffective impact with the UFO. Faced with police evidence,
the guard admitted that the bullets were ones fired at a steel drum
and that the "sighting" of the UFO was fictitious.

Background:
The witness reported firing six shots from his .38 caliber
revolver at an 80-1ÜO ft. long, cigar-shaped UFO which was hovering at
about SO ft. in the air at a distance of some 100 ft. The initial
report of the incident was made at 3:50 a.m. PDT and the local police
immediately made a preliminary investigation. At 8:00 a.m. on the
same day, the witness reported finding four flattened slugs which he
said he dug out of furrows in the asphalt surface.
The witness said that after being fired at, the object rose
slowly at first, then sped out of sight in a westerly direction. A
bluish-green light, which surrounded the HFO^ went out after the
second shot. The object made no noise until it sped away, at which
point the sound was comparable to that of an idling automobile motor.

Investigation:
A project investigator arrived at about 8:00 p.m.
By this time, the witness had changed his story saying that he had
made a mistake and was now sure that he had fired at a balloon, lie
said he shot at it only once, and that there was no visible effect,

506
if in fact he hit it at all. The flattened slugs were ones he
had saved from carl irr target practice, and lie had produced them
on the spur of the moment, to embellish his UFO story.
Police investigation had showed that the furrows in the ground,
from which the bullets had allegedly been retrieved, were made by
bullets entering them at a 30-40° angle. It appeared more likely
that the slugs were fired directly into the asphalt, and had not
fallen to it as reported. However, the witness later asserted that
he had made the furrows with a ball-peen hammer. In addition,
police investigation had turned up a steel drum, with numerous holes
and indentations on it from bullet impact. When presented with
this evidence, the witness admitted having fired at the drum for
target practice about a month before, and said that the slugs in
question were some of those which had struck the drum.
There were no other reports of any unusual sightings in the
vicinity on that day.

Conclusion:
In view of the witness' own admission that he had fabricated
the story no further investigation or comment was deemed necessary.

507
ft' ■*— •»W>w»i'wfl"»y

Case 27
North Eastern
Summer 1967
Investigator: Rothberg

Abstract:
During a "flap" in the North East area, the project decided
to study the feasibility of fielding an investigation in the area
with maximum instrumentation. Hie objective was to obtain instrumented
observations of UFOs and, if possible, to correlate sightings with
nightly exposures made by an all-sky camera. Although UFO reports
continued at high frequency during the feasibility study, less than
12 of 9,001) all-sky camera exposures contained images not immediately
identifiable. Only two of these coincided in time and azimuth with
a sighting report. Study of one negative suggests that the image is
either that of a meteor whose path was at or nearly at a right angle to
the focal plane or that an emulsion defect or impurity is responsible
for the image. The other negative's image was identified as a
probable aircraft.

Background:
During the summer of 1967, more than 80 sightings were
reported in this North East area. The project decided to
field an investigation in the area in the hope that the wave of
sightings would continue and could be directly observed and measured
by an array of instruments. The investigator was equipped with a
car having a radio-telephone, still and motion-picture cameras, two
U.S. Army infra-red detectors, and a Geiger counter. When on patrol
the investigator was in frequent communication with a telephone
answering service which had been retained to accept sighting reports
and record them on Barly Warning report forms. The number of the
answering service was widely publicized throughout the region.

508
 An all-sky camiTii (see Section VI, Chapter 10) was rrounted in
an undisclosed locution, on the well-guarded roof of a local hospital
dominating the area. It was hoped that if the frequency of reports
was maintained, some of them could he correlated with all-sky camera
exposures. The camera was operated during 17 nights. The camera made
9,ü00 exposures each covering a considerable area of the night sky
over a period totalling some 150 hr.

Results:
No occasion arose in which it was possible to use any of the
instrumentation with which the project investigator had been equipped.
One UFO was seized. It was a plastic bag made into a
hot air balloon by mounting candles across its mouth and launching
the device.
More than 100 sighting reports were filed, of which 50 were
readil> explainable as natural or men-made phenomena, 17 were judged
to be identifiable, and 14 seemed to require further investigation.
Attempts to acquire sufficient additional information regarding the
last category were unavailing, so that no conclusion was drawn regarding
them.
Study of the two all-sky camera negatives that contained images
not immediately identifiable and that approximately coincided in time
with reported sightings was undertaken by project experts and others.
These were exposures made on two separate nights at 8:57 p.m. and
9:57 p.m. EDC.
The first frame contains a strong, elliptical spot.
No adjacent frames show any image of similar intensity. Examination
of the spot under 120X magnification shows near its center a minute
defect or contamination that could have caused spurious development,
but otherwise the spot shows the gradation of density normal to an
exposure caused by light. The image's ellipticity could indicate
motion of the light source during the exposure. Because the image
appears on a single frame, it is regarded as either an emulsion or

509
W ■***■■: >tr"?tt«1t"

development defect or as caused by a meteor whose path was almost

directly perpendicular to the focal plane of the camera.
The second frame contains a light trace resembling an
airplane track and is identified as a probable aircraft. The sighting
report that coincides in time with this exposure, however, is so
fragmentary as to make impossible any firm identification of the
object reported as being the trace shown on the film.
A third frame for 4 September at 00:32 EOT was also deemed
worthy of further study by the field investigator, but project experts
report that it and adjacent frames contain only the images of stars.

Conclusions:
This investigation was of particular importance because it
offered an opportunity for study of UFOs at the time they were
reported, and for measurement of their properties using sophisticated
instrumentaion, including the all-sky camera. The fact that even
though scores ot UFOs were reported during that time, the investi-
gator could find nothing to examine with his instruments and nothing
remarkable on thousands of all-sky camera exposures with the exceptions
noted above is highly significant. We conclude that the expectation
that it might be possible to place a trained, equipped investigator
on the scene of an UFO sighting has a probability so low as to be
virtuallv nil.

-.
510 I
Case 2S
South Pacific
Winter 19t>b through Summer 1907 i
Investigators: Roach, Wadsworth \

Abstract
i4
Repeated sightings that began in late 1966 and recurred for many .
months, arousing widespread interest, were identified as a jet aircraft
engaged in aerial refueling training practice.
i
Background
During late 1966, mysterious lights began to appear over the central
part of an agricultural valley in the South Pacific. Local residents
soon began to report them as UFOs, and the resultant publicity led event-
ually to investigation by NICAP and this project. These sightings,
instead of reaching a peak and tapering off, continued for many months.
By summer of 1967 interest was intense. Most of the sightings were wit-
nessed brom a site near a foothills town located at the eastern slope of
the valley.
The key witness in t!.e area was a resident (Witness 1) of the town.
He and his wife had observed, logged, and photographed UFOs on numerous
occasions during the preceding months. He also coordinated an UFO sur-
veillance network using Citizens Band radio which covered a radius of
approximately 80 miles. As principal contact in the area, he provided
background information that included names of witnesses, taped interviews,
and photographic evidence. This material proved invaluable in preliminary
assessment of the situation.

Sightings, General Information

The sightings fell into two groups: one (hereafter referred to as
the primary group) was highly homogeneous and comprised approximately
85% of the total number of sightings. Objects in the primary group
appeared as orange-white lights above the valley at night.

511
I !<'»WWiWK"*Ww*J^r"« '^tw-IfT'^fpim**** r m T-

These lights moved, hovered, disappeared and reappeared, and sometimes

merged with one another. This report deals with the primary group of
sightings.
Sightings from the smaller group will be reported separately, as
they form a heterogeneous assortment that is clearly discontinuous
with the primary group.

Photographs
The high frequency of primary-group sightings provided Witness I
with numerous opportunities to take pictures with a tripod-mounted
Rolleiflex camera. The resulting photographs, while providing no
answers to whit the objects were, did constitute firmer evidence
than the unsupported testimony of witnesses .

Area Features
a. The ranch home of Witness I was located in the foothills
east of the valley and 1800 ft. above the valley floor.
b. The view from the ranch was unobstructed from southeast to
southwest. Foothills in the foreground obscured in the distant hori-
zon from northwest to northeast.
c. Most observations from the home of Witness I were from the
rear patio, which faced south with a full view of the unobstructed
horizon as well as parts of the foreground foothills to the east
and west. In most instances he , alone, made the observations.
d. Most sightings were to the southwest over the valley floor.
e. Area residents habitually sat outside at night during the
summer because of the heat. This practice contributed to the fre-
quency of sightings.
f. The recurrence of sightings excited the people in the area,
thereby causing an increase in reports of low reliability.

Investigation
After detailed discussions with local NICAP people, including
Witness I and his wife, project investigators decided to try to ob-
serve the UFOs themselves. On the night of 12 August they saw nothing
unusual. On 13 August, however, the following events occurred:
At 10:30 p.m. a light appeared low in the southern sky, travelling
512
approximately lüü/sec. After about 10 sec, more detail became visible
and the object was identified as probably an aircraft with conventional
running lights and an anti-collision beacon.
Meanwhile, another light had appeared to the east of the presumed
aircraft, travelling west at a similar angular rate. This light was not
obviously an aircraft, but appeared as a dull or nge light that varied
somewhat in intensity as it moved. The object could have been an air-
craft. Witness I, however, said that it was exactly the kind of thing
that had been reported frequently as an UFO. He was disappointed that
it had not been as near and bright as he had observed on other occasions.
After about 15 sec, the UFO, which had been travelling horizontally
westward, seemed to flicker and then vanished. The original object con-
tinued eastward, disappearing in the distance in a manner consistant with
its identification as an aircraft. Duration of both observations was
less than a minute.
On 14 August Kadsworth and Witness 1 drove to a village 20 miles
south of the sighting area, where several sightings had been reported,
and west and northwest toward towns A, B, and C. This area, had been
most frequently indicated by observers as the apparent location of the
UFOs. However, interviews with area residents disclosed no significant
information.
Another sky watch that evening by Wadsworth, Witness I and his wife
(Roach had gone) yielded nothing unusual until midnight. At 12:00 a.m.
and again at 12:42 a.m. on 15 August UFOs were observed. They hovered,
moved horizontally, and vanished. They appeared as bright orange lights
showing no extended size and varying in intensity. Wadsworth thought
they might be low-flying aircraft on flight paths that produced illusory
hovering, but they could not be identified as such. Witness I described
the lights as "good solid sightings," typical of the recurrent UFO sight-
ings in the area. One of the sightings was later confirmed in all
essentials by two women, who lived nearby.
The Monday night sighting was reported by telephone to the base

513
 e
0>

j
i

01
u
&

to
roro
514
UDO
roto
UFO officer at a nearby Air Force base. He stared that no aircraft from
that base i id been in the air at the time of the sighting.
Project investigators then instituted a surveillance plan for the
night of 15-16 August. About 9;00 p.m., Wadsworth drove to a fire look-
out tower atop a mountain near the sighting area. This lookout, the
highest in the area, afforded an optimum view over the entire valley.
He carried a transceiver to communicate with Witness I in the town of
sjghtiiij; tor coordination of sighting observations, and was accompanied
by a Kv.il NICAP member. Also present were the resident fire lookouts
at the station.
At midnight orange lights appeared successively over the vally in
the direction of towns A, B and C (see map, figure 3). These lights,
observed simultaneously by Wadsworth and Witness 1, appeared to brighten,
dim, go out completely, reappear, hover, and move about. Sometimes two
of them would move together for a few moments and then separate. This
beha ior continued for an hour-and-a-half.
The mountain vantage point afforded a much more comprehensive view
of the phenomena than did the valley town site. It was possible to
ot.erve a general pattern of movement that could not have been seen from
below, because the north end of this pattern was over Town C, which was
not visible from the sighting town. Even with binoculars Wadsworth had
to study the pattern for more than an hour before he could begin to under-
stand what was happening.
Essentially, the lights made long, low runs from Town C toward Town B,
which was not visible from the sighting town. Even with binoculars Wads-
worth had to study the pattern for more than an hour before he could begin
to understand what was happening. At other times they appeared to hover,
flare up, then go out completely. Witness 1 believed that the lights
flared up in response to signals he flashed at them with a spotlight. Many
of his flashes were followed by flare-ups of the UFOs, but to Wadsworth
these flare-ups appeared coincidental.

515
 Observations lasting about two hours convinced Wadsworth that
the lights were aboard aircraft operating out of an Air Force base in
Town C. He was finally able to see the lights move along what was
apparently a runway, then lift off, circle southward, and go through
the behavior previously described before returning to land at Castle.
It should be pointed out that none of this pattern was obvious, even
to the NICAP man some thirty miles away, and visibility was limited
by haze. In checking further with the base, it was learned that most
of the aerial activity there involved tankers and B-52s in practice
refuelling operations. Between 400 and 500 sorties were launched
each month, day and night. These planes carried large spotlights
that were switched on and off repeatedly during training. This
feature explains the flare-ups and the disappear-reappear phenomena,
that had been observed from the town. The apparent hovering is
accounted for by the fact that part of the flight pattern was on a
heading towards the observer. The closing behavior followed by
separation was the refuelling contact. Maps supplied by the AFB
showed flight patterns consistent with these sightings as to the
objects' locations, motions, and disappearance-reappearance-flare-
up behavior. (See fig. 3, p. 514) Since these objects were essen-
tially identical to those seen the previous night, it was assumed
that the UFO officer had been in error when he stated that no air-
craft activity had originated at the Air Force base.

Summary and Conclusion

The sightings were of interest for two reasons. Fiist, the
phenomena were strange enough to defy simple explanation. Second,
they were on a large enough scale to arouse widespread interest.
Sighting frequency was high and did not decline with time.
However, the sightings were not individually spectacular,
being essentially lights in the night sky. This case is an example
of conventional stimuli (aircraft) that, by their unusual behavior,
lighting, and flight oaths, presented an unconventional appearance
to witnesses .
Before the project investigation, observers had become loosely
organized around Witness I, who logged sightings, taped interviews

516
with witnesses, and obtained photographs of the objects. He also
called on Los Angeles NICAP for further assistance. But one thing
that apparently no observer did was to drive across the valley to
the Air Force base while sightings were occurring. There may have been
two reasons for this omission. First, Witness I had phoned the base
on several occasions to report sightings, and had been erroneously but
authoritatively informed that the sightings could not be accounted for
by planes based locally. Second, few observers were seeking a con-
ventional explanation that would dispel the intriguing presence of UFOs.
Even then the sightings were identified by Wadsworth, Witness I was
loath to accept the aircraft explanation. Thus a solution was not forth-
coming from the local situation, which had reached a kind of equilibrium.
After examining the previously compiled information, project in-
vestigators decided a more direct approach was needed. The methods of
inquiry and observations that they used resulted in the discovery of
a pattern of behavior readily identified with aircraft activity origi-
nating from the local air base.

517
(.If*- v-*r»-

Case 29
North Eastern
Summer 1967
Investigators: Craig, Levine

Abstract:
Six to 16 bright lights, appearing and disappearing in
sequence, were seen by several independent witnesses. Some
witnesses reported seeing the outline of an object to which the
lights were apparently attached. Investigation showed that the
lights were ALA-17 flares dropped from a B-52 aircraft as nart of
an USAF aircrew training program.

Background:
At least 17 witnesses in ten independent groups reported
seeing six to 16 bright objects or as many lights associated with
a single object, in the northeastern sky at about 9:30 p.m. EOT.
Most of the reports indicated that the lights were visible for
10-15 sec, although a few claimed durations up to five minutes.
The first report was made by a group of six teenagers who
said they saw a noiseless "flying saucer" with six yellow lights
200 ft. in the air over the concession stand on the beach. They
reported the object to be about 20-35 ft. across with a "round
thing on the top and bottom."
Publication of this report was followed by numerous reports
of similar observations that had been made at the same time. These
observations were from four different beaches, an airport, and a
fishing boat off-shore. The reports varied in detail, but agreed
that the sighting was sometime between 9:15-9:45 p.m.; several reports
placed the time within five minutes of 9:30. They all agreed that the
lights appeared in the northeast. Elevation angles that were indicated
varied from 5-30° above the horizon. The lights were described as
blinking on and off; some descriptions indicated that they appeared

518
 \
1

in sequence from left to right and blinked off in reverse sequence,

right to left. Most observers saw five or six yellow lights in a
roughly horizontal line, each light being comparable in brightness
with the planet Venus. One private pilot observing from the ground
at an airport saw a horizontal string of six to eight pairs of lights,
one yellow and one red light in each pair. The array moved toward
tue horizon and seemed to get larger for five to seven seconds,
stopping four to five seconds, then beginning to retrace the approach
path before blinking out about four seconds later. While most
observers saw only lights, at least one witness, in addition to the
teenagers at the original beach, reported seeing a large disc-like
object encompassing the lights. Other of the witnesses "had the
feeling the lights were attached to an object."

Investigation:
Six witnesses in this northeastern area were interviewed directly,
most of them at the locations from which they saw the lights. Others
were contacted by telephone. The multiplicity of consistent reports
indicated that unusual lights in the sky had indeed been seen; it was
not certain whether they were separate lights or were lights on a
single object.
Reports of these UFO sightings, when they had been telephoned to
the nearest Air Force Base by observers, had been disregarded there.
No unusual unidentified radar images had been recorded at the nearest
FAA Center.
The observations as described did not resemble airplane activity
or meteorological or astronomical phenomena. No blimps or aircraft
with lighted advertising signs were in the vicinity of the sighting
at the time.
Since reports of UFO sightings had been frequent in this region,
the investigating team spent several late hours observing the sky in
hopes of getting first-hand information about the lights or objects
that had been seen. No UFOs appeared during the watches.

519
 One of the witnesses to the original sighting, a high-school
senior, reported seeing "that object" again on a subsequent evening.
He guided the investigating team around a golf-course, describing
a laige saucer with surrounding windows which he had seen there just
a few yards above his head. This report was judged to be a fabrica-
tion.
A few weeks after the project team returned to Colorado, the
NICAP Subcommittee Chairman, Raymond E. Fowler, learned that 16
flares had been dropped at 9:25 EDT on the night in question from
a B-52 aircraft 25-30 mi. NE of the beach area. Information about
the flare drop was furnished, at Mr. Fowler's request, by the Wing
Information Officer.
The Strategic Air Command had initiated an aircrew training
program for dropping ALA-17 flares on the day before with aircrews
releasing as many as 16 flares per drop. The flares are released
over controlled areas at 20,000 ft. or more. They bum with a
brilliant white light, and are easily visible at distances in excess
of 30 mi.

Conclusion:
In view of the close coincidence in time, location, direction
and appearance between the flares dropped and the UFOs sighted on
the same day, it seems highly likely that the witnesses saw the
flares and not unusual flying objects. It also seems highly likely
that the suggestion of an outline of an object as reported by a few
witnesses was, in fact, a product of their expectation to see lights
in the sky OK something rather than floating about by themselves.

,20
 ■ ^W»1

Case 30
South Pacific
»•all 19b7
Investigator: Staff

Abstract:
A civilian employee at an AFB confirmed an earlier report
that base personnel had made an UFO sighting, although official
sources denied that such an event had occurred.

Background:
A rumor was relayed to this project by a source considered
to be reliable, reporting in the fall, 1967, six UFOs had
followed an X-15 flight at the AFB. It was suggested that
motion pictures of the event should be available from the Air Force.

Investigation:
Before initiating a field investigation, Project members
checked by phone with Base Operations for confirmation of the
rumor. There was no log book record of an UFO report
and no X-15 flight on that day. The last X-15 flight had been 8 days
previously and the last recorded UFO report submitted to the
base had been a month before.
The rumor persisted, however, with indications that official
secrecy was associated with the event. If reports of the event
had been classified, TO record would appear on the operations log.
Although there apparently was no association with an X-15 flight,
a responsible base employee (Mr. A), who wished to remain anonymous,
had reassured our source that there was a sighting
by pilots and control tower operators. Mr. A had left the
AFB for temporary duty elsewhere. His replacement, Mr. B, was unable
to obtain details of the event but was quoted as saying that there
apparently was something to it because "they are not just flatly
denying it."

521

&
 Mr. A was contacted by telephone at his temporary assignment
by a project investigator, lie said he actually did not know
too much about the incident, since all the information had been
turned over to the public information officer, who was
the only one at the base who could discuss it. According to Mr.
A the information had come to his desk; his action was to pass it
on to the PIO.
Attempts to learn more about the reported event from the PIO
were met with apparent evasion from that office. The Director of
Information was reportedly unavailable when phoned. He did not
return calls. On one attempt to reach him, the investigator in-
dicated to a PIO secretary that he would prefer to replace the call
when the Colonel was in, rather than to speak with a lieutenant who
was available at that moment. The secretary's response was "Well,
the Colonel is busy this year - but you'd still prefer to wait until
next Monday?"
On Monday, the Colonel was again unavailable and once again
did not return the call. A request was then made through the Pentagon
for determination of whether or not an UFO event had in fact,
occurred at the base on the day specified. A Pentagon officer, trans-
mitted a request to the base Director of Information that he
telephone the project investigator and clarify this situation.
This resulted in a telephone message, left hy an assistant to the
Director of Information, that there was no UFO event at that base
on the day in question.
Mr. A was contacted later, after his return to the base, and
asked for clarification of the incident. He responded
only that the Director of Information had told him to "stay out of
that."

Conclusion:
Although it is true that the report of this incident was never
more than a rumor, it is also true that project investigators were
not able satisfactorily to confirm or deny that an UFO incident had

522
occurred. Attempts to investigate the rumor were met with evasion
and uncooperative responses to our inquiries by base information.

523
 n^nwnNW"*)! <* ■ »p.

Case 31
North Eastern
i Fall 1967
Investigators: Ayer, Wadsworth

Abstract:
A woman and her children driving on a rural road at night saw
a trapezoidal pattern of dim red lights over the road. As the car
approached the lights, they moved off the road and disappeared between
the trees. The possibility that the lights were on a microwave tower
in the vicinity of the sighting is discounted by the witness* familiar-
ity with the road and tower, her accurate account of accessory details,
and other factors.

Investigation:
Interviews with the principal witness in the fall of
1967 brought out the following account:
A woman was driving north with her three young sons on
a country road about 7:45 p.m., when her oldest boy, aged
about ten, called her attention to about 18 extended dim red lights
arranged in a trapezoidal pattern. They appeared about as high as
the first cross-piece on a telephone pole, and as wide as the road--
that is, about 15 ft., and hovered about 1.5 ft. above the road.
As soon as the woman saw the lights, she accelerated to try to
catch them, and chased them up the road about 300 yd. until they
vanished between two sugar maples on her left. The lights disappeared
as if they had been occulted from right to left. The structure to
which the lights were presumably attached was never visible.
After hearing the woman's report, a project investigator drove
S on the road about 4:30 p.m. to check the landmarks. In
addition to the two maples about 300 yd. north of the house where the
lights were first seen, there was a third maple nearer the road and

524
about 250 yd. further north, and a microwave tower about 500 yd. N
of the third maple and somewhat W of the road. Such towers usually
are well lighted at night. It appeared that, if the trees cut off
the view of the top of the tower, the lower part would resemble the
strange lights, provided that the number of lights agreed with those
reported. The third maple would be responsible for the occultation.
Accordingly, both investigators returned to the road
about 8:30 p.m. The first glimpse of the illuminated tower severely
undermined the hypothesis. The tower carried only a red beacon at
the top and four red lights halfway down, one on each leg of the
rectangular structure.
A subsequent talk with the witness revealed that she had traveled
back and forth along the road a great many times. She was quite
familiar with the appearance of the tower, and denied emphatically that
it was what she had seen, because the lights on the object were dim
and extended, while those on the tower were "points with rays."
Furthermore, there were too few lights on the tower.

Comment:
This witnesses impressed both investigators as an accurate and
wide-awake observer who was quite capable of relating to known land-
marks the behavior of an unexpected and unfamiliar sight with little
distortion.
The sighting can be explained by the presence of the microwave
tower. A further argument for the tower hypothesis depends on the fact
that the road ran upgrade about 40 ft. in elevation between the witness*
locations at first sighting and at disappearance. Thus, it appears that
the light on top of the tower would have been seen low over this rise
in the road, the lower lights on the tower being obscured.
The tower cannot therefore be regarded as a fully satisfactory
explanation. The reported lights were seen just above the roadway;
but at no point does the road run directly toward the tower. Further

525

A.
VM- • v»rmm •* <

by the witness' account, the strangeness of the object was apparent

to both her and her son, both of whom were very familiar with the
road and ^he tower.

526
 i\»se Til
South Mountain
lall 19t>-
Investigators: Ayer, Wadsworth

Abstract:
The death of a horse was popularly believed to be related to
UFO sightings, but professional investigation disclosed nothing
unusual in the condition of the carcass. No significant conclusions
could be derived from numerous reports of UFO sit ngs.

background:
During the early fall, 1967, news of a serie of
events that were popularly held to be related filtered in to the
Colorado project. One such event had been the death of a horse
under allegedly mysterious circumstances a month before. This
death had become associated in the public mind with recent UFO
sightings in the area.
The horse, owned by a woman and pastured on her brother's
ranch, had not come in for water one day and had been found dead
two days later. It was reported that all the flesh and skin
had been removed from his head and neck down to a straight cut just
ahead of the shoulder, and that crushed vegetation, strange de-
pressions in the ground, and dark "exhaust marks" had been found
nearby. The owner of the horse was a correspondent for a local
newspaper, and a spate of releases had rapidly inflated public
interest in the case.
When, a few days later, word came through that a second dead
horse had been found, umid persistent rumors of unreported UFOs,
it was decided that project investigators should go to the area.

527

f
 Investigation:
!
The area about the carcass had been trampled by several hundred
visitors. The investigators therefore considered it was not worthwhile
to try to investigate anything at the site except the carcass. When they
learned that no veterinarian had examined it, they called in a veterinarian,
who examined the carcasses of both of the horses. His essential findings
were:
The horse's carcass was extremely old for an autopsy, but there
was evidence suggesting a severe infection in a hindleg that could
have disabled or killed the animal. There was evidence also of a knife
cut in the neck, possibly made by someone who found the horse hope-
lessly sick. Absence of nerve tissues and viscera was normal for a
carcass dead several weeks.
Magpies and other birds ordinarily cannot peck through the skin
of a horse, but will eat the flesh and skin if they can get into it.
In this case, they evidently had taken advantage of the cut and removed
all accessible skin and flesh from the neck and head before the carcass
had been found.
The second horse carcass showed evidence that death had resulted
from encephalicis.
It had been reported that a forest ranger with civil defense
training had found a high level of radioactivity near the "exhaust
marks." When questioned by an investigator, he said that his meter had
indicated only "slight" activity two weeks after the carcass had been
found. The investigators concluded that the activity he had measured
on his simple survey instrument had been no greater than the normal
background radiation they measured three weeks later.

Conclusions:
There was no evidence to support the assertion that the horse's
death was associated in any way with abnormal causes.

528
Other Sightings:
The investigators then turned their attention to the numerous
reports of UFO sightings in the same area. Many were vague or
involved direct lights at night. Only the more interesting cases
are reported here.
1) A service-station attendant and former aircraft gunner
reported three sightings in ten years. The second, about 1962,
occurred while he, with three companions, was driving west at 65
mph., about 3:30 a.m. They noticed on the slope of a nearby
mountain a point of blue light that moved toward the highway and
then turned parallel to it, pacing the car a few feet from the
ground. It soon pulled ahead and vanished over the valley. Sud-
denly, the witness saw what he assumed was the same light appear
in the middle of the ruad some distance ahead and approach at
high speed, so that he ran the car off into the graded ditch to
avoid collision. As the light approached, it grew to at least the
size of his car. As it passed, it shot upward a few feet, turned
south, and disappeared.
In the spring of 1967, the same witness, with his wife, was
driving west when he saw an object that resembled a box kite
crossing the highway from the left. He associated it with a
helicopter, although he wa? familiar with them and the apparition
was silent. Thinking that it was some kind of aircraft that might
land at the airport, he drove directly there. During this part
of the trip, the object disappeared behind some buildings. When
they arrived at the airport, it was nowhere in sight.
2) About 5:15 a.m., late summer, 1967, a couple were driving
south vhen they saw two extended objects outlined with a dull glow,
at an altitude of about 15°. One was directly south over the road,
and the second KdS south-southwest. The objects moved northwesterly
until they were apparently "directly over [the mountain]." There
the second moved up beside the first and they hovered for several
minutes before descending rapidly to the ground, where they merged
with the vegetation and disappeared. The witnesses

529
estimated that the minimum distance to the objects was one mile,
and presumably was never very much greater; however, they hovered
"directly over [the mountain]," which was at least 8 mi. away.
3) On an unrecalled date, late in the summer, 1966, about
5:30 a.m., two boys, ages 13 and 17, were traveling north when
they saw an extended bright light in the road. The UK) kept ahead
of them for about 20 mi., then disappeared.
4) At 10:15 p.m., early fall, 1967, the owner of the horse
mentioned above, with her husband, was driving west. They saw
three pulsating red-and-green lights pass over, moving generally
southwest.
After five to ten minutes, the third object seemed to explode,
emitting a yellow flash, then a second flash nearer the ground,
and a puff of smoke that the witnesses observed for ten minutes.
Several fragments were seen to fall to the ground after the second
explosion.
The husband and wife disagreed as to the location. He said
the wreckage should lie somewhere between the second and fifth
hill south of a nearby town, but she said she saw the explosion
over a brown hill ten miles east of the same town. The explosion
was also seen by a farmer, and his times and bearings supported
the husband's account. Ayer drove between the second and third and
the third and fourth hills, and he flew over the region south of
the fifth hill, but he saw nothing of interest.
The data on this sighting were sent to Major Quintanilla, who
reported that no satellite re-entries had been seen or predicted
at the reported time. This finding, however, did not preclude the
unobserved re-entry of a minor fragment that had not been tracked.
5) Another couple reported several sightings, one of these,
between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m., fall, 1967, considered by them to be
a "meteor." Its location was not given. This sighting was also
reported to Major Quintanilla, but no satellite had been observed
to re-enter on that dav.

530
 b) In the fall, 1907, "ten minutes before dark," two ranchers
driving west saw a small cigar-shaped cloud, vertically oriented
in a sky that had only one other cloud in it. The cigar was
about the size of a thumb at arm's length, 20° above the "horizon"
and 45° south of the road, that is, southwest of the point of
first sighting. It was slightly boat-tailed at the bottom and its
outlines were not sharp. The second cloud was obviously a cloud,
at a slightly greater altitude in the south. The two men drove
about three miles while the "cigar" tilted slightly toward the
other cloud and moved slowly toward it. They stopped the car to
observe more closely. Pointing toward the larger cloud, the
"cigar" continued to approach it. After a few minutes the witnesses
drove on, and a few minutes later the "cigar" melted into the
cloud.

Summary:
None of these sighting reports were considered to be current
or strange enough to warrant detailed investigation.

531
Case 33
North Eastern
Summer 1967
Investigators: Ayer, Wadsworth

Abstract:
Two teen-aged girls in a rural home reported that in the
evening a large glowing object had hovered nearby and that several
child-sized figures had been seen running about near the bam.
Testimony of others in the area was inconclusive, in some respects
supporting and in others weakening their account. No definite
explanation was found, but the case is considered weak.

Background:
Preliminary information, elaborated by interviews of the
witnesses, developed the following summary account:
Two fourteen-year-old girls in a second-story bedroom in the
home of one of them were looking out a window about 9:00 p.m.,
when they saw a large glowing object above and beyond the barn,
which was south of the house. During the next hour, the object
moved up and down, left and right, and varied considerably in
brightness. Both girls thought the object was between the barn
and a hill no more than a few hundred yards beyond it. After
about a half-hour they heard a sound, apparently from the barn,
like the "put-put" made by a power mower when it fires but fails
to start. Then three small figures ran from the barn and stopped
by a mail box next to the adjacent road. They stood there for
several minutes looking in the direction of the house and then ran
across the road to stop under a large tree where they were partially
hidden in shadow. Shortly afterward a car approached, the object
blacked out, and the figures ran across the road, past the barn
and disappeared into the shadows. After the car had passed, the
object began to pulsate between a very bright white and a dull
red. It also began moving diagonally from upper right to lower
left. This was repeated a number of times before a second car,

532
 driven by the mother of the girl whose home they were in, ap-
proached the house. The object then became dim, as if reacting
to the approach of the car. The mother was able to see the object
dimly, and it remained dim throughout her observation. No
attempt was made to get a closer look, and around 10:00 p.m. the
observers went to bed, with the object still dim but visible.
Nothing unusual could be found to account for the sighting.

Invest igation:
Interviews of witnesses
The two girls were interviewed in the home where the sighting
had occurred. Conditions were unfavorable as other members of the
family were present and asking them to leave would have been
awkward. Because of the initial nervousness of the girls, and since
they had already been interviewed separately by Ted Thobin of
NICAP, a single interview was held with both girls. Their accounts
were generally the same as told earlier to Thobin; however certain
discrepancies in different versions will be pointed out: Both
witnesses tended to be very general when asked to describe the
sighting in a narrative manner. Thus it beceime necessary to ask
direct questions in order to obtain details, so that it was dif-
ficult to avoid leading the witness. In general, the girls seemed
to lack curiosity and interest in the sighting. They also seemed
rather immature for fourteen-year-olds, and it is difficult to
evaluate the reliability of their report.

Related testimony
Two neighbors were questioned in connection with the sighting.
One lived about a quarter-mile south of the house where the sighting
had occurred; i.e., in the general direction of the sighting. She
had seen nothing unusual on the night of the sighting; however, she
remembered that several fires were burning in a swamp area about
one-half mile southeast of her house at the time of the sighting,
and were tended by someone on a motor scooter. A check of the
exact location of the fires relative to the UFO was inconclusive.
The UFO was approximately S of the house, while the fires were
10-15° E of S. The motor scooter might account for the "put-put"
sound. When asked about this, the girls stated that the sound

533
6

luid come from the barn, not heyond. It should also be mentioned
that the neighbor who mentioned the fires did not see them even
though she was much nearer than the girls. The fires were about
forty feet lower than her house and sixty feet below the house
where the girls were, obscured by moderately dense timber,
A second woman, vtio lived almost directly across the road from
the observers' house, was originally considered a corroborating
witness to the sighting. She had reluctantly admitted having seen
the object, but emphasized that she did not wish to be involved.
She told Ted Thobin that she had seen a bright white watermelon-
shaped thing when she went out to take in the wash between 9:00
and 10:00 p.m. This, however, was after she had teased the girls
about seeing "little green men." More detailed information sought
by the project team was refused. Her husband said thrt he had
taken garbage out around 9:30 p.m. that night and had seen
nothing unusual.
Another two-witness report was received later from NICAP as
a possible corroboration of the original sighting. An object
described as a clam-shaped, glowing red UFO was sighted 15
September 1967 at 7:50 p.m. from a location less than a mile from
the girls' sighting.
A sighting made by one of the girls and her mother two nights
after the primary sighting was described as follows:
At 9:30 p.m., a bright star-like ojbect was seen in the SE at
25° elevation, moving W at apparent aircraft speed. When directly
S of their house (a later version said SW), the object abruptly
stopped and remained motionless for several minutes. Then an
airplane approached from the li, and the object took off toward the
U, retracing its original course and passing above the plane to
disappear from sight in the direction from which it had come.
Total duration was several minutes.

Reconstruction of sighting
1. The object was first seen as the girls were looking up the
road from an upstairs bedroom window. The bedroom light was out,
and the only lighted room on that side of the house was the kitchen.

534
 2. The object appeared as a bright white light that alternately
dimmed and then brightened again, seeming to grow larger. One of
the girls implied that this change of brightness was of several
seconds periodicity; the other said that the object "blinked fast,"
and that it was mostly white.
3. Both girls had watched this for about half an hour when they
heard a "putting sound" from the barn. This sound ceased almost
immediately, and two or three figures ran from the barn and stopped
by the mail box next to the road. At this point, there are dis-
crepancies as to the number of figures and their behavior. One
girl initially mentioned three figures; she said two stood by the
mail box, one on either side, and then moments later all three
appeared as they ran past the barn and vanished into the shadows.
NICAP's report indicated that the two figures who stood by the
mail box dashed aavoee the road, stopped under a tree, and then
dashed back across the road, where for the first time a third
figure was visible running with the other two past the bam. The
version obtained by the project team at first did not mention the
figures having crossed the road at all. When asked about this,
the girls were vague; however, they agreed that, after the figures
stopped by the mail box, they next appeared across the street under
a tree. Neither girl remembered seeing the figures cross the road
in either direction. Only general details of the figures were
reported: height was estimated as about 4.5 ft. by comparison
with the mail box; clothing seemed the same for all three --no
details; the heads appeared disproportionately large.
4. After the figures had been momentarily observed across the
road, a car approached from behind the observers, and three figures
were seen running past the barn, where they vanished in shadow.
The figures were seen as silhouettes against background light from
the moon which was three days before full phase and from the
luminous object. The witnesses could not remember whether the
lights of the approaching car partially illuminated the figures.
At the same time, the luminous object dimmed out. One girl said
that it became so dim they could hardly sec it. The other said its

535
^ 0ftT**'m*mcf*i-*'.

lights went out and did not come back on for five minutes. Thus
there was a period during which little was seen, after which the
object brightened as before.
5. Then, in addition to its changes in brightness, the object
began to move diagonally from lower left to upper right. This
motion was confined to several diameters of the object, perhaps
t two or three degrees according to sketches made by the girls.
6. Another discrepancy concerned the position of the object
relative to the background. Originally, the girls had said that
the object dropped down behind the barn several times, and also
appeared sometimes against the background of trees. Upon closer
questioning, using sketches, both girls indicated that the object
was never actually below the horizon even when it seemed to drop
down. This statement, if accurate, sharply reduces the quality
of the sighting, because the original distance limits of a few
hundred yards can no longer be relied upon, and size estimates --
which are characteristically exaggerated -- lose meaning. It
should be mentioned that the size estimate given Thobin was
likened to a VW automobile at 150 yd. The brightness was said to
be equivalent to sunlight, but later changed to four times as
bright as the moon. In reconstructing what was seen, these
various estimates must be given low reliability.
7. Details for the latter part of the sighting are sketchy.
Both girls continued to watch the object for 20 or 30 min., while
it intermittently b-haved as described. It is not clear whether
the display declined, but apparently it did. No further sound was
heard or figures seen, and one of the girls stated that, by the
time her mother returned home, about 10:00 p.m., the object was
very dim though still visible. It was implied that the object
dimmed in reaction to the approach of the car, but the girls were
not clear on this later aspect of the sighting. They apparently
were tired of watching, and after showing the object to the
mother, they went to bed. The mother apparently had not noticed
the object when she returned to the house, until the girls pointed
it out to her. Evidently it was not conspicuous enough to attract
her attention as she drove into the yard,

536
 8. Nothing unusual was seen the next morning, and nothing was
found to account for the sighting. The project investigators later
searched the bam and the area beyond for bums, radioactivity, or
other evidence, but found nothing significant.
9. At the time of the sighting, the girls did not associate
the figures with the luminous object, or the object with UFOs. The
figures were assumed to be children; the object was the mystery.
Later the girls decided that, since no children of the size they had
seen lived nearby, there might be a stranger implication.

Comment:
Essentially, this sighting was a two-witness event with ad-
ditional low-weight corroboration. The lack of independent witnesses
is a weakness for which the marginal corroboration cannot compensate.
Though no physical evidence was discovered that could account for the
sighting, the possibility of illusory elements and distortions of
memory leaves serious doubts as to the accuracy of the account.

537
Case 34
North Atlantic
Fall 1967
Investigator: Levine

Abstract:
Information obtained in telephone interviews of officers of
Canadian Naval Maritime Command and RCMP indicated that an object
bearing several colored lights glided with a whistling noise into
the sea. Search by boats and divers found no debris or wreckage.

Investigation:
On the basis of a report from James Lorenzen (APRO), project
investigators telephoned several sources in the area.
A watch officer at the Naval Maritime Command stated that
reports indicated that an object about 60 ft. long with four lights
on it had gone whistling into the sea; it flashed when it hit, and
a white light remained on the water afterwards, lie stated that the
original report had come from two teenagers, and that the Navy was
searching for wreckage. No aircraft were reported missing in the
area. He mentioned also that sightings had been reported through-
out the year.
A corporal of the RCMP stated that the first report had come
from five young people, 15-20 yr. old, who while driving near the
shore had seen three or four yellow lights in a horizontal pattern
comparable in size to a "fair-sized" aircraft, descending at about
45° toward the water. The witnesses had lost sight of the object
for about ten seconds while passing a small hill; they then saw a
single white light on the water about where they estimated the object
should have gone in. They observed the light while they drove on
about .25 mi., then reported the incident to the RCMP detachment.

538
 Two officers and the corporal had arrived about 15 min. later,
in time to see the light on the water. It persisted about five minutes
longer. Ten minutes after it went out, the two officers were at the
site in a rowboat; a Coast Guard boat and six fishing boats also were
on the scene. They found only patches of foam 30-40 yd. wide that
the fishermen thought was not normal tide foam; the tide was ebbing,
and the white light had appeared to drift with it.
The site of the presumed impact was in between an island and
the mainland, al out 200-300 yd. offshore. Apparently no one actually
saw anything enter the water. However two young women driving on the
island reported that a horizontal pattern of three yellow lights had
tilted and descended, and then a yellow light had appeared on the
water. .Another witness, about two miles from the site, saw a horizon-
tal line of thrs: red-orange lights descending at "aitcraft speed,"
with a whistling sound like a falling bomb. He thought the object
was like an aircraft. It disappeared behind some houses, and the
sound ceased a second or two later.
The RCMP corporal stated that the light on the water was not on
any boat, that Air Search and Re?cue had no report of missing aircraft
in the area, and an RCAF radar station nearby reported no Canadian
or U.S. air operations in the area at the time, nor any unusual radar
object. The night was clear and moonless. A search by Navy divers
during the days immediately following the sighting disclosed nothing
relevant.
f'*

Five days later the Naval Maritime Command advised the project
that the search had been terminated. Tlie watch officer read a report
from the RCMP indicating that at the time in question a 60 ft. object
had been seen to explode upon impact with the water.
The captain of a fishing boat that had been about 16 mi. from the
site of the earlier reports, reported to the project that he and his
crew had seen three stationary bright red flashing lights on the water,
from sundown until about 11:00 p.m. The ship's radar showed four
objects forming a six mile square; the three lights were associated
with one of these objects. At about 11:00 p.m., one of the lights

539
r*'

went straight up. The captain had judged that the radar objects
were naval vessels and the ascending light a helicopter; he had
attached no significance to these observations until he had heard
on the radio of the sightings; he then reported the foregoing
observations to the RCMP. However, since the position he reported
for the objects was about 175 n. mi. from the original site, the
two situations do not appear to be related.
No further investigation by the project was considered justifiable,
particularly in view of the immediate and thorough search that had
been carried out by the RCMP and the Maritime Command.

540
Case 35
South Pacific
Fall 1967
Investigators: Levine, Low, and others

Abstract:
The events began with a visual sighting about 8:00 p.m. of a
stationary object with colored lights over the ocean. Missile-tracking
radars were asked to look for the object; they immediately picked
up many unidentified targets, most of them moving, and tracked them.
Most moving targets permitted radar lock-on. They moved at speeds
up to 80 knots, and sometimes returned very strong echoes. Several
additional visual sightings were reported. Most sightings were made
over the ocean, but some targets appeared to the east and north,
over land. The radar targets were still being observed when the
equipment was closed down about 2:30 a.m. Yet no aircraft were known
to be in the area, and three flights of fighters sent in to inves-
tigate found nothing unusual.
An unusually strong temperature inversion provided favorable
condition1» for both visual and radar mirage effects. Mirages of ships
below >/■ ormal horizon appear to account adequately for the station-
ary or ilow objects. The higher, faster radar targets were consistent
with birds, which tracking-radar operators had not had occasion to
look for before. Similar radar observations were reported on two
subsequent days.

Investigation:
Project Blue Book had notified the Colorado project of this
interesting visual and radar sighting at AFB A. It was also reported
that, in a test three nights after the sighting, it had been estab-
lished that radars at the base could once again observe "bogies"

541
W * ■! ,

similar to those sighted on the night of the original sighting.

Project investigators and others visited the site on two different
dates. On the latter day, the following were present: R. T. H.
Collis, Roy Blackmer, and Carl Herold of Stanford Research Institute;
Marx Brook of New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; Roger
Lhermitte of the Environmental Science Services Administration; and
Low and Levine of the Colorado project. On the first date Low and
Dr. Robert Nathan of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory had visited AFB A.
Observers. The AFB A sightings were exceptional because of
the high professional qualifications of the observers. Two were
officials of the Western Test Range, each having had 17 yr. of exper-
ience as a naval aviator. One of them had 10,000 hr. as an air
intercept and final approach controller; the other also had been an
air intercept controller. A third, who was Range Air Control Officer
on the night of the first sighting had had 11 yr. experience with ground
and airborne electronics systems. Six others were radar operators
employed by private contractors on the base, all of whom had had
extensive experience in radar operation. y displayed impressive
understanding of the sophisticated radar systems they were operating
and good comprehension of radar engineering principles. Another
witness was of the security force, without extensive technical training.
Radars. The following radars were involved in the sightings:
FPS-16 C-band tracking radar with 1.2° beam.
TPQ-18 C-band tracking radar with 0.4° beam.
GERTS X-band tracking and command radar usually used in beacon
mode in which the radar transmission triggers a beacon carried by the
vehicle being tracked but during the sightings used in skin-track mode,
i.e., conventional radar operation in which the target is seen by-
reflected radiation from the transmitted pulse.
M33 X-band tracking radar.
ARCER L-band search radar.

542
 Potails of tlu- siglitings. 2000 to 2045 I'or one-half hour a
missile range official observed from his home an object at azimuth
0
-9ü . lie called another official, also at home three miles to the
south, who confirmed the sighting at azimuth approximately 280° and
altitude 1C8 to 15°. The second observer reported that the object
seen through 7 X 50 binoculars, appeared the size of a large thumb-
tack, elliptical in shape having a red and green lifeht separated by
a distance about the wing span of an aircraft. But the object was
stationary, and fuzzy like a spinning top.
2045 Observer two called Range Control Operations (located at an
altitude of 900-1,100 ft,). The range control officer confirmed the
visual observation. To him it appeared to have white, red, and green
or blue colors that did not vary. They "looked like the running lights
on a stationary object " He gave its bearing as 290°, range, several
miles, altitude approximately 10,000 ft., and suggested that the object
looked like a helicopter.
2045 FPS-16 radar in search mode locked on two strorg targets,
one moving around and one stationary. The stationary target appeared
in the general direction of the visual sighting, but the optical
position was not determined with sufficient accuracy to establish that
this was a simultaneous optical-visual sighting. The original
interpretation was a helicopter, with another assisting.
2100 The range control officer checked for possible air traffic
in the AFB A area with several other air bases. All reported
negatively.
2100 Using its FPS-16 in lock-on automatic mode, base D reported
strong targets headed toward AFB A. Because of the narrow beam of
the radar the targets were presumed to be in line.
2100 TPQ-18 radar at AFP A was brought into operation, and saw
many targets. One, at 8 n.m. range, 4,000 ft. altitude, 290° azimuth,
and 4°.6 elevation proceeded south at low speed. One strong target
approached and went directly overhead. At one time, the TPQ-18 saw

543
four targets. Case D saw as many as eight. AFB A and base D
did not establish that they were looking at the same targets.
Radar observations.
a. Dozens of targets were seen. Speed ranged from 0 to 80 k.
with rapid changes in altitudes. The radars would lose their tracking
"locks" on the objects, and then re-engage.
b. The target that went directly overhead produced an extremely
strong 80 dB signal. Three persons went outside the radar shack, hut
were unable to see any object. On the TPQ-18 radar one of the strongest
targets appeared to separate into eight objects after which it was
necessary to switch to manual to gain control to separate the signal.
c. NORAD surveillance radar at AFB A operates at a frequency
quite different from the tracking radars. It saw no targets, but
its operator reported clutter or possible jamming.
d. Base D reported a target "bigger than any flat-top at
three miles."
e. As the radar activity increased, the number of visual obser-
vations decreased.
Visual sightings (only the most interesting are described).
a. Many objects were sighted, but they declined in frequency as
the radar activity increased.
b. One visual appeared to move toward the observers so alarm-
ingly that one of them finally yelled, "Duck,"
c. One object, dull in color but showing red, white, and green,
moved generally south and finally out of visual range.
d. Another, the color of a bright fireball, moved on a zig-zag
course from north to south. TVo radar operators reported, "The radar
didn't get locked onto what we saw. By the time the radar slaved to
us, the object was gone visually, and the radar didn't see anything...
It looked like a fireball coming down through there. Like a heli-
copter coming down the coast, at low elevation. We got the 13-power
telescope on it." Then it grew smaller and smaller until it disappeared.
Duration 1.5-2 min. Moved only in azimuth. Brighter than a bright

544
star. Like aircraft landing lights except yellower. This sighting
occurred between 0100 and 0200 on the second night. A balloon was released
about this time, and the winds were right to accord with the sighting;
but the weather officer thought it could lot have been a balloon,
because the report did not indicate that the object rose, and a
balloon would have risen at approximately 1,000 fpm.
f. Two oth.r radar operators reported having seen an object that
traversed 45° in a few seconds, "making four zigs and four zags," and
then, after reappearing for one second, disappeared to the north,
2310 Air Defense Command scrambled the first of three flights of
fighters to investigate the situation. The tape of the conversations
with the radar sites and other bases gave evidence of considerable
confusion at this time.
The fighters were handed off to AFB A Range Control by the FAA at a
nearby city and controlled locally. Range Control tried to vector the
fighters in on the bogies, but found it impossible to do so very
systematically. By the time the second flight came in, the controllers
were so busy with the aircraft that they no longer observed any
unidentified targets. They did observe a moderate amount of clutter
in the west and southwest quadrant. None of the fighter pilots saw
anything. One pilot observed something repeatedly on his infrared
detector, but only at distance. As soon as he would close in, the
object would disappear. Another aircraft did "lock-on" to a target
which was found to be a ship.
Weather. The weather officer reported that there was an inversion
layer at 1,800-2,200 ft. (The unidentified targets generally were
reported to be above the inversion). All observers indicated that
the night was exceedingly clear. The project's consulting meteor-
ologist reports:
The following is a summary of weather conditions
surrounding UFO visual and radar sightings near ....
[AFB A] between 7:30 P.M. and midnight on ....
[the date of the first sighting].

545
 BAKERSFELD
O

STA. MARIA

.«.*
1VANOEN8ER6 AFB

STA. BARBARA

OXNARO

o ^^
<^
PT MU6U

I I AM.
IOON
11 AM
SAN NICOLAS

3 P.M.

Figure 4

546
SOURCES OF DATA
Radiosonde and wind data from--
[AFB A, island A, city A]
Surface weather observations surrounding the tines
of sightings from--
[city B, C, D, E; AFB A, B, C; base D]
GENERAL WEATHER SITUATION
In a weather sequence which moved a trough line
and a low pressure center southeastward from north-
western Utah to northwest Texas.... [the day prior to
the firit sighting], a dome of high pressure formed
over the Great Basin and a surge of warm air moved
from northeast to southwest.... Most of the surge
of wann air moved southwestward from the southern
part of the Valley between midnight.... [the
day before the sighting] and 3:00 P.M [the day
of the sighting]. Weather stations near the coast
from [city B] to [city D] all showed abnormally
warm temperatures at a time of day when ordinarily
a sea breeze would have created a cooling
influence.
TOE OVER-OCEAN FLOW OF WARM DRY AIR
Using surface wind data from various coastal
stations it is possible to reconstruct an approxi-
mate pattern of the forward edge of the warm, dry
air which moved out over the ocean from a general
northeasterly direction. For most stations, fairly
strong northeasterly winds were maintained through
11:00 A.M. (see Fig. 4} with northeast winds contin-
uing until 3:00 P.M. at the surface at [AFB B].

547
tPfs" .•-■*,,■mn.ni.,,.„„

The upper wind flow from 1000' to 7000' was

still from an easterly component at [island A]
shortly after 3:00 P.M. By 4:00 P.M. air was
still moving from an easterly component between
3000' and 10,000' over [AFB A]. Near the
surface westerly winds were beginning to move
the warm air back toward the east and south-
east. This air had been cooled and some moisture
had been added during its stay over the ocean.
During most of the afternoon hours the
modified air moved from the ocean back over the
coastal area. Some of the strongest evidence of
the bulge of warm air over the ocean is indicated
by the warm, dry air that moved over .... [city D]
between the hours of noon and 5:00 P.M. With
surface wind directions from 240° through 300°,
temperatures held above 80° with maximum of
90°. A portion of the heating of this air
would have been caused by dynamic heating as
it moved downslope from the .... mountains.
The abnormality of the warm air is indicated
in Figures 5 and 6 by the approximate difference
in air temperatures between 6:00 A.M. and 8:00
P.M. The blue profile of normal.... tempera-
ture [the date of the first sighting] was made
up from long term average maximum and niinimum
temperatures and an assumed sea breeze influence.
The red shaded area indicates the approximate
abnormality of warm temperatures on this day as
warm, dry air moved from land toward the ccean
as compared with typical weather for.... [the
date of the first sighting]. The hatched
area shows the abnormality remaining after the
air had been modified by its path over water.

548
 SANTA MARIA
VANOENBERG AFB

OCT. 6. 1967
90 r- NORMAL
KEY Ü WARM AIR-LAND TO OCEAN
Q MODIFIED AIR-
OCEAN TO LAND
80

70

60
O
UJ
o 50
UJ
OXNARD AFB
SANTA BARBARA
< 90r
|

?80|

70

60

50- ■ - - I L_i I i I 1 I
06 08 10 12 14 16 16 20 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20
HOURS

Fipurc S

549
^••■.«ri-y-'W-i

PT. MUGU LONG BEACH

90r-

O 60
Ul
o
UJ
(T 70

<
K
UJ
Q. 60
2
UJ
i-

50
i I I I I i L_l I i I L_J \ \ I
06 C8 10 12 14 16 18 20 06 06 10 12 14 16 16 20
HOURS

Ticure ('

550
REFRACTION RLSI'ONSl: TO WARM, DRY AIR
When warm, dry air is forced to move from a land
mass out over cooler water it creates a narrow bound-
ary of mixing as moisture is picked up from the ocean
developing small turbulent eddies of cooler, more
moist air near the ocean surface. This is accompanied
by very rapid fluctuations of refractive index. At
the upper edge of the bulge of warm, dry air there
would be another mor»' difuse boundary where some-
what l"ss sharp differences in both temperature and
moisture would be present. However, there would be
corresponding fluctuations in refractive index.
il.c Glossary of Meteorology defines a mirage as
"a refraction phenomenon wherein an image of some
object is made to appear displaced from its true
posit ion...The abnormal refraction response for mirages
is invariably associated with abnormal temperature
distribution that yield abnormal spatial variations
in the refractive index. Complex temperature dis-
tributions produce correspondingly complex mirages."
The layer of warm, dry air above cooler water
from the ocean would have been particularly conducive
to anomalous propagation of any radar unit scanning
the atmospnere at. low angles. A somewhat less impor-
tant segment of the air mass capable of producing
anomalous propag* on on the radar would have been
the upper boundary of the bulge of warm dry air. The
following is quoted from Battan's book on RADAR
METEOROLOGY under the heading of Meteorological Con-
ditions Associated with Non-standard Refraction.
"There are various ways that the index of refrac-
tion can be modified to give rise to anomalous

551
propagation... When warm, dry air moves over
cooler bodies of water, the air is cooled in
the lowest layers, while at the same time mois-
ture is added. In this way strong ducts are
produced. These conditions are frequently
found over the Mediterranean Sea as air blows
off the African continent. Extreme anomalous
propagation has been experienced in this region,
For example, there have been days when centi-
meter radar sets have 'seen' ground targets at
ranges of 40Ü-500 miles, even though the
horizon was at perhaps 20 miles. In confor-
mance with meteorological terminology, super-
refraction brought about by the movement of
warm, dry air over a cool, moist surface may
be called 'advective superrefraction.' By
the nature of the processes involved, it can
be seen that such conditions can occur during
either the day or the night and last for long
periods of time. The duration would depend
on the persistency of the glow patterns
producing the advection."
Figure 7 contains the w^nd and temperature
profiles for ....(island A] and ....[AFB A]
beginning wich release times of 3:15 P.M. and
4:08 P.M. PST respectively on [the date
of the first sighting]. At [AFB A] (shown
by the solid lines of temperature, dew point,
wind direction and velocity) dry air prevailed
for all levels above the surface at 4:00 P.M.
(For the iMest point on the profile, surface
temperatures reported at 7:30 P.M. have been
substituted). The vertical sounding of temp-
erature, dew point, wind velocity and direction
for ....[island A] are indicated by the dashed
lines in Figure 7. Temperatures even waimer
552
 <

7 i I.I i "J^Nl '

553
 thun over . .., [AI-'H A] were reported in the
ascent above ....[island Al. lor emphasis,
the area shaded in red indicaces how much
warmer the temperatures were over ....[island
A] than at .. .. [AFB A] during the mid-aftemoon
hours. Ocean water temperatures betwee '8°
and 59° were being reported, which is consider-
ably cooler than the warm, dry air having temp-
erature in the SO's as it moved from land to
over the water.
CONCLUSION
It is the author's opinion that the surge of
very warm, dry air may have caused a mirage and
visual observations could have been correspond-
ingly distorted in the vicinity of ....[AFB A]
between 7:30 P.M. and 8:30 P.M. It is more
certain that the air mass conditions prevailing
over the water continuing through at least mid-
night in an arc from south of ....[AFB A] swinging
eastward to the coastline could have produced
anomalous propagation echoes on radar. Visibility
observations were generally 12 miles or greater
at all stations and no clouds were reported by
the observer at [AFB A] between 7:00 P.M.
and midnight [base D] reported a few stratus
clouds offshore in the Remarks Column beginning
at 7:00 P.M. continuing through 11:00 P.M.

Evaluation and Conclusions:

Further radar tests. Three days after the first sighting, under
weather conditions similar to the first day but with more wind, more
clouds, and lower temperatures, the FPS-16 radar at....[AFB A] was
operated to determine if similar targets could be seen again. Targets
having the same general characteristics were acquired, but they were

554
not as strong as the earlier sightings. Two other operators, working
unofficially with a different radar, indicated that they observed
"some of the same sort of stuff."
On the night of the investigators' second visit, similar targets
were acquired on the FPS-16 and TPQ-18 radars. The radar experts among
those present (Blackmer, Brook, Collis, Herold, Lhermitte) immediately
requested that printouts be obtained giving information on signal
strength. This information could not be compared with earlier
sightings because the operators had not taken steps to print out the
data from the other observations.
General conclusions. The AFB A series of sightings is remarkable
for two reasons; first, because of the extraordinarily high qualifica-
tions of the observers, and second, because of the availability of
hard instrument data. No other UFO case in the records of the Colorado
project contains so many numbers, representing such quantities as
range, azimuth, elevation, and velocity. Information from which signal
strengths could have been computed also would have been available
had the operators thought to print it out, but they did not. To
relate signal strengths and ranges for these events, it was necessary
to go back to the tape of the conversations and find the reports of
signal strengths, which, when assigned precise times (fortunately,
the tape contained good timing references], could be compared with
the printouts of range, which also included timing refererces. Infor-
mation on the visual sightings was, except for the high credibility of
the observers, comparable to that in other reports of UFO sightings
in the Colorado files: i.e., no reliably measured quantitativ^
values were available from such sightings.
Mirage conditions. The detailed weather study by Loren Crow was
not available at the time of the second trip to AFB A, so that it was
not known at that time that the atmospheric conditions were in fact
ouite unusual. Fig. 7 of the Crow report indicates that at AFB A,
although return air flow at the surface was well established by the
late afternoon of the original sighting, the flow at 2,000 '*. was still
from the northeast, so that a thin sheet of warm, dry air . er the

555
 99* i***"**'*!**'-: * -

cool, moist air. This sheet of air extended southward almost to the
island, where there was return flow from the surface to 3,000 ft., but
easterly flow persisted from 3,000-10,000 ft. There were strong
' gradients of moisture and temperature at both stations. Crow has
pointed out that the temperature and moisture contrasts probably were
^ even greater than those shown, because the surface measurements were
i not made at the surface, but at some distance above it. Altogether
the weather report indicates that conditions were very favorable
indeed for optical flür%e and scintillation and for anomalous radar
propagation.
It should be noted that the incident that set off the entire
sequence of events was an optical sighting at 8:00 p.m. It appears
highly probable that the observer saw the running lights of a ship
below the normal hoii^on, but made visible as a result of mirage.
The conditions for such a mirage were present, but it must be
pointed out that both the first two witnesses insisted emphatically
that the object appeared at an elevation of about 10°. That is too
high for a mirage of a rhip's lights below the horizon. Hence, either
their reports of the elevation angle were incorrect, or some other
explanation must be found. However, even experienced observers tend
to overestimate elevation angles.
A further fact is of interest, and that is that, in the Operations
Control Center on the date of the second visit to AFB A, one of the
operators of a search radar declared that he never saw any ships, that
the snipping lanes were too far off the coast for ships to be seen by
radar from that location, although the antenna was at an altitude of
approximately 1,000 ft. He thereupon switched to his most distant
range (80 mi.) and immediately a sprinkling of blips appeared at extreme
range. They turned out to be ships, their identity conformed by their
slow speed. Since there is no reason to suppose, from a quick study of
weather conditions that night, that anomalous propagation had anything
to do with the observation of ships, it must be concluded that they
could be seen any time. The only reasonable explanation of the
operator's statement that he never saw ships on the scope is that

556
ho hud never looked For thorn. Iloth the oriKinal witnesses indicated
that large ships never were seen visually from the coast, and that
is undoubtedly correct, because they would be below the horizon.
Computations show, however, that, under mirage conditions, the
running lights of ships would be visible at the 80 mi. range the
radars had indicated.
Some of the visual sightings obviously were not of ships. However,
they were impossible to evaluate on the basis of the limited and
subjective descriptions given. In this connection, it is signifies)^
to note the importance of quantitative instrument observations or
records in such investigations. The visual objects could not be
evaluated with much confidence, for lack of definitive evidence; but
abundant quantitative radar records made it possible tc identify most
of the radar targets beyond serious doubt.
Birds, The behavior and characteristics of the unidentified
radar targets appeared to be consistent wth the hypothesis that most
of them were birds. Individual birds would produce signal strengths
consistent with those observed. (The targets observed the night of
the second visit to AFB A, according to calculations made by Dr.
Lhermitte, yielded a radar cross section of approximately 10 cm.2).
The velocities and coherent tracks of the targets also suggested
consistency with the bird hypothesis.
In view of the remarkable inversion conditions on the date of
the original sighting, it is highly probable that some of the radar
targets were effects of anomalous propagation (radar mirages). Temp-
erature and moisture gradients were quite sufficient to produce echoes
from atmospheric discontinuities.
At first, even the radar experts were puzzled by the radar data,
because the remarkably strong echo signals returned by some of the
moving targets suggested much larger objects than birds. Their
confusion was resolved when it became apparent from comparisons of
range dila and concurrent signal strengths that the very strong
signals were always associated with targets at close range. A radar echo

5S7
!

declines In strength proportionally to the fourth power of the

distance of the target from the antenna, so that even a small inrv/'l
at unusually short range can produce a very strong signal. Also, the
pulse power of the tracking radars was mudi creator than that of the
more familiar search radars, and they were normally used to track
relatively distant rockets. Consequently, their use in the unaccustomed
search mode drew attention to the deceptively strong signals from very
near targets.
No attempt had been made during the sightings to associate
ranges and signal strengths. Had someone asked, "When you get an
80-dB signal, what range do you read?" the evening probably would have
ended differently. Future radar operating procedures might very well
provide that, when unidentified targets are causing concern, ranges
and signal strengths be correlated. Apparently no formal procedure
existed at the time of the sightings for use in identifying unusual
radar targets such as insects, sidelobe echoes, anomalous echoes from
object on the ground, etc. In the absence of such a procedure, the
operators involved in this case handled the situation reasonably.

Comments:
Some comments in a letter from Mr. Coll is are
particularly pertinent:
I think that the .... incident could
be a landmark case in the whole area of UFÜ studies.
It combines so many factors. Firstly, the incident
involved a whole complex of issociatod events,
which were reported by the most respectable obser-
vers. It combined mrltiple radar and multiple
optical sightings. It occurred very recently and
a substantial amount of recorded data is available--
i.e., the TPQ 18 radar records and the meteor-
ological data. At least in part, the radar echo
phenomena were repeatable and were observed by

558
 design on subsequent occasions. It was sufficiently
strange to cause interceptor aircraft to be sent off
to investigate it in the heat of the moment, and also
to cause the local and visiting experts considerable
perplexity even in the cool light of day. We thus
have a wonderful opportunity not only to study the
physical nature of tlie incident but also to study the 3
psychological implications of such incidents.
It would seem that most of the inexplicability
of the events in this case (and possibly in many
others) arises not from the facts themselves, (i.e.,
the specific sightings, etc., at any given instant)
but in the interpretation made and significance
attached to them when they were considered in inappro-
priate juxtapositions. The way in which this was
done at the time under operational pressures and
even subsequently provided, in my opinion, a most
important object lesson.
It does indeedl The lesson is that the "flap" could have been
avoided if the radar operators had been acquainted with the kinds
of targets they might pick up in search mode, especially during
anomalous atmospheric conditions. It is unlikely that such a "flap"
wiU occur again at AFB A in such circumstances; but it can happen
elsewhere unless this experience is communicated through
appropriate operating procedures or in some other manner, to other
operators of powerful tracking radars.

55P

-**-
Case 36
South Mountain
Fall ll>o"
Investigator; Wadr.worth

Abstract:
Four indejuMidei't witiu-ssos saw a RlowinR, rapiJly moving object
that was evidently a "firoball" mott'or.

Investigation:
A University Professor in the South Mountain area supplied state-
ments from four apparently independent witnesses of an aerial event for
possible interest.
1. About 9:05 a.m. , a man on a golf course six miles east of the
city saw a glowing yellow and blue-green cylindrical object cross the
sky northward at high speed.
2. .About ^:O0 a.m., a commercial pilot flying about six miles
southeast of the citv saw a glowing vellow and blu"-green cylindri-
cal object tr"vellinp northward on a descending path at very high
speed. It LAploded or deteriorated in midair as it approached the
White Mountain area. He judged it was a meteor.
5. About 9:Ü0 a.m., a rancher and mine-mill worker, north of
town, saw a very bright object travelling at high speed northward
on a descending path. It exploded in the air.
4. About 10:00 a.m. a mining assayer driving west on the
highway six miles east of town saw a cylindrical object glowing a
metallic blue-green as it passed in front of him, travelling north-
ward at high speed.

Sighting Features:
The four sightings are summarized in Table R. The prepon-
derance of similar features indicates a single event. Only in the

560
i

k
 T3
U .f-4 JS M »I O 7)
U « tx <« o (U rt 3
1> i-H ♦J 3 S 0)
0.-H O 4-> rt •'I r-i x;
l-> ♦J a> (fl fl ><
f4 fS ■H B
^■:

o o
■r I/)
in

oded or deter-
orated in air
<fl 4J
^ o l«H -
3 c
O 4) <V TJ
J U ui *J r-l TJ
c ■H 3 — ■)

tr .n i~. r-i o (h -■,

u O -r-t ;v tj »J
-9 <fl
-1 U ,
'"i *. .< 'j ■ 'j
§ M "1 i ■ '\J »J
■n O O (fl < '/ ■a '+4 <*■(
^3 a m n U li o
p.
X I
i I f I

rv O0
r:
-4 4-> -■<

T3 * -a
*-> T3 C "O C O • ' T3 C
t/5 fo C/ I-* til « M 4> k. -t
(fl nl 'j (fl «J <fl o il Ifl (.> 1 .-■
<*-! i IT) S r-t <4-i IA o -»- i m <*H

x: v o JC x: 0) tr, ^ 6
Sr tJ ^ ^ Ä
0) o
r-, «-' TJ
(i
. *-•
u
OJ O 111 o o
s. V.

»1 c
•
0) >< 3 -H oc ra 0 3 0* 3
>> h -^ ft> •—* •"■' .c O (J
3 XI 2 O "O r-l ^ (fl c H
; Otj
«W «<H ^—, C w
^ c >, c »- kl X - C t>
0) n XJD a» o 00 u o
•O -iH T3 OJ n 4-> (4-1 C (Ü ^
C -< O TJ Wi O C £ O ki H a o
H ^4 J3 0» 00 O •H 00 U 00 j -yi u
O
O
u oo u eo i c

o
• o rt "3
E e ui
• a) X • IT) >> (S ~'
,.,
OHO '"->
O 6 O ß a o tJ;
••
a. ^3 #«j
A

oe
c

•J
oe
LO

S('

'
fourth sighting is then- ■•o\uv rvn<oi\ for duuht. The discrepant ic; in
distance ;ind ^izc are hardly significant hecausc siach cstimat'-s ar«-
clvaracteristifal ly inaccurate, lurthor, these arc consistent in that
the ratios of si;c fo distance stimated by witness I and II are
roughly similar. These t^o witnesses were very near each other, and
their accounts are similar except for the one hour discrepancy in
time. However, witness I was pronpted to report his experience by
hearing a report of witness IV's experience on the radio, and so
may have been influenced In- it.
The time discrepancy of oiv hour has not been accounted for. The
preponderance of evidence indie it s an error in the time reported by
witness I\ , but is just as poss hie that two meteoric fragments came
in on similar patterns an hour apart.
Reports of the first and fourth sightings were sent to Dr. Charles
P. Olivier of tht American Meteor Society, who stated that both
accounts showed "every indication of being rather typical daylight
fireball reports."

Comment:
It is concluded that probably a single event was witnessed by
four observers, and that the object was a "fireball" meteor.

56;
Case 37
South Eastern
Fall 1967
Investigators: Craig, Ahrens

Abstract:
Law enforcement officers in several conununities
reported seeing, chasing, and being chased by unidentified bright objects
in the early morning hours on four successive days. One object was
reportedly detected by a ground radar unit while the object was being
pursued by two men in a small aircraft. Pictures had been taken. Lengthy
interviews of observers, including participants in the airplane pursuit,
established clearly that the pursued object was the planet Venus.
Jupiter was also involved in some of the reports.

Background:
Initial reports of an UFO sighting suggested that it was
an event with unsurpassed UFO information content: A large bright object
was seen, that approached as close as 500 ft., and was pursued by reliable
observers in different communities; it had been seen repeatedly on suc-
cessive mornings, and might be expected therefore to reappear while an
investigator was on the scene. The pilot of a light aircraft had reportedly
seen the object rise from the river below while ground observers were
watching it, and had pursued it in vain as it sped away from him; FAA
traffic control radar had allegedly reported that returns from both the
aircraft and the unidentified object had appeared on the radarscope during
the chase. Photographs allegedly had been taken which showed both a bright
object near the horizon during a pre-dawn chase and an apparently solid
"sombrero"-shaped object photographed in a wooded section of the same gen-
eral area by a 15-year-old boy in the afternoon.
The main observers of the pre-dawn phenomenon were law enforcement
officers on duty in 11 communities in the central part of the state.

563
Police officers, sheriff's officers, and highway patrolmen were involved,
sometimes in radio communication with each other during a sighting and
pursuit. The object flod from and then pursued police cars at speeds up
to 70 mph, and came close enough to one police car to light up the interior
of the car so brightly that wristwatches could be read, it also changed color
and shape while under observation,

Investigation:
The most detailed reports, as well as the airplane chase and the
photographs, centered around a town of 11,000 population. Town A.
These reports were investigated by the project team. Reports from the
other towns generally fit into the same pattern, and were assumed to
arise from the same type of observation. Each aspect of the reports was
investigated in turn.
Radar Confirmation:
Recorded conversation between the pilot and the
Flight Control radar operator, indicated the pilot was chasing
an UFO, which he said had risen from the river area below and
was now moving away from him. The radar operator said he had
a target on the scope, which he assumed to be the plane. He
also said he had a second target, seen intermittently for a
duration of about one minute. The pilot was heading at 110 ,
directly toward the object. This direction seemed to be con-
sistent with the assumption that the second target was the
chased UFO. The time was 5:40 - 5:58 a.m., IDT.
The pilot said the object was about 1,000 ft. above him,
apparently over a small town, Town D. On first contact
with the Flight Control, the Cessna was at an altitude of
2,500 ft. climbing as it chased the UFO. The pilot said the
object was a ve^y bright light, which he could not catch. He
could not match its altitude or speed. He said the object
moved toward the ground at times, but maintained an altitude
above them at all times. It moved away when they chased it,
and came back when they turned.

564
 The radar operator said at the time that the target
on his screen was heading at 110 , but he didn't know whether
his target was the airplane or UFO. Later, thinking about
his experience he left word at the radar tower that he wasn't
at all sure he had seen a second target. Contacted later by
phone, the operator stated that he never did identify the
plane, much less a second object. Me had one steady target,
which he assumed to be the aircraft, since it disappeared
when the pilot said he was at 2,501) ft. and returning to the
airport. The intermittent target painted only on two sweeps
in about a minute. This was on an ASR-5 radar (which would
make 10 or 12 sweeps per minute). It was early in tue morn-
ing, the operator was somewhat tired at the time, according
to his own words. He was quick to point out that the "inter-
mittent target" was not a "good paint", and could well have
been a ghost return.
Ground Observation:
Of the numerous law enforcement officers associated with
the reports, one of the police lieutenants, a veteran of 11
years on the force, was asked to describe the sightings. He
had participated in all the sightings reported from his town.
His account of the event follows:
(.First Observation)
A. The object was the closest the first night we saw it.
We first noticed it at 4:36 a.m., EDT Friday, October 20.
At first, 1 thought it was a new street light we had never
seen before, but as we got closer, it began moving away.
We followed the object, which WPS then a bright red, foot-
ball-shaped light, for about eight miles out into the
country. It appeared to be as big as the moon in the sky.
We lost sight of it, and headed back into town.
This object, whatever it was, caught up with us as
we approached the city limits. The other officer started
making a pretty scared sound and pointing out behind us.
That is when I turned around and saw it.

565
 It lit tlu- police cur enough inside to make the
hands on your wristwutch visible. The whole surroundings
were lit up. 1 radioed in that we were being followed by
a flying object. 1 didn't know what it was, but it was
following us. 1 could see the object in the rear-view
mirror, but when wo stopped the car and I go? out, it
veered away ^nd disappeared behind the trees.
After we returned to town and got a third officer
to come out with us, the object had started climbing and
had gotten about twice the height of the tree line. We
observed the object for about JO minutes. It changed
from bright red to orange, then to real white-looking.
The object then appeared to change its shape from round
to the shape of a gruit four-leaf clover.
Our radio operator contacted the officers in lown C.
In a few minutes they radioed back, and said they had the
object in sight. It was to the east of us, apparently
hovering over lown B. From Town C, it was to the west
and appeared to be between lown A and Town B. We
had it between the two of us.
I started back into town, and then is when it started
moving south at a very high rate of speed.

(.QUüSTlÜN: Vou said earlier that it crossed over the top

of the police car. Did it get directly overhead?) No,
sir, 1 didn't mean it came directly over the car. It came
over the wooded area, over the top of the trees, and
appeared right behind the car. 1 would say it was maybe
500 feet behind us and maybe 300 or ()U0 feet high, roughly
guessing. When 1 did stop the car and jump out, 1 did see
it when it went back.

(QUtSTION: What direction were you travelling when the ob-

ject reappeared behind the car?) The car was headed in a
westward direction.

566

!•
 •Hi* »••» ~ «ill

(QIU-STIOH: In what manner diil the object finally

disappear this first niRht that you saw it?) Wc
watched it until it climbed and took a position in
the sky. It climbed to such a height that it
appeared to be a star, and that is where it was
hanging when I not off duty at 7 o'clock and went
home. It sas still visible, and looking like a
star at that time.

(Second Observation)
H. Although the object w.i^ reported from another
town on the morning of (May .'j, it was not seen
that morning in [Town A|, but it was seen here
|on days 1 , A, 1, and S|.
Sunday morning, [Day 3|, 1 believe it was
about ten minutes till two, or ton after two, when
we got a phone call fron a gentleman . . . who was
on the outskirts of town. He said an object had
followed him down the highway. We went out to
look for it, and two objects were clearly visible.
Ihis was the first morning that two objects were
spotted. You can't see the higher object until
the other comes to view, then there appears this
other object directly over it. It appears to be
b ,000 to o,UlH) feet above the lower object. The
second object is as bright as the first, but higher
and smaller.

(QUbSTlON: In what manner did these objects

eventually disappear.') The SKV was clear. When
1 left at " o'clock the two objects were still
hanging in the skv -- way up high.

(.QUtSTlON: Were they staying about the same dis-

tance apart?) Yes. Maybe they had drifted off
some, but not too much. About 8:50 or a quarter to
nine, after the sun had come up, these objects were
still visible, and 1 showed them to rn parents at
th.it time. The ohjects were still there when
I went to bed.
So 7
 PMP i 'ivtr-"*»*"»*'*"'"-! '"■

Ihe lower object looked likt- a piece of floating

tin foil, it looked flat, with a bent place in it. The
higher object was round, and stationary in one place --
it was not bobbing and floating )ike the other one.

(Third Observation)
C, Monday, Day 4. This is the morning the airplane
< went up.
Other people had already spotted it when we went out.
The first object was in view. It was bright, star-like.
While we watched it, the second object appeared through
, the trees -- down and to the left of the first object.
j This was about a quarter to five.
The pilots scrambled to the airport, and went up
after the object. We guided the pilots in to the object --
I
! they had gone past it when they were looking for the object,
and, after they got back into range, we told him where to
look. He said there were hundreds of objects up there --
they were stars, I guess. I turned the police car lights
on to show the direction of the object. When 1 turned him
i directly into it, he said he had it in sight -- he saw it.
I tiiought he didn't see it, because he flew under it.
The object bobbed and moved upward, but did not move
to the side as it was pursued by the plane. I thought, if
it tried to escape the plane, it would move to one side or
the other, but it just moved upward.

(.QULST10N: Did the object appear to get dimmer or smaller,

as if it might be moving away from you and the airplane?)
No, it didn't appear to get dimmer. 1 couldn't tell that
it was moving away from the airplane.

(.QUESTION: How did this object finally disappear?) Again,

it was stil1 hanging in the sky at 7:30, above the city hall.

568 4

i
The Airplane Chase of the UFQ:
The pilot, who flies forest service patrol for the County
Forestry Commission and had some 4,000 hrs. flying time, and a
companion, formerly with the County Sheriff's Department, took
off in a Cessna aircraft shortly after 5 a.m., in an effort to
catch the object sighted from the ground. They were in radio
contact with the [Town A] airport, and through the airport
with the sheriff's officers and others on the ground with
walkie-talkies, as well as with the radar operator at the
Flight Control Center.
The pilot and his associate were interviewed by project
investigators, who wanted particularly to know if they them-
selves had actually observed the object's rising from the river
area below them, as the pilot stated it had in his recorded
radio conversation, or if the statement was a mere repetition
of the claim of ground observers.
The pilot said when they first started looking for the
object, they were looking low, near the ground. One light they
spotted proved to be a yard light. They couldn't find the ob-
ject at first. Ground observers then got word to them that it
was behind them -- they had passed it. They turned back, still
looking low, when the word came "It's above you". They had seen
a light above before, but hadn't paid any attention to it,
apparently assuming it was a star. Now they did see the object,
and started chasing it. "When we flew directly toward it, it
backed off, decreasing in size until it was only about the size
of the head of a pencil. We went up to about 3,500 ft., but it
kept moving higher and away from us."
The pilot was strongly impressed with the great decrease in
the size of the objectas it "receded" from the plane. When he
first spotted the object, it appeared to him one-half to two-thirds
the size of the moon. It decreased to a fraction of its original
size. He said he was awakened about 5 a.m., and they landed the
plane, after giving up the chase, about b a.m. He said the color

S69
vn»«

of the ohji'ct was a constant brilliant white. As they

^ave up the chase and returned to (Town A|, the ohject
moved hack to about its original position, ;ind w;i'.
still there when lie landed.

Keports from otlier towns:

1) Town li, sighting early Sunday, Day 3
As reported in local newspaper«;, a highway patrol-
man at a state patrol station near [Town lij spotted two
UFOs -- one ice blue and about a mile high and the other
one a yellow rectangle-shaped object with a red side
which was about 100 yd. above the trees.
Another [Town E] patrolman there said he chased a
ball of light down a road Just outside [Town I;]. The
object was traveling above tree-top level. According
to the patrolman's report, "It was a good distance in
front of us, pulling away, so we turned around to come
back to town. The object turned on us and followed.
It gained on us and was going about 75 mph. After the
object caught up with us, it pulled into the sky, emit-
ting a beam of bluish light that illuminated the
roadway.''
Newspaper accounts stated also that a [Town I:|
police officer said a dark blue ball chased him and then
hovered over [Town L] until daybreak. (The implication
is that this experience involved a different officer
than the one just mentioned; however, this might be
another reference to the same experience.)

2) Add i t i ona 1 Report s

A patrolman of [Town i;] police department sum-
niari:ed reports of sightings on (Day 1] as follows.
This summary is included as an example of the extent of
the UFO activity [in this area]. All objects described
were noiseless.

570
 UFO Report 0505 hours, Day 1
Lt. A, (Town A] Police Department, reported that
Patrolman B and Patrolman C, [also of Town A] Police
Department, reported sighting a sphere-shaped object
approximately 25 ft. in diameter, red, white flashing
red, green and white lights, traveling south from
[Town L].
[Town D] Police Department reported an object as
above traveling south from [Town I)]. Patrolmen D and
E, [Town G] Police Department, reported sighting four
objects described as above traveling northeast. Patrol-
men F and G of [Town Gj Police Department reported an
object described as above traveling east from [Town G].
Patrolman G from [Town G] Police Department followed
the object east . . .
The County Sheriff's Office reported sighting an
object described as above traveling east.
[Town H] Police Department reported an object
described as above traveling west.
[Town J] Police Department . . . reported an
object described as above traveling east from [Town JJ.
|Town Kj Police Department reported an object
traveling west.
[Town L] Police Department reported two objects -
one traveling south and one traveling east.

Relevant Information
During the period [days I-5| Venus had a magni-
tude of -^.2; Jupiter's magnitude was -1.5. Venus rose
about 2:50 a.m. local standard time. Jupiter TOSL' about
40 min. earlier, the time difference varying a few min-
utes each day. The tremendous brightress of Venus made
its appearance spectacular, and it had been the cause
of numerous UFO reports across the country for weeks
prior to these dates.

571
'.WflM-,-.■•,■ JTIHWBWWI '«I

The niuun which was full IS days later, was shining in

the western sky during the early morning Laurs. The bright
star Capclla aUo could be seen to the west ^northwest) dur-
ing the early morning hours.

Analysis ot the UFÜ Observations

Ihe fact that the UFO's reappeared each any during
early morning hours suggested immediately that the sightings
miv;lit be related to the earth's rotation, liming with the
appearance of Jupiter and Venus to the cast, and the fact
that most reports showed the WV or UFOs to be to the east,
made the investigators suspect immediately that the appear-
ance of \enus, plus suggestion and unfettered imagination,
might account for most, perhaps all, of the ül-'Ü reports in
tins series. Sleepiness and fatigue also could have been
significant factors, since some police officers involved had
been working double shift.
Initial checks showed the radar confirmation of the
presence of the UI-'O to be so tenuous as to be essentially
non-existent.
The airplane pilot revealed that he had not actually
observed the Ul-Os "rising from the river area," but had
merely repeated the claims of ground observers that it had
done so. Mis description of the chase fits nicely with the
hypothesis that he was chasing a planet. The apparent reces-
sion of the object, with apparent diminishing si:e, could
be accounted for by his rising above a haze layer which, by
dispersion of light, caused a magnified appearance of the
planet when he was at a lower altitude (See Section VI,
Chapter JJ . All reports indicated a heavy mist or ha;e did
exist over the river area each morning when the Ul-Os were
observed.
When the investigators suggested to the pilot that he
might have been chasing the planet Venus, and explained the
reasons for its unusual appearance, the pilot felt that this
might possibly have been the case.

si:
 A- tor j rui'Mtl obscrviil IOIIN, hesiUcs daily TcapjnarKi;iv* .
the tact that the object or objects each day event'ialv coo^
a poMtiou in the sky and locked like stars was taken as tn-
tiriiiation that the 'iFüs indeed were planets. The positions
they eventually "took in the sky" were the positions known
tc IK' occupied at the time by Venus and Jupiter. The police
(uscrvcrs were ••hown the planet Venus during late morning
hours. (Venus was qui'e visible during ths day during this
period, bu'. ^a.- noticed fnly n "... ^^ew precisely inhere to
look.) Ihey all agreed that the appearance v*as the -ame as
th.'ir UFO after it "took its position" after sun-up.

Loiu lus ion;

Ihe conclusion '.hat the reported Ul-Os were misinter-
pretations of sightings of planets, particularly of Venus,
seems not only tenable but imperative.

1'hotographs:
The series of photographs taken during a pre-d.»wn chase showed
a light nea» the eastern horizon, and was not of special interest.
The other pair of photographs, showing an apparently solid object,
shaped much like the outline of a sombrero, suspended over a clear-
ing in the woods, was taken by a lone 15-year-old boy who had taken
his Polaroid camora into "lie ^oods to hunt UFOs. His hunt had been
successful, and he got two pictures of the object before it tlcw
av»ay. His pictures apparently were taken with the sun shining
directly t)n the camera lens, diffusing light onto the film and
causing the UFO image to appear in very poor contrast with the back-
ground.
The photographs were examined by l>r. K. K. Hartmann who com-
mented that while the lack of contact made the appearance consistent
with the claim that the object was at a considerable distance, the
poor quality of the photographs prohibited significant quantitative
tests. The photographs themselves were thus not of high enough

S73
' WM«* ' ' -*■$>%**<■, ;

quality to allow determination of the size or distance of the object

photographed. It is believed that the object photographed had no
relation to the object pursued in the pre-dawn activity.

Conclusions:
It seems quite clear that the UFO excitement was caused
primarily by the planet Venus.
The case serves to illustrate the extreme elaboration which can
develop from misinterpretation of a natural and ordinary phenomenon.
Suggestion, coupled with common visual effects which are not familiar
to or understood by the observer (.see Section VI, Chapters 15 2.), frees
the imagination, to produce the kinds of observations described in this
case.
The case also illustrates the appecwanae of motion of a stationary
distant object, particularly that caused by the motion of the observer;
the magnifying effects of haze scattering and neai-horizon observation;
and scintillation of a light near the earth's horizon.
The rapid attrition of supporting information which the initial UFÜ
sighting reports included also is demonstrated impressively in this investi
gation. The case illuminates the inadequacy of current education regarding
fundamental astronomy and atmospheric physics.

574
Case 38
North Kastern
Fall 1%7
Investigators: Ahrens, Craig

Abstract:
Over 800 sightings of UFOs were claimed in the North East region.
The sightings, most of which could be attributed to aircraft lights
and stars, were largely stimulated by individuals engaged in UFO
"research." No evidence was offered to support claims of close sighting
of manned saucers, footprints, and saucer "nests."

Background:
Sightings of UFOs were reported almost every night at a small
town, location B, seven miles SW of location A. The sightings were
purportedly made by dozens of persons, some of whom allegedly had seen
50 or more UFOs, many of them in a single night. A total of over 800
sightings, was claimed in the vicinity by Mr. A, local resident and
observer, and Mr. B, who claimed to be investigating on behalf of a
civilian UFO research organization. Besides getting radio and newspaper
publicity for the events, these individuals had arranged public meet-
ings to discuss UFOs. At one such meeting, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, two
Air Force representatives from a nearby airfield, and four news repre-
sentatives were present, along with several dozen interested local
people.
Most sightings were of the moving-light-in-the-sky type. A
notable exception was the report by two boys, aged 10 and 12, that they
observed at close range a "flying saucer" in which they saw two occupants,
Another exception involved a report by a 55-year-old woman residing
a few miles from location B. She stated that she had observed a large
glowing light behinü her house. The next morning, she found a "saucer
nest" in the cattails where she had seen the light, according to her
account. In another locality, Mr. A claimed to have taken a photograph
of a strange footprint, as yet undeveloped.

575
»

Investigation:
Project investigators interviewed 12 witnesses, and spent a part
of each of three nights on a hill on the outskirts of location B, the
locale of most of the reported sightings. Discussions with persons
familiar with the situation brought out the following facts:
1. The region lias a high density of commercial airplane
flights, at both high and low altitude.
2. A charter air service operating out of the airport at
location A has four planes equipped with the relatively
new stroboscopic anti-collision light, on these planes,
this light is mounted on top of the tail fin and can be
seen in all directions other than directly below. The
light emits 50-bO seven-second falshts/min at an intensity
of 2 x 106 candlepower. it« use is under the control of
the pilot. Mr. Allen Hayes, operator of the charter service
said that his planes frequently fly around the area at
night. Many pr ate planes land at location A; a route of
several commercial lines pass ofer this area also. Mr.
Hayes felt certain that anti-collision lights on his and
other planes were responsible for many of the local UFO
reports.
3. The sheriff's office advised that the Asplundh Tree
Expert Company had perhaps been flying helicopters at night
along the power lines for an electric and gas corporation
checking for corona discharge along the lines and sparking
from lines to vegetation. Since aerial observation of such
an operation could conceivably result in UFO reports, the
information was checked. It was found that although this
company uses helicopters to spray defoliants along the power
lines, the work is done during daylight hours, and had not
been conducted within the past two months.
4. Local state police were interested in the UFO reports.
State Trooper Eisenberg had responded to a call from Mr. A,
had found him and several youngsters with blankets over their

S76
 heads, peering from under the blankets to look for UFOs. The
trooper observed with them for a time, watched their excitement
as they saw "another one," which he also observed. Trooper
Eisenberg was certain he and the others were looking at an air-
plane.
5. Mr. John Levy, Assistant Manager of location A's Chamber of
Commerce and occasional reporter for a newspaper in a nearby
city, said he went out one evening to observe the UFOs with
Mr. A, Mr. B, and the interested local youngsters. While he
was there, the others saw three "UFOs", two of which he could
identify as airplanes by the sound of their motors. Mr. A
has insisted that were were noiseless and therefore not airplanes.
(No noise whas heard when the plane lights were first sighted).
The third "UFO" was silent, and looked to Mr. Levy like a
satellite.
During the investigators' observations, only airplanes and stars
were seen. The first two nights were overcast with intermittent snow
flurries. On the third night the sky was clear. A project investi-
gator accompanied Mr. A, Mr. B, and one of their friends to the hill
outside of location B for observation, while the other investigator
remained at the hotel to receive incoming telephone calls.
During the early evening, two calls were received which reported
that an UFO was being observed at the time, still hanging in the sky.
The UFO he now described was the bright star Sirius. After the sug-
gestion that this might be the case, he phoned back to agree that he
had been looking at Sirius. One caller was a high school teacher who
had reported earlier a light-in-the-sky sighting that might have been
an airplane.
The sky observation party returned to location A later in the
evening. The project investigator reported that when Sirius rose over
the distant trees as he and the others were watching on the hill, his
companions also immediately called Sirius one of the UFOs. They
watched it change color, particularly when it was low in the sky. Only
after ^ome time did they agree that this "UFO" was a star.

S77
 A few minutes later, a phone call reported another sighting.
Mr. B spoke to the woman, and, after short conversation, excitedly
handed the phone to a project investigator, declaring: "The woman is
seeing an object which is spewing out green, white, and red beams . . . ."
Additional comment indicated the object had emitted glowing red globs
and was now hovering near the woman's home. The location described again
was that of Sirius. The woman was told there that the star should
appear relative to the constellation Orion, and was asked if it possibly
could be this bright star she was observing. She did not accept this as
a possibility, and relayed information to her daughter for checking,
before going into a discussion of other UFO activity in the area. After
this review, she was again asked about the hovering object she had
originally reported. Her response was,"Yes, I guess we've been bamboozled
again. I guess that it is just the star."
Investigation of UFO reports that involved other than lights in the
sky revealed the following :
1. The "strange foot print" which reportedly was photographed
by Mr. A (photo still in camera) wab described and sketched by
him. nie sketch was the size and shape of a bear track.
2. A daylight search of the small swamp where the "saucer nest"
in the form cf a 30-ft. diameter area where "cattails and been
squashed down and found to lie in a clock-wise spiral pattern"
revealed no evidence of existence of such a "nest." This search
took place several weeks after the event, and it could be argued
that the "nest" had been disturbed in various ways to make it no
longer obvious.
The woman who made this report is employed in local government
service, and impressed interviewers as sincere and intelli^int. According
to her testimony, she told her sons (aged lb and 22) ihe night of the
observation, about seeing the glowing object behind the house during
their absence. They were incredulous and she did not tell anyone about
finding the "saucer nest" the next morning until some three weeks
later, after the report was circulated that the hoys had s^en a saucer

578
 with occupants. The 16-year-old son of this woman said he had never
gone out to look at the saucer nest, even after his mother reported
it existence.
Kith frequent prompting from Mr. B, the 10 and 12-year-old boys in
location l> told project invest ;gators the story of their sighting.
> recordiiit: of an earlier account by the boys was not entirely
insistent kith the new account and the taped accounts suggested that
Mio of questioning itself was developing the story.
A. vOi Jinc. to tlie boys, they saw a large saucer- 1 ike object which
lio\ i red L'otween a tavern-restaurant and an adjacent house across t!ic
street from the younger boy's home. Hie object tilted up, and they
two occupants In a window on its near side. Instrument control
panels with red and white lights were visible through the window. The
object disappeared after about two minutes, movinu upward before vanishing
sudden Iv.
There were no other observers. The reported event happened on the
main street of this small towr (location B) at about 9:30 p.m. Three
dogs were said to have been howling strangely because of the object's
presence. The 12-year-old locked at his watch during this sighting to
see what time it happened, according to his account. Discrepancies in
the report, resemblance of the reported object and occupants with those
pictured in a TV serial, and the prior association of the boys with Mr. A
and the group of youngsters he influenced created serious doubts that
the described event was real.
After the visit of the project team, a reported discovery of four
mysterious clearings on a densely wooded hillside near location A was
presented in the magazine section of the local newspaper as tangible
evidence that "saucers" had landed or hovered there. In circular or
elliptical areas, from 100-150 ft. in diameter, the trees had all
fallen. Some were uprooted, others broken off near ground level. Strange
lights were reported to have been seen over the wooded area several
months earlier.
A copy of the magazine, showing photographs of the areas of forest
damage, was sent for comment to Mr. C. A. Shields, Director, Division of

579
Administrative Management, bnited States Forest Service. He sent our
request to Dr. Carl E. Ostrom, Director, Timber Administrative Management
Division, who offered several possible explanations as accounting for
the circular patches of damage: 1) A tornado touching down briefly at
several places in the forest; 2) Islands of damage caused by heavy ice
or snow. This kind of damage occurs to red and jac'. pine in the Northern
Lake States; 3) Patch-like infestations of Fames annosus, a root rotting
organism that destroys supporting roots even though the trees remain
green; and 4) Pine root-collar weevil, an insect that partially girdles
the stem just below the ground line, giving rise to patches of timber
collapse.
Dr. Ostrom considered the mort likely explanation to be 2) above,
perhaps superimposed on stands already weakened by 3) or 4). This area
occasionally receives heavy ice and snow storms.
The claimed connection between the areas of forest damage and UFO
sightings was extremely nebulous. Since there are natural, ordinary
explanations for such patches of damage, it seems most logical to attribute
the damage to them.

Conclusion :
The li-'hts-in-the-sky UFO reports apparently were caused by the
suggestion and influence primarily of two individuals. Most, if not
all, of these reports can be attributed to airplanes and stars.
One housewife testified that she and her husband saw what appeared
to be airplanes, except that they were soundless. Yet, she could not
believe there could be that many airplanes in the sky around location B
on a given evening. On the other hand, she was quite willing to believe
there could be that many flying saucers from outer space around her
city.
This case stands out as an extreme example of the extent to which
UFO excitement can be generated by one or more individuals in an oridnary
community, where ordinary events are occurring.
Those reported sightings involving more than lights-in-the-sky
were made by people who also were members of or close to the group

S80
 , .,,... *..„. —.-f«t»

activity stimulated by Messrs. A and B. There appeared to be little

convincing evidence that these sightings involved objects that were
physically real.

581
I !

Case 39
South Pacific-
Fall 19b7
Investigator: Craig

Abstract:
A businessman reported that his automobile had been stopped
by an UFO lie observed while driving alone in a rural area. The case was
checked as a possibk source of information regarding «.lectromagnetic
effects of UFOs. Comparison of the magnetic pattern of the automobile
body with that of another car of similar make and model showed the
businessman's car had not been exposed to a strong magnetic field
The case, therefore, apparently did not offer probative information
regarding UFOs.

Background (.as received from members of a MCAP affiliate);

In Fall of 1967, a business executive was driving alone in a
19b4 Chrysler convertible in a remote region of the South Pacific area, when at
5:50 or 4:Ü0 a.m. his car stopped, the lights went out, and the radio
went dead. He reported feeling strong pressure exerted from above,
pressing down on his hoad and shoulders, lie then saw, through a break
in the fog in which he had been driving, an unidentified object that
moved over his car and hovered over the highway ahead. it now lit
up the roadway and area about him. The object was about 30 ft. in
diameter, saucer-shaped, red-orange in color, and hazy in outline, fts
altitude was estimated at 160 ft. The object had rotating lights, and
wobbled as it moved and hovered. The witness viewed the object for
about 90 sec. before it took off into the fog ahead. His headlights
and radio then came back on, and he was able to rc-start the car. It
ran unevenly for a few seconds, sounding as if one or two cylinders
were not firing. It then operated normally.
The witness was extremely frightened by the experience, ile drove
immediately to the nearest town, even though it was a short distance
off his route home, lie said he had an urgent desire to be where
there were other people, lie met a milkman, and told him of the
experience. No cafe was open, and the milkman directed him to
another town, on the witness' original route, where he could get
a cup of coffee. He stopped at the cafe and related his experience
to a waitress there, who knew him.
He afterward decided, for business reasons, it should not become
known that he had reported seeing an UFO, and he told his story to
MCAP and project investigators only after firm assurances that
he would not be identified.

Investigation by NICAP:
NICAP investigators checked the witness' car for evidence of
unusual residual effects. They found the clock had stopped at 3:46
a.m., and was still stopped (the witness said the clock had been
running O.K.). They found the paint loose and easy to rub off a
spot on the hood, and a strange pitting in both paint and glass.
A radiation check on the car showed beta-gamma readings of .01 to
.02 mr/hr, which seemed slightly higher to them than readings
similarly taken on another car owned by the witness. They felt
also that stereotapes which were in the witness' car at the time
of stoppage by the UFO had lost fidelity, particularly in the low
notes. They also noted areas of unusual optical distortion in the
back window as if it had been damaged by its exposure to UFO effects.

Investigation by Colorado Project:

The witness' description of his UFO experience was tape-recorded,
and his car examined. The witness then drove the project investigator
to the UFO site in the Chrysler and he re-enacted his experience of
five days earlier.
"Hie witness was an apparently successful businessman in his
forties, seemingly proud of his achievements and particularly proud
of his family. His story was basically as told earlier, except for

583
distance to the object and estimated size of the object. He now estima-
ted the object as probably 55 ft. in diameter, and pissing 50 or 75 ft.
over his automobile, lie still described it as a flowing orange-red
object, with noticeable fluttering and rotation.
The automobile was a luetallie-silver 1964 Chrysler convertible.
The witness bought it as a used car in 1965.
Several areas wore noted where the paint was extremely thin,
particularly along body ridges and on an area about six by 12 in.
on the left side of the hood. Pitting of the paint was evident in
this and other areas of the hood. 'he pitting of the paint was fairly
extensive; it appeared to the investigator to be the result of long-term
corrosion. On the whole, the paint condition was not unusual for a
four-year-old ear. \s for the thinness of paint, an automobile dealer
has pointed out that it i^ not unusual to receive a car from the
factory with a spot almost entirely missed in the painting operation.
The back window, which was said to have been only three nonths
old, did exhibit areas of sharp distortion. Its appearance was almost
identical with that of the back window in another 1964 Girysler
convertible that was examined later on a used car lot. Perhaps the
witness* window was newer than the one with which it was compared;
but it had been subjected to summer use in an area where temperatures
of 120° or more are common.
No radioactivity above normal background was found on or in the
car.
The clock was stopped at ^:46. The witness had not noticed the
stopped clock until the NICAP representatives mentioned the significant
agreement with the time f his UFO sighting. He was not certain the
clock had been running the day before the UFO experience, but though
it probably was. He was sure it "used to run." Since the automobile
clock is spring driven, and only wound by electric current (it con-
tinues to run if the line to the battery is disconnected), electro-
magnetic effects whirh might conceivably stop cars and car radios
would perhaps not be expected to stop such a clock.

584
 I
Tht AM radio operated normally. The FM was not operative five
days later, but hummed loudly across the entire tuning range. The
witness said he normally had good reception from several FM stations
in this area. According to his story, he had tired of listening to
recorded tapes and had switched on his radio (probably FM) shortly
before the UFO sighting.
The project investigator was particularly concerned to determine
whether the magnetic signature (characteristic magnetic pattern) of
the Chrysler body had been altered as by subjection to a strong
magnetic field. A Brunton pocket transit was used for a crude test
for magnetic signature change. Readings were recorded for selected
spot samplings of points on the hood, loft fender, and trunk deck.
These readings later were compared with readings at corresponding
point? on a 1964 Chrysler convertible in Boulder, Colo. The readings
were as follows, for points indicated on the sketch (top views
shown) :

Table b
front
A II S J iVX \k
1
B
J
K
D
L
L hood and left fender
M
F
N
G 0
i-chrome strips, separating hood from
1 i
fender --

front edge of trunk deck

} 18"
45 678 10 11 12
}
}

left rear deck right

S8S
 Table 7
Comparative Magnetic Signature Readings
for Two 1%1 Chrysler Convertibles

Position Car X Car R Position Car X Car B

A 0 20 u 320 320
B 00 00 V 300 310
C 110 00 w 330 280
ü 70 100 X 40 40/80*
E 9$ 80 Y 30 10
r -o '0 -7
345 340
L; 40 SO AA 340 340
11 330 330 1 0 300
i 300 300 2 60 110/0*
J 290 3 110 **
K 285 285 4 80/20* **
L 290 200 5 0 0/180*
M 500 300 0 355 290
N 340 7 15 240/310*
n 555 350 8 0 0
r 545 310 9 2 70 270
J 20 0 10 293 260
R 345 340 11 0 0
S 340 33S 12 100 100
i 520 320
* IVhen two numbers arc shown, a very small variation in front-to-
back distance gives markedly different compass readings.

** A visible dent was present in this area on car B. Magnet read-

ings were sporadic around the ilentcd area.
Note: The numbers given arc raw transit readings taken with the
car, in each case, headed at a magnetic bearing of 160°. The read-
ings were taken by pointing the main transit sight to magnetic north,
and reading the compass while holding it next to the car body at
the designated point. Since the transit is designed to read the
bearing of a sighted object, and the sight is aimed north in these
measurements, the readings shown are the 300° complements of
compass-needle bearings. Because comparative readings for two cars
made the same year at the same factory were all that were of interest,
the data were compared without correction.

586
 Snmc points of sharp change in magnetic orientation may have
displayed that change because of structure beneath the hood. How-
ever, the comparison car did show readings very similar to those of
the witness' car throughout, including corresponding points of
sharp change. Even with this crude check, it appears reasonably
certain that his Chrysler had experienced no reorientation of its
magnetic signature, as one might expect if the car had been subjected
to a strong magnetic field.

Miscellaneous Comments:
The milkman told the NICAP people that the witness had told
him about the UFO about 3:30 or 3:45 a.m., on the date of the reported
sighting. Both he and the cafe waitress said the witness was scared, but
not intoxicated when they talked with him.
The witness claimed that his experience had made him both
religious and a UFO believer. He was afraid to return to the site
of his experience, and said he would avoid this area in the future.
In attempting to re-enact his experience at the site, he experienced
moments of apparent illness or dizziness, for which he apologized,
and waited briefly to regain his composure. Three NICAP people and
the Colorado investigator were with him when he returned to the site.
When they suggested that they leave in the opposite direction for
their return to the city, while he would return in his Chrysler to
his home, he asked them to accompany him to the highway intersection
2.6 mi. away, as he did not want to be in the area alone.
There are serious discrepancies in the witness' story. The
most serious involves the distance and location of the object.

S87
NICAP people previously had asked him to show how big the object
appeared by indicating how much of a ruler held 24 in. away would
have matched the diameter of the object. His rcspoaic was 9.5 to
10 in. When describing the event to the CU investigator in his
house, the witness said the object filled his whole windshield, and
was 50 or 75 ft. away. During the reenactment at the site, he
decided the object had not come directly overhccTl but had come in
from the right side, hovering over the load at a point he indicated
by the positions of approaching cars and trucks. This point was
measured to be Ü.2 mi. away. He said the object was as wide as the
road (33 ft.). At the indicated distance, such an object would
subtend less than an inch on the ruler held 24 in. away. He was
then asked to sketch on his windshield with a wax pencil the out-
line of the object as he had seen it. (His car was parked where he
said it had been stopped.) He sketched a football shape four inches
long. His eyes were 18 to 20 in. from the windshield while he
sketched.
His description of the object war extremely vague.
The highway ahead at the point of reenactment was bearing about
110°. When he arrived with the investigators at the site, however,
he was not sure which straight section of highway he had been on
when he saw the UFO. lie decided the 110° section must be it. Had
he chosen the section on the other side of a curve just passed, the
highway bearing would have been almost directly east.

Conclusion
Because of the vagueness of the witness' description of the
"object," the wide inconsistencies in his estimates of its size and
distance, the fact that no one else observed the alleged event, and
the fact that the car body did not s; ^w evidence of exposure to
strong magnetic fields, more detailed investigation of this event
as a source of evidence related to the electromagnetic effect on
automobiles did not seem warranted.

588
Case 40
South Mountain
Fall 1967
Investigator: Aver

Abstract:
A li(?ht witnessed and photographed from a mountain slope was
analyzed by rough photometry and reference to a map of the area.
It was attributed almost certainly to headlights of a surface
vehicle in the valley.

Background:
1\*o young college men decided to watch for UFOs over a valley
from the flank of a mountain peak. Tn the evening, they drove off
a highway east of city A, north on a road about 0.75 mi. past a ranch
access road, then turned east on a dirt road about 0.5 mi. up the slope
of a mountain. There they set up their camera on a tripod. It was
a Yashica-D with 80-mm lens, 2.25 by 2.25-in. frame, loaded with
Eastman Tri-X film. The moon was high and the sky clear.
About 1:20 a.m., a white light appeared in the valley to the
west, apparently above the valley floor but below the line of lights
that marked a well travelled highway on the valley floor. About 1:30
a.m., while the light was still stationary, two photographs were taken
with exposures of 40 and 80 sec. Later the light moved northward at
both low and high speeds, then returned to its starting point. Its
apparent path is shown in Fig. 8.

Investigation:
The latest, unpublished Geological Survey map indicates that
the altitude of the camera site was about 7,800 ft. From this
and other known altitudes, it was deduced that the line of sight
to tne UFO intersected the valley floor about seven miles from the
camera. The camera position was almost due east of city B, which lies
in a vallev between a mountain to the south and other mountains to the

589
ncrth. These features can be approximately identifieH on the
photographs. They indicate that the bearing of the UFO from the
canera was 290°.
The positions am.' lengths of the star tracks, corrected for the
camera motion apparent on the longest exposure, indicate that the
first exposure was roughly three times as long as the second, and
that the reported exposure times were approximately correct. A
vertical microdensitometer tracing of the region to the right of
the edge of the disc of the UFO spot on the 80 sec, exposure indicated
substantial illumination of the valley floor, suggesting that the
light was on a vehicle on the ground.
The eye usually can distinguish two objects having an angular
separation less than one minute of arc, or about ten feet at seven miles
This limitation would explain why the boys saw only one light, even
though the source may have been a pair of headlights. Application of
Rayleigh's criterion for resolving power to the camera lens indicates
that if of excellent quality it could have resolved headlights at
any stop opening greater than f/12; presumably it was used wide open.
However, the two headlight images would have been only 8.6 u
apart on the camera film. Tri-X film is rather coarse-grained; the
manufacturer's specifications indicate that it cannot register separate
image details, even with poor efficiency, unless they are at least
15 u apart. Contrast effects between bright headlights and the
dark background would further reduce the resolution on the film.
It seems clear that a pair of headlights could not have been dis-
tinguished from a single light in the photographs. A horizontal densito-
meter trace showed three shallow peaks of unequal height, but the
separation of the two greater ones was roughly ten times the ex-
pected value for headlights. The shallowness of the peaks suggested
they might be artifacts.
The intensity of the unknown source was determined approxi-
mately from the geometry of the situation and the density of the

S90
image of the source on the film. If we call the intensity of the
source I, the light flux from the source into the camera lens F,
the area of the lens opening A, and its distance from the source R,
then F = lA/R". Absorption and other losses in the lens reduce this
flux by a factor T, estimated as 0.8. The remaining light flux falls
on an image spot of area at the film. Therefore, if J is the illum-
ination at the image, Ja = TIA/R".
The lens opening is assumed to have been f/3.5, or 2.28 cm.
diameter. The diameter of the image spot on the 40-scc. negative
was determined from a densi tom.'ter trace as 0.4 nun. Ihe density of the
image spot, corrected for hackgiound, was 'S.I. The H-l) curve pub-
lished by I'astman for iri-X film with antihalation base, developed
s^ven minutes in l)-76 at 86 F., shows only the toe and straight section.
If the exposure is determined by a linear extrapolation of the straight
section, a minimum value if the illumination results, namely 4.0
meter-candles.
If the preceding equation for the intensity I of the unknown
2
source is solved with these data, I = JaR /TA = 197,000 candlepower.
However, this equation has assumed implicitly that the unknown source
was radiating uniforml) in all directions. Since headlight beams
are concentrated in the forward direction, the result above must
be reduced by the ratio of the solid angle effectively filled by
the headlight beam to that of the full sphere. Since the distribution
of light in the beam is not uniform and depends on the individual
headlight design and condition, no accurate correction of this re-
sult is possible. It can only be noted that the solid angle effectively
filled by a headlight is roughly .05 to 0.1 of the full sphere, re-
ducing the conputed source intensity to an estimated 10,000 to 20,000
candlepower. Further uncertai'ities occur as to whether the assumed
headlights were pointing directly toward the camera, and in estimating
the source distance, lens stop used, and illumination of the film.
Maximum intensities of the high beams of automobile head-
lights lie in the range l.s.OOO to 50,000 candlepower. The results

5^1
 SAND
DUNES

KING D
RANCH MOUNT BLANCA
PEAK

U.S. 160

ALAMOSA

BLANCA

8
PlfUW

592
of the photometric computation of the source intensity therefore
arc compatible with automobile headlights, though subject to broad
uncertainties.
The following hypothesis can now be advanced: a vehicle,
probably 4-whoel driven, moved in the valley along a path similar to
that shown in Fig. 8 . No wheeled vehicle can move cross-country
in the valley because of the ubniuitous stiff vegetation: but a
map of the area shows crud». roads or sand tracks that approximate
the path described hy the l>oys. These roads are blocked by barbed-
wire fences along the section lines. Stopping to open take-down
gates in these fences accounts for the interrupted progress of the
UFO. The fading of the original light is explained by the change in
direction of the vehicle, and 'he appearance of a red color by the
coming in view of a tail-light
The UFO was reported to iiave moved toward the boys at high
speed. The segment AB of the path marked on fig. 8 is a straight
black-topped road, in the valley with a sufficient "toward" com-
ponent to correspond to the analogous part of the track in Fig. 8.
Finally, the statement that the UFO returned to its starting
point is made plausible by the circuitous pattern of roads and tracks
shown on maps of the area.
Many questions remain, not the least of which is: how is
it that such a brigiit light suddenly appeared in the middle of a
vast oxpai.se of scrub, and what were the occupants of the vehicle
doing at that hour? Perhaps they were trying to jack-light deer
(.out of season) or rabbits. Since such a pursuit was illegal,
the hunters would have chosen a late hour to avoid being seen.
Thanks are due Dr. lilmo Bruner of Laboratory Atmospheric and
^pace Physics for making the densitometric measurements.

593
Case 41
South Lastern
Winter 1967
Investigator: Levine

Abstract:
A small bright object that divided into three parts was probably
a weather balloon.

Background:
A meteorologist had stepped outdoors about 8:00 a.m. F.ST to make
an observation when he noticed a small bright object high in the sky.
He and two other witnesses observed that object through binoculars and
with the unaided eye. The ohect was observed five minutes against
clear sky, and then approximately seven minutes through thin cirrus
clouds.
The object split into apiarently three pieces when it was directly
overhead. These there objects were observed for a short period; then
two of them disappeared. The uhject had moved through an arc of .30°
in about 12 min.
During the sighting, the High Altitude Control at an ARTC center
indicated that they could not detect the UFO on radar.
A radiosonde balloon had been launched by the U. S. Weather Bureau
4S mi. west of the sighting at b:2S a.m. tS'i. The balloon persisted
umtl ".59, when it was at an altitude of SO,600 m, and a slant range
of 85,100 mi. east. The horizontal range of the balloon was about 4S mi
11)0 winds aloft at 80,000 and 90,000 ft. were from the east and
inconsistent with the reported direction of motion. The winds at
lower altitude were generally from the west, and therefore consistent
with the eastward drift of the balloon.
If the observed object was at an altitude of 100,000 ft. the
observed angular displacement of 30° in 12 min. implies a speed of

594
 •*

about 20 mph. This is comparable with the reported wind speeds at

similar altitudes: 80,000 ft., 20 knots; 90,000 ft., 8 knots; 100,000
ft., 6 knots.

Conclusion:
The weather Bureau stated that when such a balloon bursts, it
splits into several parts which quickly disappear; then a parac
is deployed. This action fits the appearance of the UFO. The
coincidence in time and location suggests that the witness had ob-
served the balloon.

595
Case 4J
North Central
Fall 19b7
Investigators: Craig, Ahrcns, staff

Abstract:
A state trooper, on duty since 5 p.m., was cruisini', tlu-
outskirts ot" lus small mulwestern town alone at 2:7,0 a.m. lie
reported a saucer-1 ike object landed on or hovered over, the highway
40 ft. in from of him. ITie object departed straight upward at
hi>;b speed. The trooper could not account for a JC-min. period
duriiij; which he assumed he must have been near the UIU. No evidence
was found that a physical object had been present as claimed.
Psychological assessment of the trooper, carried out with his approval
and cooperation, also failed to provide evidence that the reported
object was physically real.

Background:
A state trooper, cruising alone about 2:30 a.m. in his squad
car, had a feeling of uneasiness that something unusual was nearby.
At 1:00 a.m. and at about 1:35 a.m. he had checked the cattle at
the local sale barn, and found them behaving strangely -- bawling
and kicking the chutes. After 2:00 a.m. he was checking various
acilities along Highway A, and near its intersection with Highway B
noticed red lights to his right, which he thought were perhaps on
a truck stopped on Highway B. He passed the intersection, then turned
around and returned to B, to check the presumed truck. Tine patrol-
man switched his headlights to bright and stopped the police car
as his headlights struck the source of red light, that he thought
was some 40 ft. ahead (.later measured to be 150 ft.). The red
lights were blinking. They appeared now to be shining from windows
of a saucer-shaped object, hovering 6 - 8 ft. above the highway,
tilted at an angle of about 15° from the horizontal. The object
glowed brilliantly, and started rising, emitting a siren-like sound,

596
the trooper reported. ]t rose gradually, with some side-wise
fluttering, and emitted a flame-colored material from its under side.
With his head out the open car door, the trooper said he watched
the object move nearly overhead, then move upward rapidly, shooting
out of sight. After a quick check of the site by flashlight,
he returned directly to the troop barracks, where he was surprised
to find the time to be 3:t)ü a.m. As he turned his car around on
Highway A, he had noticed that the time was 2:30 a.m. ? it seemed
1
to him that no more than ten mi'iutes could have elapse ' »fore he reached
the troop barracks. He felt that perhaps he had not L . conscious
during a period of approximately 20 min. while he was . „-rving the UFO.
He had a fcelinjj of paralysis at the time, and felt stn.nge, weak,
sick, and nervous when he returned to the troop barracks, according
to his report.
In describing the object later, the trooper said it had a
row of oval portholes around its periphery, each port about two feet
across. The light was glowing from inside the object. He could
see nothing through the red-lighted ports as the lights blinked
off except a black line moving up and down. Below the portholes, he
describej a cat-walk around the object. The surface of the object
appeared to him like polished aluminum, and was quite bright in
reflected light. The night was reported to be clear, calm, and moon-
less .

Investigation:
His superior officer declared that the trooper was dependable
and truthful. His chief was convinced that this report of an UFO
sighting was not the result of hallucination or dishonesty. He
had checked the area the next morning. Among ordinary litter beside
the road, beneath the point that the trooper said the object hovered
he found a small piece of metallic-appearing material which he did not
recognize. This material, less than one centimeter long and paper thin, was
offered as possible residue left by the UFO. The chip of material was
black on one side, while the other surface had the bright appearance of

59 7
uluminum paint. A portion of tins material was ;inalyzcd semi-quant i tat ivcly
Its major constituents were iron and silicon. Since the relation of
the material to the reported UFO was so tenuous, no further effort
was made to determine its specific origin, for it could plausibly be
accounted for in terms of ordinary corroded earthly waste.
The site area was checked for radioactivity, no evidence of
which was found. No other evidence that an unusual object had landed
on or hovered over the site was found.
Ills superior officer said the trooper had been given a polygraph
examination at the trooper's request by an experienced operator at
an official agency. The polygraph reportedly showed no indications
that the UFO report was other than truthful.
The trooper said he had served with the U. S. Marines. With
his approval, a scries of psychological assessment tests were administered
by project personnel and psychologists at the University of Colorado
Center for Student Life Programs. In addition, a test utilizing partial
hypnotic techniques was conducted by Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle, Professor of
Psychology, the University of Wyoming. The latter test was conducted
in an effort to determine whether or not hypnotic techniques might have
value in developing otherwise inaccessi'ile information about UFOs.
During this session, new information was added to the trooper's account
of his UFO experience; however the authenticity of the reported
experience remained uncstablished. Dr. Sprinkle expressed the opinion
that the trooper believed in the reality of the events he described.
Tests administered were the Rorsc'nach, Thematic Apperception
Test, Sentence Completion, Word Association, Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Results of
these t sts were evaluated by Mr. k. Dean Land, Counselor, and Dr. Robert
H. Fenner, Assistant Director for Clinical Services, of the University
of Colorado Center.

Conclusion:
Evaluation of psychological assessment tests, the lack of any
evidence, and interviews with the patrolman, left project staff with
no confidence that the trooper's reported UFO experience was physically
real.

598
 i
Caso 43
Soutli Contral
Kail liUW
Investigators: Ayer, Wadsworth

Abstract:
Confused reports by teenagers of strange lights were attri-
buted to assorted lights on flat countryside and possibly aircraft.

Background
At appioximately 10:30 p.m. 5 December 1967, six
teenager? returning home from a basketball game detoured in order
to drive by a cemetery to frighten themselves. As they approached
the cemetery, tney saw through the trees a blinking light in the
sky beyoiid. Dicy pulled off the road just past the cemetery, where
they had an unobstructed view. The object, low on the eastern hori-
zon, was moving northward with an up-and-down motion. It appeared
to be flashing different colors or rotating, or both. The most simi-
lar conventional object with which it could be compared would be an
aircraft with flashing beacon. This, however, was ruled out by the
witnesses because of its up-an^-down motion. As soon as they saw it
moving north, they turned around and f?llowed, hoping to obtain a
better look. Although an accurate estimate of distance could not be
made, the witnesses believed the object to be tes1 than two miles
away, and heading in a direction they could follow by using country
roads.
The remainder of the story is not clear, as individual accounts
are highly inconsistent .ith one anoti or. Generally, witnesses agree
that they "followed" the objt-ct for severul miles, losing sight of
it two cr three times as they turned down different roads. Finally,
they came to a lo<.ation from which lights, attributed to the original
object, were seen off to their left, apparently in a field. Later
this location could not be detorminod as four different possibilities
were indicated by the witnesses and no one was certain. Lights were
seen in the "field", some like car lights, some (or one) green or blue-
green; a dim structure is menticned, and finally spotlight beans

599
or revolving beams. The structure mentioned turned out to be an
extremely marginal perception, leaving essentially lights and little
more.
The dramatic element in accounts written by the witnesses seems
based on interpretation of the lights as UFO phenomena, rather than
on definite evidence. A much less dramatic picture of what they had
seen emerged from questioning the witnesses. For example, one wit-
ness said that three independent "objects" were possibly involved:
the object first sighted, the light which was "followed," and the
light (s) in the field, lie saw only lights, no structure, and was
not sure of what they were. Three others held similar views, ex-
cept that they were less certain of the sequence of events. The
language used in the various reports suggests that they were ver-
balizing their impressions during sightings and had opportunity to
standardize certain descriptive terms.
In addition to written accounts, individual maps showing the
areas and locations of various events were obtained through question-
ing of the witnesses. Wide discrepancies and inconsistencies are
apparent in these items.
Two of the witnesses, a girl and her boy friend, produced the
most elaborate descriptions and the most dramatic reports. They also
appeared to be prone to exaggerate perception of anything fearful
or unconventional. The boy had studied UFOs for quite some time, and
took them extremely seriously. He was obviously upset about the "ex-
perience", and showed very little objectivity about the occurrence.
The girl, who drew an elaborate sketch of what she had "seen" in the
field, later admitted that she had not actually seen such an object.
She said that her sketch was more on the imaginative side and was
what the lights suggested to her. As to structure, she said that
what she actually saw was so dim she had to look to one side to see
it. At the height of the excitement, both witnesses thought the ob-
ject rose up and was coming at them. None of the other witnesses
saw this motion, even though all were looking at the same thing.
There was, however, general agreement that a bright light like a

e>00
searchlight seemed to shine in their direction, whereupon they
rapidly departed.

I nvest-j Ration
Certain important factors were noted during attempts to recon-
struct the incident.
First, the area was examined in the daytime during unsuccessful
attempts to pin down the location of the final incident. The terrain
is monotonous -- flat farmland with scattered scrub growth. The few
hills are so low and rounded that one would prefer to call them swells
or rises. It was immediately clear that one could easily become dis-
oriented in such an area, especially at night.
The same area was examined at night. Again, one feature stood
out. Lights were visible in all directions. These were widely scat-
tered, and were of various colors, intensities, and degrees of scin-
tillation. Some were in clusters, some alone. When witnesses were
questioned and returned to the area of the sighting, it became clear
that no "site" could be agreed on.
Thus we have six conflicting stories as evidence. There is dis-
agreement over what was seen, where it was seen, and what the wit-
nesses themselves did at the time. There is agreement that a flash-
ing light was followed and lost several times, and that lights seen
in a field, were presumed to be the original light and watched until
a bright light or lights shone at the observers, whereupon they be-
came frightened and left.
As a tentative explanation, one of the possible sites was found
to contain a farm with yard light and outbuildings with blue-green
and various other lights. The yard light could be seen discontin-
uous ly from locations between the cemetery and the farm. Thus this
light, which was bright white and scintillated dramatically when
viewed from several miles away, could have been "followed" via various
routes by automobile. As one approached more closely, the greenish
lights became visible below and to the right of the yard light. A
car in the vicinity of the farm might account for the "searchlight"
effect reported by witnesses. This, however, is not a completely

ooi
» r- ' (?». i,.,. ■

satisfactory explanation, mainly because the yard light would have

been easily recognizable as such by anyone who approached closely.
Possibly this light was switched off by the time the witnesses
reached the location. Another flaw in this explanation is the
northward motion of the original object. This was reported b/ all
the witnesses, and does not sound like illusory motion caused by
involuntary eye movement.

Conclusions
At this point wc leave the original object as unidentified.
The evidence is not sufficient to rule out aircraft, despite state-
ments by witnesses to the contrary.

Additional Sighting
Hie only other sighting reported in the area was made by a
local radio announcer. He saw an object with red and green flash-
ing lights in the sky northwest of the station at dusk on the same
evening as the sighting by the teenagers. The object looked like
a small plane; but it was moving very slowly, suggesting a strong
headwind. After watching for two minutes, the announcer went into
the station and thought no more about the matter until he heard
of the other sighting.

602
Case 44
North Central
Winter 1967
Investigator: Wadsworth

Abstract:
Witness driving on highway at night reported having seen a dim
shape and a pattern of colored lights above an underpass. From the
farther side of the underpass, it appeared to have moved away op-
posite to the direction he was traveling. No field investigation
was made.

Background:
The witness, a med student, telephoned the project 23 February
1968. He reported that, while driving from city A to city B on U.S.
highway A and approaching an underpass 34 mi. from city B about 10:00
or 11:00 p.m., he saw directly above his side of the highway a
pattern of lights almost in a vertical line. Two red lights were at
top and bottom, and a "blue or green" between them. The lights
appeared to be stationa;*)' directly above the underpass. Just before
he entered the underpass, he savv a white light beside the blue/green.
He stopped about '4 mi. beyond the underpass to look for the
lights, thinking they should be overhead, and saw the pattern, now
hori:ontal instead of vertical, low in the FNE, "like a struggling
goose in the wind." He thought it was VI mi. away, and perhaps
200 ft. ut>. He could not recall how it had disappeared.
Arriving at home he went to his apartment and went to bed. He
bad a strange feeling that "they" were still with him, and he slept
poorly. He felt that "they" had communicated, wanting him to go on
a trip with them; feeling of great friendship, buddies. He had "told"
them he would go, but was not ready yet, too much to do, responsibilities
etc.

603
 Afterward, he could not concentrate on his med studies, lost
interest, and "felt pressure building up." Me acknowledged that he
had been considering psychiatric help but wanted to contact the CU
project first; he was concerned that psychiatry might interfere with
our .investigation. Wadsworth reassured him on this point, but
explained that we could not offer any personal assistance. Because
of the evidence of emotional disturbance predating the sighting, as
well as the lack of supporting witnesses or other basis for further
investigation, no field study was made.
Commenting on this case, the project's consulting psychiatrist
observes: "Unequivocal statements concerning the emotional state of
the witness in this, or any other case, cannot be made in the
absence of intensive psychological testing and a psychiatric inter-
view. The witness* statements suggest that he was under severe
pressures at the time of the UFO sighting in connection with his
studies, his marriage, and other factors in his life situation. One
would suspect that at the tinu these pressures were at the very
least producing a severe anxiety attack in the witness. It is
conceivable that he was on the verge of a more serious mental
disturbance. The fact that the witness states that he feels that
he would like to consult a psychiatrist indicates his awareness that
the solutions to his problems are to be found within himself
rather than in the outside world or in the UFO."

004
Case 45
South Mountain
Winter 1968
Investigators: Ahrens and Levine

Abstract:
A lighted object seen at night by several people was found to
have been a plastic hot-air balloon.

Background:
It was reported to the CU project that several persons at
Castle Rock had seen an illuminated transparent object drifting
over the town about 6:00 p.m. Mainly because the principal witness
insisted that the object appeared to be about 75 ft. long, project
investigators went to the scene.

Investigation:
The principal witness, interviewed the following evening, re-
ported that, while he was outdoors in the early evening, he noticed
several lights in the sky that were focussed toward him. He made
out a transparent object about 75 ft. long by 20 ft. wide. In
a circle underneath it were about twelve lights; he judged them
to be much brighter than car headlights, though they did not blind
him. Me estimated the object to be about 25 ft. above the ground,
which it illuminated. The object appeared empty; he could see through
it. At first it was stationary, then it began to drift northward
over the town. He followed in his truck, stopping at a service
station to tell the men there of the "flying saucer." They later
reported having seen slow-.noving lights that dropped several fiery
objects as they disappeared north of the town.
The investigators then visited the owner of the service station,
and while there heard a radio report that a local teenage boy had
launched a plastic hot-air ballooii at about the time of the sighting,
from a location about a block upwind of the principal witness' location.
They learned by further inquiry that the balloon had been a polyethylene

605
^

suit bag about two by three feet, with oalsa cross-members supporting
six small candlss and a cup of lighter fluid. Several persons at
the launching saw the ba'loon drift over the principal witness'
location.

Conclusions:
The investigators concluded that the object of the sighting
reports had been the balloon, despite the witness' exaggerated
estimate of its dimensions.

606
 Chapter III

Photographic Case Studies

(Cases 46 - 59)

606a
 ^

!i BLANK PAGE

v_ ■ ■ I.».? ■ » . 1 »r, —_•

McMtnnvi I li.v, Hrejion
11 May I'.iSO
Investigator: ilartmann

Abstract:
Witness 1 reportedly saw a mctallic-looking, disk-shaped
UFO. She called her husband, they located their camera, and he
took photographs of the object before it disappeared in the
distance.

Background:
Tine: ':45 p.m. PST (1,2); 7:30 p.m. (3).
Position: Approx. 10 mi. SIV of McMinnvilU-, Ore. on the farm
of the witnesses: 123 19' SO" w, 4R 06» IS" N (7").
Terrain: Kolling farm country, elv. 210 ft.; houses several
hundred meters apart (7).
Iveathor Conditions: Dull with an overcast at about S,000 ft.
(.2, confirmed by the photos).

Sighting, tieneral Information:

The sighting occurred in the back yard of a farm about 0.2 iri.
i of the "Salmon River Highway" (U.S. 99W (7). Witness was feeding
rabbits in the back yard, S of the house and K of the garage when the
object was first sighted (1,2,5,6), apparently toward the Nil (6).
Witness il was apparently in the house at this moment, as three of
the accounts (2.5,6) refer to Witness I calling to him and runninc;
inTo the house to fetch him from the kitcien, although one accomr
(I) states that they had "been out in the back yard," and "both...
<JW it at the same time."
\s far as Witness 1 could remember 17 yr. later (b), the
rabbits gave no indication of disturbance.

to:
 Immediately after they both saw the object, apparently as it
was still in a NE direction, moving slowly toward the K O), they
thought of their camera (1,2,3,6), Witness II ran to the car,
thinking it was there, but Witness I remembered it was in the house
and brought it (1,6). Witness II took the camera, which was already
loaded. The roll of film had been purchased during the winter and
already had two or three shots on it (4).
At this time "the object was coming in toward us and seemed to
be tipped up a little bit. It was very bright - almost silvery - and
then" was no noise or smoke" (1).
Witness 11 explained that he took the first picture, rc-wound
his film as fast as possible and then as the object gathered speed
and turned toward the northwest, he had to move rapidly to his right
to get the second picture. Both were snapped within thirty seconds,
he estimated" (.!)• According to another early reference: "[Witness II]
elaborated, 'There wasn't any flame and it was .noving fairly slow.
Then I snapped the first picture. It moved a little to the left and
i moved to the right to take another picture.'" (3). Plates 23 and 24
show the two photographs in the sequence taken. During thir interval
the object was moving quite slowly, apparently almost hovering, and
it apparently shifted both its position and orientation in a complex
way, changing direction and tipping just before it moved away, as
indicated in Plate 25 (2,6). However, Witness I described it as
"not undulating or rotating, just 'sort of gliding'" (2). The UFO
accelerated slowly during or just after the second photograph and
moved away rar-idly toward the west (2). Witness I ran into the
house to call her mother-in-law, got no answer, and returned outside
just in time to see the UFO 'dimly vanishing toward the west' (2).

Investigation:
The witnesses described the object as "very bright - almost
silvery" (1); "brightly metallic, silver or aluminum colored, with a
touch of brome. .. appeared to have a sort of superstructure. ..'like

608
a y;ood-si:ed parachute canopy without the strings, only silvery-
bright mixed »vitl» bronre'" (2); silvery on top but with more bronze
on the bottom, the bottom beinj; ili f fcrent (but, this f)einR seventeen
years later, Witness 1 was unsure whether it was darker).. .shiny but
not as bright as a hub cap. .. resembling a dull, aiuninum-paintcd
tank (which Witness I pointed out to the writer in our interviewj .. .
"awful pretty" (6). The rather bright, aluminum-like, but not
specular, reflecting surface appears to be confirmed by analysis
of the photos (see below}. There was no noise, visible exhaust,
flames, or smoke (1,3,6).
When the object tipped up, exposing its under side to the
witnesses, they felt a gust of wind which they thought may have
ome from the UFO. '"...there was a breeze as it went overhead...
i.hich died down later'" (2). In the interview with the writer,
Witness I stressed this, remarking the wind was "about to knock
you over," though Witness II (interviewed separately) remarked that
it made only a "very little" breeze as it was getting ready to fly
off (6).
As to Si ,<.'ed, and distance, the witnesses were reluctant
to harard a gue^s (1,2), as Witness II had no way of knowing its
s i :e (2J, although one of the references quotes Witness II as
estimating a diameter of "20 or 30 ft." (3J , and Witness I compared
its appearance (though not explicitly its size) to a parachute
canopy (2,6).
As to the origin of the UFO, Witness II remarked both at the
tine and in 1967 that he thought it was a secret U.S. craft (1).
'"...you hear so much about those things...! didn't believe all that
talk about t'lying saucers before, but now I have an idea the Army
knows what they are'" 13).
Witness II recalls finishing his roll of film on Mother's Dav
1.41 and had it developed locally (1). Witness TI mentioned his
observation and showed t'ie pictures to a few friends. He did not
seek publicity about the pictures, admitting that he was '"kind of

60<i
scared of it'" (2.3), and "afraid they would get in trouble with
the 'government' and be bothered by the publicity" (2). However,
McMinnville Telephone Feister reporter Bill Powell learned of the
sighting from two McMinnville bankers, Ralph and Frank Wortman, and
followed up the story (.1,-). He found the negatives "on the floor
under a davenport where tlie Witnesses' children had been playing
with them" (2). The Telephone Register broke the story Thursday,
8 June 1950 with a front page article containing the two pictures
and Editor's Note:
"...in view of the variety of opinion and reports attendant
to the saucers over the past two years, every effort has
been made to check Trent's photos for authenticity. Expert
photographers declared there has been no tampering with
the negatives. [The] original photos were developed by
a local firm. After careful consideration, there appears
to be no possibility of hoax or hallucination c ted
with the pictures, therefore the 'Te'.ephene Hegiater
believes them authentic..." (1).
Various McMinnville residents, including the bankers Wortman,
offered to sign affidavits vouching unreservedly for the reputation
and veracity of the witnesses (1,2,4).
On Friday and SaturJ.iy, 9 and 10 .June, the Portland, Ore.^ and
Los Angeles newspapers carried the story (2,3). Life magazine
carried the pictures the following week (4). The vitnesses accepted
an invitation to appear on a television program "We the People,"
in New York (0). Witness I remarked that thev were encouraged by
the people responsible for this show to make statements they (th^
Witnesses) regarded as inaccurate. 'Tie witnesses, however, did not
make such statements, hut told only what they saw (6)
Mule in New York, the witnesses were to receive their negatives
from 1'.'V nagarine, but were informed that the negatives were
temporanlv niäpla^ed (61. L:fe promised to return them by mail to

(.10
 . ...flfw». mii.img^y*-«*»!»

Oregon, but apparently never recovered them (6). Witli the cooperation
of 1'/. the Colorado project discovered that in 1950 tlic negatives
haJ been in the possession of international News Photo Service
later merged with United I'ress International. The project located
the original negatives and was permitted to examine them.
As mentioned above, various reputable individuals volunteered to
attest to the witnesses^ veracity. They appear to be sincere, though
not highly educated or experienced observers. During the writer's
interview with them, they were friendly and quite unconcerned about
the sighting. Witness II was at work plowing his field and did
not even get off his tractor. From interviews tnroaehout this
district one gained the impression that these were very industrious
farm people, not given to unusual pranks.
Two inferences appear to be justified: 1) It is difficult to
see any prior motivation for a fabrication of such a story, although
after the fact, the witnesses did profit to the extent of a trip to
New York; 2) it is unexpected that in this distinctly rural atmos-
phere, in 1950, one would encounter a fabrication involving sophis-
ticated trick photography (e.g. a carefully retouched print). The
witnesses also appear unaffected now by the incident, receiving only
occasional inquiries (6).
The over-all appearance of the photographs, in particular the
slightlv underexposed land foreground and properly exposed sky, is
consistent with the reported time 7:30 PST (sunset being roughly
a few minutes after 7:IS, and twilight lasting until after 8:45).
There could be a possible discrepancy in view of the fact that the
110, the telephone pole, possibly the garage at the left, and
especially the distant house j'.ables (left of the distant bam) are
illuminated from the rij:lit, or east. The house, in particular,
appears to have a shadow under its ruof that would sug^t a daylit
photo, and combined with the eastward incidence, one could argue
that the photos were taken on a dull, sunlit day at, say,, 10 a.m.

Ml

JL-
But accepting the UFO maki-s scarcely less sense than arguinp that the
witnesses staged a hoax at 10 a.m. and then claimed the photograpli5:
were taken at 7:30 . I)enc itomctry of the original negatives shows
that the sky itself is brighter toward the west, as expected. It seers
possible that, half an hour after sunset, the cloud distribution
could result in a dull illumination preferentially from the N't
(certainly there will be skylight from above).
Reality of physical object. As stated previously, it is unlikely
that a sophisticated "optical fabrication" was performed. The
negative^ had not been tampered with.
Further, a geometric test was performed to determine whether
the object shown in Plate 24 in approximate cross section was the same
object phot graphed in Plate 27> at a different angle. The apparent
inclination, i, can bo dotormincd from the ratio of the axes of the
apparent ellipse in Plate 21.
sin i = b/a (2)
Measures on several copies of photo 1 (the UPI print, an enlargement
thereof, and two magazine reproductions) gave sin i = 0.36ft, and
i = 21°.6 ♦ 0M (est. P.E.). (3j
Plate 26 shows enlargements from UPI print with lines of sight
superimposed on the Plate 24 "cross section" at 21°.6. The way in
which these lines cut the image is in perfect agreement with the
appearance of the object in Plate 23. Judging from the apparent
position of the pole it is likely that the object has simply tipped,
without rotation, between the two photos.
The lighting is also consistent with that in the rest of the
photo. Both photographs, therefore, show real objects and that the
object in Plate 23 is a view of the same object in Plate 24, seen in
different perspective.
Asymmetry of UTO. It will be noted in Plate 26 that the UFO is
distinctly asymmetric. The "pole" is off center and inclined, and
there appears to be a difference in the profiles of the right and
left sides (Plate 24), the left having a more pronounced notch
defining the flange. Ihe shading of the object also indicates a

612
pp

more distinct flange on the left in Plate 24. The asymmetries are
judged physical, not optical effects.
Absence of rotation. The top of the "pole," barely visible in
photo 1, is off center to the left by the same amount as in photo 2.
This would be rather improbable if the object were rotating, and
supports Witness IPs statement that it was not rotating. This is
a rather strong argument against a fabrication using a necessarily
(.for stability) spinning model similar to a "frisbee," especially
in view of the fact that only 2 exposures were made in the middle
of an intact roll of film.
■Vngular s_i ze of object. From measurements of recent photos (6)
the photos were scaled and the UFO diameters estimated to be:
Plate 23: r.4
Plate 24: r.3.
The P.li. is probably about 0o.l, but the object subtends a smaller
angle in photo 2, consistent with the allegation that photo 2 was
made as the UFO was beginning to depart.
It follows immediately that the distance-diameter relation is
determined, and a map of the locale (based on ref. 7) is shown in
Fig.l with the azimuths, angular sizes, and example, that the
object was less than a meter in diameter and over the driveway.
Psychological reaction. 1 judge it reasonable that as the
object allegedly drifted to the left, in danger of being lost to
s.ght behind the garage, that the observer should step unconsciously
to his right, as the photos show he did, although one might expect
the observer even more reasonably to step forward, to get in front
of the garage. The reason for the first response may have been
that the second would put the observer close to the house, where
the object might be lost to sight if it moved back to the east,
while by moving away from the garage, one moves toward the open
yard SL of the house. In summary, the movement of the observer
is consistent with the alleged observation.

613
1
Possibility of fabrication. The above tests all appear to be
consistent with the witnesses' testimony. The possibility of optical
;■

fabrication seems remote. A model thrown into the air by hand

appears an unlikely possibility because of the evidence for absence
of rotation.
Another possibility can be considered, however. The object
appears beneath a pair of wires, as is seen in Plates 23 and 24. We
may question, therefore, whether it could have been a model suspended
from one of the wires. This possibility is strengthened by the
observation that the object appears beneath roughly the same point
in the two photos, in spite of their having been taken from two
positions. This can be determined from irregularities, or "kinks,"
in the wires. The wires pass between the camera positions and
w
the garage U^fO- e know from the change in orientation of the
object that it moved, or was re-orienteu by hand, between exposures.
The possibility that it is a model hanging beneath a point on the
wire suggests a further test: Is the change in distance of the
object in Plates 27» and 24 equal to the change in distance from the
wires? Measures of the disk indicate that it is about i% further
away in Plate 24. Measures of the irregularities in the wires
indicate that they are further away from the camera in Plate 24.
The amount of the latter increase from the wires (measured by
the separation of rather ill-defined "kinks") is less certain than
the distance increase fro:;i the disk, but it is measured to be
about 10"*. These tests do not rule out the possibility that the
object was a small model suspended from the nearby wire by an
unresolved thread.
Given the foregoing analysis, one must choose between an
asymaetnc model suspended from the overhead wire, and an extra-
ordinary flying object 'vSee Table 1)
Photometric analysis. Although it is often stated that a
p'^le photograph of an object contains no information on the
distance, this is not strictly true. Atmospheric extinction and

dll
soat tor m^, comb i no»!, serve to reduce contrast as distance increas»-.,
an effect perhaps lu-st appreciated by artists. The shadowed bottom
of the UFO in I'late 23 has a particularly pale look, suggestive of
scattering between observer and object, and if such scattering is
detectable, it may be possible to make some estimate of the
distance involved.

his
 Table 1
Suimnary of Possible Interpretations

Interpret at ions Rejected L'omments

Optical fabrication^
Pouble exposure X IIFO darker than sky background
Retouch; drawn imagt- X Negatives unretouched
Multiple copies. iX) Overly sophisticated
re copy mg
Physical fabrications
"Frisbee"-t>pe model No rotation
in flight
Model suspended from Under same part of wire in
K i re each photo
Lxtraordinarv Photometry suggests large
Flying Object distance

bU<
 rho lumin.nco. or aptnirent surface brightness at distance r
of an object of intrinsic luminance H (r = 0) is
B = K
. (1 - e " ) ♦ l< e '{'T.
!Jr
(^J
sky o
where r is the scattering coefficient. The first term represents
scattered light; the second, extinction.
Since all measures must be based on the witnesses' two photographs,
we will determine .; for the given day from the photographs themselves
Normalining all brightnesses (measured from the film and assuming
that the images measured fall on the linear portion of the gamma
curve) to that of the sky near the horizon, i.e. on a line within a
few thousand feet of the ground, where tne UFO is constrained to
be by the reported cloud height and probably nearness to the
camera, we have

K- 1 ♦ e '^r (B- 1). f5j

o
\otice that if an ob.iect is sufficiently far away, its brightness
equals the skv brightness (in physical terms, the optical depth
: - ii.
bive:-» the brightness of ar object at zero distance, R . and
■' o
the observed brightness B. one may solve for the ('istance r. The
first necessan step is to det.'rmine the scattering coefficient -.
Ihe original negatives wore subjected to densitometric analvsis,
and Table 2 lists observed values of B. "Hill 1" lies ai a distance
of about .:. J V.?\ '~i. Ihe nhotometn indicates that B = .M." for
the distant lull, but the foreground foliacr »live- R - .40.V
o
Fhis . -s
• 0.:8(J km ,
or optical denth - 1 at r = ^.5 kn, (b>
winch appear- consistent with the apiearanci of the photos.
■\t this point the theory was checked acainst objects of Inowr,
distance. ! nr cxanplf». the roof of the distant ham i "Ii" in Hp. I i
has K - .hot. It one as-unes that its intrinsic bnphtness enuals
that of the foreground garage, then B = .4(.>,., sn that r = n ^'"S i"
o

t.r
i
f
Table 2
Values of B for Objects Photographed*
Rased on dens i tometry 01' original negatives; aperture 75^ ■ 75.

Object Plate 23 Plate 24

UFO "Pole" 1.07
Illuminated right side 1.29 1 .23
Illuminated left sido (1.35) 1 .05
Shaded bot ton .075
Garage roof .48'.) . 50 1
Shadous under eaves . sot .42b

I i iunmated .86 .91

Shaded botton (.48) ( .40)
Foreground underbrush .417 389
Bam (roof' .511 .501
Hill
1 .0.3 59
.66
House
11 lunnated wp51 ( 77)
Shadow ( 32)
Skv
Upper rijjht i. :i-> 1 26
'Jpper left i.rw 1 e.2
ilon :on l.on ! no
Linexposed edgf of fi lr 31

"'easures »n pa rent he-«e«- ) ave lower weight

• b valuos are icr^ali;cd tc horiion skv brightness

18
 llu- true r is about Ü..1J kn-, and our error is a factor 4. One can
rosolvo tlic Jiscrcpancv l>y assuming the l)am roof was slightly (7%;
darker than the garage roof.
Again, one can chock the theory on the distant "Hill 1."
B = .i)10 and B = .403 as measured in the foreground foliage.
This gives r = 1.5 kn. The true r is in the range 1.3 to 1.9 km,
depending on the part of the hill observed, and the error is
negligible.
A third check, more comparable to the UFO problem, is the
distant house ("M" in Fip. 1 ). Unfortunately the densitometcr
did not clearly resolve the illuminated white facade from the
intervening branches; ho^ever, supplementarv measures with
enlargements indicate that the facade brightness should be only
slighth
» more than 1.00. o.g.
- B ~ 1.02, and B o 1.04, which means
that the apparent brightness nearly equals sky brightness and
hence is very insensitive to distance and jjives no good solution.
There are shadows visible on the house on the white surface under
the eaves. Measures indicate B = .48. B for the shadows on this
o
white surface, illumnated bv the ambient illumination, should
be intrinsically measurably brighter than the jhadows under the
dark wooden garage eaves and under the tank beside the garage
[B = .-11), but not as much brighter as the white illuminated
surface is brighter than the darker wood. (If there were no
ambient i 1 lurunat ion , all s.iadows would be intrinsically black;
l; - 0]. \n estimated value is B = .43. This gives a distance
or r - 0.32 kn, only 14' loss thr the measured distance of 0.37 km.
Naive use ot B =0.41, known to be too low, would have given
r - ■-'.-il km, I .» , loo >:reat.
1 0

It is concluded that bv careful consideration of the parameters

involved in the case of recognisable obiects in the photographs,
distances can be measured within a factor four error. Thi^ justifies
the assumption that we arc on the linear part of the gamma curve

M1»
•o •9
c C
«
OQ
§
t* M
c O •
■H a W
4-» £> o
£ *»
OC 0) o
•H 4= £
trt ♦J a
0) c 0
f-4 ■H >
I—t 4-)
•H 2
> 0 V
c £ X
c tn «-I
•IH
z: «-> (44
o rt o
S X.
4-* (/)
(41 4)
o V 4J

6C
a.

620
 I
•i
If such a good measure could be made for the UFO, we could
distinguish between a distant extraordinary object and a hypo-
thetical small, close model.
At this point we must be explicit about the geometry of the
situation. We represent the environment as in Fig. 2 . We assume
that the UFO is within a homogeneous scattering layer with
T = 1 at 3.5 km. If the UFO were far away and at an altitude
greater than the characteristic dimensior of the layer (C in Fig. 2),
it would be large and extraordinary in any cas-». If it is relatively
close, r ~ 1 km, the assumptions are justified. Our objective is
to distinguish between cases A and B in Fig. 2 . Die sky brightness,
to which all the brightness values are normalized, must be the sky
brightness at the horizon, since this is the value characteristic
of long path length through the scattering layer.
For the solution of the UFO distance, we have two independent
solutions from two independent observations: the illuminated and
shadowed surfaces of the UFO. As was remarked above, it is the
shadowed surface in particular that looks pale and hence suggests
large distance.
Immediately from Table 2 we see that B = 1.21 describes the
part of the UFO, while the illuminated part of the nearby dull
aluminum-painted tank B = .885. Sincft, as the UFO recedes, B
must approach 1.00, We thus Know that 1.21 is the minimum intrinsic
brightness of the UFO surface, i.e. B ^1.21. Thus the UFO in
any interpretation is known to have a brighter surface than the
foreground tank. Thus, the photometry at once confirms the witnesses'
report that the UFO was shiny, like a fresh, aluminum-painted
surface, but not a specular surface.
The question is, how bright is the surface intrinsically,
and what surface properties would be consistent with both the
observed illuminated and shadowed sids? Fig. 3 shows two
families of solutions, one for the illumineted top surface and
one for the shaded bottom side. Solutions for the latter have

621
\

\ • • •."
• • <

D
•l . • . ' u

.- - -
• « , .*
• .1 ■ • .
• •.

• • •
.*
• .\
•■ ■

\ .
\

622
 DIAMETER OF UFO (M)
10 20 30
"T"
\

^ 30
o
UJ
<
UJ
or
^ 20

en

>•

J I 1 L 1_ J L 1 I > 1
05 15
DISTANCE TO UFO (KM)

t.23

I'ig. 3
an uncertainty introduced by the difficulty of measuring the true
shadow intensity on the tank. The distance is given as a function of
the assumed increase in brightness over the value for the illuminated
or shaded side of the aluminu'n-painted tank, respectively.
Fig. 3 graphically illustrates the problem. For example,
if the object is a model suspended from the wire only a few meters
away, its surface is some 37% brighter than that of the tank, and
the shaded side is probably more than 40'i brighter tnan the shadow
on the tank. But this is nearly impossible to maintain in the face
of the photometry. Although the distant house*s surface is roughly
twice as bright as the tank's surface, its shadows can be only a
few percent brighter, intrinsically, than those on the tank. This
is basically the problem that was suggested by initial inspection
of the photos: the shadowed side of the UFO appears to be so
bright that it suggests significant scattering between it and the
observer.
The upshot is that if the top and bottom surfaces of the UFO
are made out of essentially the same material, i.e. with the same
albedo, the photometry indicates that the UFO is distant, at
roughly r » 1.3 ± 0.4 km (est. P. B.). The witnesses referred to
a slightly different hue of the bottom side of the UFO: they said
it was more bronze than the silvery top side. We have assumed this
change in tint had negligible effect on the photometry, although
the implication is that the bottom has slightly lower albedo. If
so the UFO would be still more distant.
There is one last possibility for fabrication which has not
been ruled out. Suppose the object is a small model with a pale
grey top and i bright white bottom (e.g. an aluminum pie pan
sealed on the bottom with white paper). Could this account for the
apparent lightness of the bottom, shaded side of the UFO?
It is difficult to defend this idea in the face of the
photometry. Our analysis of the house indicated that its shaded
white surface had an intrinsic brightness of 0.43, which is very

624
close to the value measuro'I for the »haued part of the aluminum-
Iiaintctl tank. Yet hypothetical fabrication requires a surface on
the shaded bottom of the model Lhut is of intrinsic shaded
brightness 0,68, considerably brighter than the shaded part of
the white house. In other words, the photometry appears to
indicate that a very white surface on the bottom of a small model
would be required to match the appearance of the photographs.
To the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable, (and
the measurements appear to be consistent), the photographs indicate
an object with a bright shiny surface at considerable distance and
on the order of tens of meters in diameter. While it would be
exaggerating to say that we have positive!/ ruled out a fabrication,
it appears significant that the simplest, most direct interpretatic.i
of the photographs confirms precisely what the witnesses said they
saw. Vet, the fact that the object appears beneath the same part
of the overhead wire in both photos can be used as an argument
favoring a suspended model.

Conclusion:
This is one cf the few UFO reports in which all factors
investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to be
consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object,
silver)', metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters i\ diameter, and
evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses. It
cannot be said that the evidence positively rules out a fabrication,
although there are some physical factors such as the accuracy of
certain photometric measures of the original negatives which
argue against a fabrication.

625
Case 47
Great Falls, Wmtana Uat. 47° 30' and long. 111° 18'J
15 August i9St) (see below)
Investigator: llartmann
Terrain: Within the city limits but near the northwestern outskirts of
Great fails, near the Missouri Uiver and the Anaconda Copper Company,
and approximately three mi. NW of Malstrom AFB (then, Great Halls AFBJ.
Weather Conditions: At S:30 a.m., MST (15 August 1950) the weather was
partly overcast with middle altocumulus and altostratus clouds; the
surface wind was SW, lb knots. A cold front lay just north of the Canad-
ian border, extending several hundred miles EW; it moved south and passed
over Great Falls in the afternoon. The upper winds were reported W-WNW
250° 280°, b knots at 9,ÜÜÜ ft. on the previous evening. Temperatures
Ü 0
were of the order of 2Ü C, dew point 9 C, and there was a slight inver-
sion of 2 C in the bbt>-63o mb layer. The local half-hourly surface
weather observations for 15 August 1950 at the Municipal Airport Weather
Station showed that the surface wind increased to readings between 25
and 28 mph between 9:00 a.m. and 12 noon, and that it reached 37 mph at
1:12 p.m., and then stayed between 25 and 30 mph until almost sunset.
The surface wind direction was constantly SW from 10:00 a.m. until
4:00 p.m. The sky was clear (visibility, 60 mi.); the temperature was
77° at 11:27 a.m., and reached a maximum of 83° at 4:27 p.m. The baro-
meter fell slightly from 30.05 in. tig. at 9:30 a.m. to 29.98 in. Hg. at
5 p.m., then steadied, and finally rose again after dark.

Abstract;
Witness I, general manager of a Great Falls baseball tean, and
Witness II, his secretary, observed two white lights moving slowly
across the sky. Witness 1 made Ibmm. motion pictures of the lights.
Both individuals have recently reaffirmed the observation, and there
is little reason to question its validity. The case remains unexplained.
Analysis indicates that the images on the film are difficult to recon-
cile with aircraft or other known phenomena, although aircraft cannot
be entirely ruled out.

bib

t
Background:
At 11:25 a.m. (5 August or 15 August) Witness I, general manager
of the Great Falls tlcctrics, a baseball team, was making tn inspection
of the baseball stadium (1,3) with his secretary, Witness II, In virtually
all early publications (e.g., 2,5) the date for this is consistently given
as 15 August 1950. However, Dr. Roy Craig of the Colorado project notes
early correspondence between Witness 1 and Project Blue Book that raises
an uncertainty about the date. A letter dated 9 January 1953, from Great
Falls AFB (renamed Maistrom APE later) to Project Blue Book, conveying
results of a re-interrogation which had been requested by Blue Book,
states:
"(Witness I's) version of the incident is as follows:
•On about the 5th or 15th of August, 1950, I, as
manager of the Electrics, a local baseball team,
walked to the grandstand of the local stadium
here in Great Falls, Montana. It was approximately
11:31) a.m. and my purpose was to check the direc-
tion of the wind in preparation for the afternoon's
game. "'
A subsequent undated Blue Book review of the case, dated late 1956,
carries the case dated "5 or 15 August, 1950". Or. Craig determined by
checking Great Falls newspaper records that no home game was scheduled
for 15 August, and, in fact, the witness' team played that evening in
Twin Falls, Idaho. Mrs. LaVern Kohl, Reference Librarian, Great Falls
Public Library, determined, at Dr. Craig's request, that the baseball team
played no home games in Great Falls between 9 and 18 August, 1950. The
15 August sighting date is therefore certainly open to question.
Accounts of the incident give essentially the following information:
As was his habit, Witness I looked NNW to the smokestack
of the Anaconda Copper Company in order to ascertain the wind
direction. (1,2,3) Directly in line with the stack, he saw two
bright lights stationary in the £ky(l) . After a few seconds, he
decided they could not be airplanes (1), directed his secretary's
attention to the objects, and ran to his car which was 50-60 ft.

627
1 !
away (.l,2,3j. Her observations were reported in Blue Book
files to be identical to Witness I's (1). At his car he
took five to eight seconds to load his motion picture camera
with Eastman kodachrome, daylight-type (1). The camera was
a Revere turret-type, 16mm. magazine loader, with a F.l.U
telephoto lens with a 3 in. focal length. He set the dia-
phragm at F.22 and the focus at infinity. Film speed was
lb frames per second (.2). From the time of sighting until
he began filming, approximately 30 seconds elapsed.(3J.
At a point near his car (.1), he began "panning" his camera
slowly from right to left (2). During this time tht lights
had moved from a stationary position toward the SW and they
continued to the SW until they faded away (1,2,3J. The
first frames were not made until the object was already in
the SK (.3). (See Plate 27 and Fig 4).

According to the initial Air Force report of b October 1950, Witness 1

described two disk-shaped lights having a bright, clean, "aluminum quality
(.2). He thought that the objects were about 50 ft. in diameter, 3 ft. in
depth and about 50 yds. apart (.2)- I" a subsequent written statement quoted
in the Blue Book report of 9 January 1953, he described them as being "like
two new dimes in the sky" (1) and said they may have made whistling or
whooshing noise (.2J.
According to the initial report of 0 October 1950, Witness I described
a definite spinning motion (2). While in a stationary position "an occasional
vibration seemod to momentarily tilt them, after which they would instantly
correct their level plane t^ its seemingly balanced position. The two ob-
jects made an abrupt flight in an arc motion at very high speeds" (I), in
late 1952 he estimated the speed as being over 400 mph.(l) The Air Force
report of 1950 quotes his first estimate of the speed as about 200 mph (2).
Witness I thought they were between 5,000 and 10,000 ft. in altitude
and at an elevation angle of 30o-35o above the horizon and within 0.75 mi.
(.2) or 2-2.5 mi. (.1) from him (1,2). Measurements of the motion picture
film (3) indicate that in the first available frames, the lights were at an
elevation of about 15 and slowly descending (3).

028
 MALSTROto
AFB

VICINITY OF GREAT FALLS

UFO SIGHTING

0213 POPULATED AREA

EX. OF PARABOLIC FUGHT

YIELDING PERSISTENT
REFLECTION

Attempt to reconstruct the Great Falls

sighting as reflections off two airplanes.
Arguments listed in the t^xt constrain
any involved airplanes to approxiMtely
the geometry shown and suggest that no
bright reflection would be obtained
from the aircraft during the filming.
Nonetheless, the arguments against the
aircraft hypothesis are inconclusive and
the explanation depicted here can be
Fig. 4 described as tenable. (Adapted from
diagrams by Baker, ref. 3).
629
 In l'J53 lliis witness reported that the sighting lasted for 3.3 min-
utes (1). The 1950 Air Force report says that he reported that the-
objects were observed a tocal of about 30 sec. by him and about 7 sec.
by Witness II (2). The apparent discrepancy probably refers to the fact
that Witness I made about JO sec. of film. The reference to Witness II
seeing the lights for 7 sec. is unexplained. It would appear that about
30 sec. to a minute elapsed from the moment of the sighting (over the
smokestack to the north) until he began filming (3). Light seconds of
that tune were spent preparing the camera (2). He actually filmed the
event for lb sec. and possibly more (see next paragraph)(3). A Douglas
Aircraft Co. report of April 1956 states that the objects hovered at a
point above a water tower for "a while" and then flew out of sight with
a swooshing sound (1). This may refer to hovering prior to the filming;
the film indicates steady motion.
The first 10 to JO frames on the extant film show the objects at
their brightest and largest. Witness 1 alleges that about 30 frames
preceding these show the lights as disk-like objects with rotary motion
visible, but that these frames were missing when the film was returned
by the Air Force (see below). Throughout the sequence, the two images
stand out from the sky background because of their intensity, sharpness,
and constant relative orientation, one preceding the other in a smooth
progression across the sky and behind the water tower. There is a slow
fading and dwindling in size. In the film, the lights do not hover or
decelerate near the tower. According to a photogramctric analysis of
the film (.3), the lights disappear completely from view by the end of
the lb sec. film. A later analysis (3) indicates that although the im-
ages are fading by the final frames (fading out by #225), they fade out
suddenly enough at the end that they "were not isotropic constant-lumi-
nosity reflectors" (e.g. balloons).
At all times tie two images present elliptical shapes which the
analysis (3) concludes, "is due exclusively to the movenent of the camera"
(.panning rigut to left), but my own measurements (see below) suggest that,
except for a few frames, the ellipticity is present because the reflect-
ing source is not circular. The ellipticity is most clearly seen in the
first frames, where the objects appear larger.

630
 Witness 1 had his film processed and showed it to various intcrestc-..
friends and service clubs (3,4). Witness II never saw this film (4j. (No
mention of the sighting was recorded in either of the Great Falls newspapers
prior to 12 September 1950). Witness I was frequently mentioned in the news-
papers in his role as baseball manager, however (4). A newspaperman affil-
iated with the Great Falls Leader was the link in reporting the sighting to
officials (4). Witness I submitted the film to Air Force ATIC officials
who at that time were investigating UFO's (3). It was analyzed there, and
also by the U. S. Navy (3). The initial Air Force report is dated 5 October.
Ruppelt (5) reports that:
"(he) had sent his movies to the Air Force back in 1950,
but in 1950 there was no interest in the UFO so, after a quick
viewing, Project Grudge had written them off as the 'reflections
of two F-94 jet fighters that were in the area.•
"In 1952, at the request of the Pentagon, I reopened the
investigation...."
After the original, apparently cursory study of the film in 1950, the
Air Materi 1 Command Headquarters in a writcen statement to Witness I con-
cluded with the following example of military obfuscation: "...our photo
analysts were unable to find on it anything identifiable of an unusual nature.
Our report of analysis must therefore be negative."
According to Kuppelt (5) the 1952 ATIC investigation "quickly con-
firmed that the objects were not birds, balloons, or meteors." The conclusions
were that, assuming the objects to be at a distance too great to be resolved,
they moved too fast and were too steady to be birds, but moved too slowly to
be meteors. Airplanes were the only tenable alternative (see below). The
objects were described by Ruppelt as of "unknown" origin. Mr. A1 Chop, em-
ployed by ATIC at that time and contacted in 1955 by Baker (3), "recalls
that the analysis was considered inconclusive," confirming Kuppelts's account.
When the film was returned from the Air Force, according to Witness I,
about the first 30 frames had been removed (3). If so, they were never
recovered. According to him, as described by Baker (3), "the first 30-odd
frames showed larger images of the UFOs with a notch or band at one point on
the periphery of the objects by which they could be seen to rotate in unison
while on the rest of the film the objects show up only as unarticulated
bright white dots."

631
 The film was purchased by Grccn-Rouse Productions, Sam tioldwyn
Studios, Hollywood, and was made part of a documentary feature-length
movie released by United Artists in 1956.
Dr. R. M. L. Baker, Jr., of Douglas Aircraft Co., borrowed a 35mm.
reprint of the film from Sam Cloldwyn Studios in 1955 for the photogram-
metric analysis reported in reference (3).
While studying the problem of reassessing old, "classic" cases.
Dr. Roy Craig of the Colorado Project interviewed several of the prin-
cipals in the case in I%7. Dr. Craig reported (4J: (1J that Witness I
had a file of correspondence with the Air Force but could not locate a
letter in which, he asserted, the Air Force admitted deleting some of
the film; he could not remember any information (such as his own discussion
in the United Artists' film) about the two airplane; in the vicinity;
{2) that Witness 1 distinctly remembered seeing a single light, rushing
outside with Witness I to photograph it, and noting that its appearance
was quite different from an airplane; she remembered seeing only one
object; (.5) that some individuals who reportedly saw the film before it
was lent to the Air Force agreed that not all was returned, but several
other of tnese individuals disclaimed having seen the film at all.

Witnesses
1. According to the 1950 report of the Air Force interrogator. Witness I
went to Montana State University in 1935 and graduated in 193S with a
BA in journalism. Since 1941 he has resided in Great Falls. During the
war he served in the Army Air Forces from June 1943 to October 1945,
attaining the rank of Corporal and was editor of a newspaper at Great Falls
AFB. He has been married since 194Ü. At the time of this UFÜ sighting,
he was general manager of the Great Falls baseball club, and was a radio
sports commentator. He is regarded as a reliable, trustworthy, and
honest individual and is highly respected in the community.
J. Witness 11, 19 years of age, was employed as Witness I's secretary at
the tine of the sighting. She impressed the Air Force interrogator as
being a "fairly reliable individual and of good sound judgment."

632
 I
Analysis
In view of the detailed published analysis by Dr. Baker (3) I will
limit this discussion to a summary of his results and some new results
of our study.
A test not carried out by Baker lias a bearing on his conclusions and
thus will be described first. If the clear ellipticity of the images on
the film were the result of resolution of disks oriented parallel with
the ground, then the apparent inclination i, measured by the minor and
major axes, b and a, would be equal to the altitude angle a. That is,
• ga = a
i = arc sin $
The b and a values were measured on a number of the frames, the first
frames Cthe larger images) giving the best measurements. Table 3 shows
the results.
In spite of the rather large uncertainties in the i measurements,
especially in the later frames, the meaning of the table is clear; the
flattening of the recorded image is not nearly enough to be explained by
the foreshortening of a horizontally-oriented ellipse. As does Baker,
I infer that the object probably is not really resolved; rather, it is
a bright source with an angular size somewhat less than the maximun
measured in the first frames (0.ÜÜ151 radians). Since the measured
apparent i stays constant while the angular size drops to 0.6 this
value by the last measured frames, the true image size must be only
slightly lesi, than the apparent sire and some of the rounding may be
due to halation. Baker concludes that the ellipticity is due to cam-
era panning motion; however, the relative consistency of the "i" values,
plus the clear case of camera motion in frame 2, greatly exceeding the
flattening in the other frames, indicates to me that there was a true
and constant ellipticity or flattening. The true or intrinsic value
must be "flatter" than the 59° indicated by Table 3 , and could, oi
course, even be 14 (.i.e., consistent with a horizontal disk).
With the conclusion in mind that the angular diameter was less
than Ü.ÜÜ151 radians, consider the possible explanations of the film:
If the 15 August dafe were correct, the objects were not balloons
or airborne debris because they are moving into the wind. They are dis-
appearing to the SW, and Baker's analysis indicates a well determined

633
 Table 3

INCLINATION VERSUS ALTITUDE

1 ■ ■■—■ ■■ -"I
Inclination i
Frame No. M ^ Altitude
| (See Ref. 3) (1st UFO) (2nd UFO)

1 64° 58° 15°

i •>
imigs blur due to ramera motion
5 57 59
lb 63 55 14° i
32 57 58
48 48 56
64 55 62
1 80 68 61
i 96 58 63
112 51 75
128 50 52 13°
I ■ ._ ... ,.,, 1

634
 azimuth heading of 171 , while the wind was out of the southwest (3).
[. The objects, as reported, were not birds because of the disk shape
anu general strangeness to both witnesses; the objects filmed are very
unlikely to have been birds because of the linearity of the path and
uniformity of the images over 16 seconds, with absence of any variation
j in photometry or shape that could be attributed to flapping (usually
5-13 strokes/sec..\ changes in orientation, or changes in direction.
The objects were not meteors, since their angular rate of travel
was so slow, and they were filmed for at least 16 sec, yet they left
no trail, made no audible or visible explosions or fragmentation, and
were not reported elsewhere across Montana and other northwestern states.
Ihe great bolide of 2S April 1966, for example, thoup.h it was visible
for about 30 sec, underwent marked brightness variations and at least
two explosions, left a marked trail indicated on all photos, and was
seen by thousands of persons.
Past investigations have left airplanes as the principal working
hypothesis. The data at hand indicate that while it strains credibility
to suppose that these were airplanes, the possibility nonetheless can-
not he entirely ruled out.
There are several independent arguments against airplane reflec-
tions. UJ Short-term variations in image size (correlated with brightnessj ,
time scale ca. 1 sec, are typically not more than ± 51. A priori consid-
erations of aircraft stability and empirical observations by Baker indicate
that it is very unlikely that two aircraft could maintain such constant
rcflecliotis over not only the 16 sec and the 20° azimuth arc photographed
but also the minimum of 50 sec. visually observed. I have confirmed this
by studying aircraft visually in the vicinity of Tucson airports; in at
least a dozen cases none has been seen to maintain a constant or unidenti-
fiable reflection as long as 16 sec.
(21 Assuming that 15 August was the correct date, Air Force investi-
gators found that there were two F-94 jets in the vicinity and that they
landed only minutes after the sighting, which could well have put them in
circling path around Mai Strom AFB, only three miles ESE of the baseball
park. However, Witness 1 reported seeing two planes coming in for a land-
ing behind him immediately following the filming (3), thereby accounting
for those aiicraft.

h35
 mpy^piip HI«« >■ .^r,

References:
f 1. Supplemental report of 9 January 1953, which was in response
I to an order from Project Blue Book for more information. This report
■ contains an approximately one-page typewritten statement by the chief
!
f. witness.
| 2, Investigating Officer's report of 6 October 1950, containing
^ summary of information per provisions of Air Intelligence Requirements
•■,
Memo number four.
i

3. Baker Jr., Robert M. L. "Photogrammetrie Analysis of the

•Montana' Film Tracking Two UFOs," Dougloß Aircraft, Ino., March 1956.
(Also published in J. Astronaut, Sai.3 15, No. 1, 1^68. Includes:
5a: 1950--Interrogation of pilots of reported F-94,s
by Project Bluebook, probably identical to 2,
3b: 1950--Two sources of weather data: "weather maps,"
and half hourly surface observation by Weather Bureau at Great
Falls Municiple Airport.
3c: 1955--Telephone conversation; R. M. L. Baker to witness I,
March.
3d: 1955--Corrcspondence; R. M. L. Baker to Col. D. M.
Hamilton, Conmanding Officer, Malstrom AFB, November.
4. Craig, Roy, Private communications—see also Dr. Craig's
discussion of this incident in Section III, Chapter 1.
5. Ruppelt, Edward J. The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects,
New York: Doubleday; Ace, 1956.

636
 . ,- •. fl»«».»*T' »i«..«'i «w-trv RiiiiMWWMMMIMMW

[ Cnse 48
Barra Da Tijuca, Brazil (Coast of Brazil near Punta da Marisco; near
Rio de Janeiro)
7 May 1952
{ Investigator: Hartmann
i

Abstract:
This case has been presented as one of the strongest and demonstrably
"genuine" flying saucer sightings. It contains an obvious and simple
internal inconsistency, which is pointed out by D. H. Menzel and L. G.
Boyd.

Background:
lliis sighting is described in considerable detail in "A.P.R.O.
Special Report No. 1" (Fontes, 1961; ref. 1). According to this
description, the two witnesses, one a press photographer and the other
a reporter of 0 Cruzeiro magazine, were on a "routine job for their
magazine." Dr. Fontes, a Brazilian representative of A.P.R.O., quotes
a television discussion of the case by Fenando Cleto, described as a
"high ranking employee of the Bank of Brazil" and a leading Brazilian
UFO private investigator (ref. 1):
At 4:30 PMl (witness II] suddenly spotted an
object approaching in the air at high speed. He
thought at first it was an airplane he was facing
[see photo no. l]. . . . There was still something
strange, he realized. That "plane" was flying
sideways."
He shouted, "What the d3vil is that?" [Witness l]
had his Rolleiflex at hand and [witness II] yelled,
"Shoot . . . ."
[witness I] grabbed his loaded camera and got
five pictures in about 60 seconds, thus obtaining

637

T* ***** vvt»*i .v-.,*BKÄMi-JjJ*,

'ti. ^fmtftm^nri'rff

the most sensational pliotographic sequence of a

"flying Jisc." [Two of those photos arc reproduced
in Plates J8 niul Jn, kindly supplied by APRO] .

.<
9

Investigation:
Dr. Fontes' report (1) continues with Mr. Cleto's account of
Brazilian Air Force analysis of the photos. Mr. Cleto stated that
he had been "authorized" by Brazilian Air Force officials to show
• some of the Air Force documents on the case. Mr. Cleto stated that
certain diagrams provided by the Air Force "demonstrated . . . the
absolute impossibility of a hoax" by virtue of distances and alti-
tudes depicted. These dimensions exceeded the limits for a small
model thrown by hand. UT. Fontes also states that the graphic
analyses and photographs constitute "absolute photographic evidence
that the unconventional aerial objects called UFOs or 'flying
saucers' are real."
Diagrams, apparently hand-lettered, are presented in reference 1
as based on "results obtained by the Air Force's top photography experts
who did the analysis of the photos, including also the data, calculations
and estimations obtained in the methodical and exhaustive technical
investigations made at the spot where the pictures had been taken."
Among their tests, the Air Force analysts made photographs of a
hand-thrown wooden model (later confusing the case because of result-
ing local rumors that men had been seen photographing obvious models).
However, no satisfactory justification is given for the distances
from observer to dibk, indicated on the diagrams as being on the
scale of several Kilometers.
In general, the Colorado project has avoided cases outside
North America because of the difficulty of obtaining first hand
evidence. It is not instructive to go into further detail about
the history of the Barra da Tijuca case, because the information
is third-hand and channeled through individuals we have not inter-
viewed. (Experience has shown that this is usually unsatisfactory).

638
 ■■■«,< »*• ■r- •*• -■•••*?!■ ■''♦ I

Nonetheless, this case eont.iins elements that must be taken into

account in any general discuss ion of the IJI'O problem.
In spite of this case's presentation as one of the most convincinj;
of all, with "offijia'i danenentB . . . perspective studies and mathema-
tical calculations . . . coid, scientific facts" (Fontes emphasis), the
case contains an obvious internal inconsistency that has still not been
adequately explained. Menzel and Boyd (2) pointed out that on one of
the photos, the disk is clearly illuminated from the left, while the
hillside below appears to be illuminated from the right. They flatly
label the case as a hoax.
Plates 38 and 29 show two representative frames of the series of
photos. Plate 29 is the photo in question; the lighting of the
disk i;- easily verified. Plate 30 is an enlargement of the hillside,
and the palm tree as well as certain clumps of foliage appear to be
illuminated from the right, in accord with Dr. Menzel's observation.
Dr. Fontes acknowledges this criticism, but states that "The
solution is very simple. There are two broken leaves in the tree
and one of them is in an inclined position while the other has fallen
over the tree itself. These leaves are responsible for the 'wrong'
shadow on the tree." This however, does not account for the additional
clumps of foliage that also suggest the "wrong" lighting.
A map included in the Fontes report shows the Barra da Tijuca
region. It appears from this map that the hills range clockwise
for NW to SSW of the camera, while the sea stretches from WNW to SW.
At 4:30 p.m. in May the su.i, seen from this point near latitude 24° S,
would be in the NW. The analytic diagrams based on the Air Force
results show the sun at elevation 27'20 and show the UFO approaching
from the direction of the sun, then moving off to the right. This
would seen to be in accord with the photos: Plate 28 appears to be
backlighted and thtre would be hills to the right of the sun. How-
ever, the map is not explicit enough to determine which hills are
shown, and the lighting of the hills suggests they may be the ridge
SSW of the camera (far left of the sun).

659
 Thorc is not enuu^h information available to suggest whether the
j Air Force, in attempting to duplicate the photos with a model at the
site, discovered or considered this problem.

Conclusion:
The objection raised by Dr. Menzel is supported by our independent
enlargement of one of the frames (kindly provided by APRO).
j This case is presented as an example of photographs which have
been described as incontrovertible evidence of flying saucers, yet
which contain a simple and obvious internal inconsistency.

Sources of Infornation:

1. Fontes, 0. T. APRC Special Report No. 1 - The Barra da Tijuaa

Disc, (October, 1961).
2. Menzel, D. H. and L. G. Boyd. JTie World of Flying Saucers,
Garden City, N. Y,: Doubleday, 1963.

640
 .. mwwiMKfat' "•*w'WH8»,;

Case 49
Tremonton. Utah
2 July 195: (Wednesday)
Investigator: Hartmann

Abstract:
Witness I accompanied by his wife (Witness II) and their two
children saw and made motion pictures of a "rough formation" of
apparent point sources "milling around the sky." The visual obser-
vations and film are not satisfactorily explained in terms of
aircraft, radar chaff, or insects, or balloons though the films
alone are consistent with birds. Observations of birds near Tre-
monton indicate that the objects are birds, and the case cannot
be said to establish the existence of extraordinary aircraft.

Background:
Time: About 11:10 MST ("MST" appears in early AF documents, ref 4).
Location: Seven miles north of Tremonton, northern Utah (41oS0lN;
U^IO'W)
Camera Data: 16mm Bell and Mowell Automaster; magazine load; 3 in. f.l.
telephoto lens on turret mount; f/8 and f/16; Kodachrome
Daylight film; hand held; 16 f.p.s.
Direction of sighting: First seen in east, moved out of sight to west
a
Weather conditions: Cloudless deep blue sky. Sun at altitude 64.5,
azimuth 131° (Naval Observatory ■• ref 4).
Weather data from Corinne, Utah, about 18 miles south of the site,
were obtained by Baker (1): Max. temp: 84°. Min. temp '•"*.
No precipitation. A high pressure cell from the Pr^ii'it
Northwest wa« spreading over northern Utah durl.JK the icy .
'The pressure at Tremonton would have a rising tx'em), the
visibility good, and the winds relatively light,"

641
 Witness I, with his wife and two children (ages 12, 14) were
en route from Washington ü.(". to Portland, Ore., driving north on
State Highway 30 seven miles north of Tremonton (1,4a; refs. 2
and 3 incorrectly state the witness was in transit to Oakland, Calif.)
The witness's wife called his attention to a group of "bright shining
objects in the air off towards the eastward horizon" (1).

Sighting, ("iencral [nformatiun:

Approximately five weeks aftc1" the events. Witness I sent the
following account to Project nine Nook (11 August; NT4-28/831Ü/177283;
ref. 4a):
Driving from Washington, U.C. to Portland, Ore.,
on the morning of 2 inly my wife noticed a group
of objects in the sky that she could not identify.
She asked me to stop Hie car and look. There wa5
a group of about ten or twelve objects - that b^re
no relation to anything I had seen before - milling
about in a rough formation and proceeding in a west-
erly direction. I opened the luggage compartment of
the car ami got my camera out of a suitcase. Loading
it hurriedly, I exposed approximately thirty feet of
film. There was no reference point in the sky and it
was impossible for me to make any estimate of speed,
size, altitude or distance. Toward the end one of
the objects reversed course and proceeded away from
the main group. 1 held the camera still and allowed
this single one to cross the field of view, picking
it up again and repeating for three or four such passes.
By this time all of the objects had disappeared. I
expended the balance of the film late that afternoon
on a mountain somewhere in Idaho (See Plate 31).

642
 Ulis letter serves as the principal descriptive document in
the Air Force file (4). Accordinj; to a chronology by Col. W.A.
Adum?, Chief, Topical Division, Deputy Director for fistimates,
Directorate of Intelliyence, in a letter dated 8 Sept., 1952 (4J,
the next contact with Witness I was an intelligence officer's
interview on 10 Sept., 1952.
In this second deposition, as recorded by the Air Force In-
telligence officer, the witiuss establishes the following facts:
"No sound heard during observation. No exhaust trails or contrails
observed. No aircraft, birds, balloons, or other identifiable ob-
jects seen in air immediately before, during, or immediately after
observation. Single object which detachc' itself from group did
head in direction opposite original course and disappeared from
view while still travelling in this direction.
The witness used a "camera [without tripod] pointed at estimated
Ti0 elevation and [panned] arc from approximately due east to due
west, then from due west to approximately 60° from north in photo-
graphing detached object...
"Sun was approximately overhead. .Objeccs were at approximately
o
70 above terrain on a course several miles from the observer...
Bright sunlight, clear, approximately 80°, slight breeze from east
northeast approximately 5 to 5 m.p.h.
[in the witness's] opinion:... Light from objects caused by reflection,
objects appeared approximately as long as they were wide and thin
[sic]. [All of them] appeared to have same type of motion except
for one object which reversed its course. Disappeared from view
by moving cut of range of eyesight.. .Observer facing north [during
bulk of observation]."
The key witness had been in the Navy 19 years with service as
a warrant officer and had over 1,000 hours on aerial photography
missions (4b). Baker states the witness had 2,200 hours logged
as chief photographer. The witness graduated from naval photographic

643
school in h'.>l> tll>) . Ho "Jors COIISIIIIMMI) Ic crouiul |ihol(^;ra|iliy"
and "it is be I iv veil [lu] rould lu' e lassi fi t-«.! ;is an exjiurt photo-
grapher" 1,4b). Intri^uoil by Ins experience, the witness later
accepted an "appointment as special Adviser to NICAP," acting in a
private capacity (.4, quoted from NICAP's "The UFO Investigator").

Investigation:
In 1955 R.M.L. Baker's analysis of the case, (1) gives sub-
stantially the same account, with the additional information:
"Khen he got out, he observed the objects (twelve to fourteen of
them) to be directly overhead and milling about. He described
them as 'gun metal colored objects shaped like two saucers, one
inverted on top of the other.' lie estimated that they subtended
,
'about the same angle us [U9 s at 10,000 ft.' (about half a degree
i.e. about the angular diameter of the moon)."
This data is a substantial addition to that recorded above.
I have been unable to find any record of these statements in the
Blue Book file supplied to the Colorado project (an inch-thick
stack of nearly unsorted documents). The essence of Witness B's
early deposition describes entities or "objects," apparently
reflecting, bright, circular or spherical, at considerable distance.
The indication of both his testimony and the film that he photo-
graphed captured (.unresolved) objects nearly overhead, including
one that retraced its motion above him, giving no suggestion that
the objects could ever have been as large as half a degree even
at close approach, or that Witness I ever clearly saw metallic con-
struction saucer-shaped profiles. 'Hie witness's original letter of
II August offers the film "for whatever value it may have in con-
nection with your investigation of the so-called 'Flying Saucers' ",
a phrasing which does not suggest he was convinced of the existence
of extraordinary metallic craft at that time. Baker (private
connunication, 31 May 19b8) indicates that the description in question
was given in interviews about 1955. His memory may have become "set"

644
 ,,-!-'■ im

by this time, or affected by events such as the witness's service

as a ^ICAP advisor in the interim.
The film contains about 1200 frames (1), i.e. about 75 sec.
After roughly 20 or 25 sec, the Witness decided he was somewhat over-
exposing the film, and changed the stop from f/8 to f/16, trying
to increase contrast (la). The objects were milling around, often
in groups of two or three travelling together among the others.
The films indicate that the objects fluctuated markedly in brightness.
The witness had the film processed and submitted it to his
Navy superiors (1). The letter from the witness to Hill Air Force
Base, Ogden, Utah, 11 Aug. 1952, transmits the film to the Air
Force (4c>. The Air Force ATIC Blue Book team was advised, and the
variability of the objects suggested airplanes, but this idea was
ruled out because the witnesses heard no engine noise, and a large
distance would have indicated impossible speed (10 mi. indicated
1300 mph - ref 1). Balloons were rejected due to the large number
of objects, the random milling, and the departure of one object in
opposite direction from the others.
A favorite hypothesis was birds, but there was no strong evidence
in its favor, and it was believed the objects were too far away
(hence too fast).
Ruppelt (2) reports that after several weeks, "the Air Force
photo lab at Wright Field gave up. All they had to say was, 'We
don't know what they are but they aren't airplanes or balloons,
and we don't think they arc birds.'" Baker (1) quotes Mr. Al
Chop (who was with ATIC) confirming Ruppelt's account: the ATIC
group was convinced they were not airplanes, but could not rule out
that the camera mi^ht have been slightly out of focus and that the
objects were soaring birds.
The films were then forwarded at the request of the Navy to
a group of Navy photo analysts at Anacostia, who had some ideas about
hot» to study the films. The Navy group concluded that the UFOs were
intelligently controlled vehicles and that they weren't airplanes

645
or birds. They arrived at this conclusion by making a frame-b>-frame
study of the motion of the lights and the changes in the lights'
intensity. The analysts stopped short of identifying the objects
as interplanetary space craft (2) although this implication was
evidently present.
These conclusions were presented to the Robertson panel, which
was meeting at this time (early 1953). Ruppelt reports (2) that
there was some criticism of the Navy analysts' use of the densitometer,
and that one of the panel members raised the possibility that while the
key witness "thought he had held the camera steady...he could have
'panned with the action' unconsciously, which would throw all of
the computations way off. I agreed with this, but I couldn't agree
that they were sea gulls." The panel members' favored explanation
of what was seen was white gulls which arc known to inhabit the
Great Salt Lake area. Ruppelt (2) concludes that he personally
watched sea gulls later in San Francisco, circling in a clear sky.
"There was a strong resemblance to the UFO's in the Tremonton movie.
But I'm not sure that this is the answer."
R.M.L. Baker, Jr. made an independent analysis in 1955 under
the auspices of Douglas Aircraft Co. He ruled out airplanes and balloons
for reasons similar to those of the Air Force. In addition he
argues against anti-radar chaff (bits of aluminum foil) or bits of
airborne debris because of the persistence of non-twinkling "con-
stellations," the small number of objects, and the differential
motions. Soaring insects, such as "ballooning spiders" are un-
satisfying as an explanation, as the objects were ob-
served a short time from a moving car, indicating a considerable
distance, and there were no observed web streamers.
Baker points out that since the tendency of the observer would
be to pan *':'th the object, not against its motion, the derived velocities
are Zo-vr limits (unless the key witness panned with the group, not
the single object). Thus the suggestion of panning could compound
the difficulty with the bird hypothesis. Baker concluded that "no

046
definite conclusion could be obtained" ss the
evidence remains rather contiadictory and no single hypothesis of
a natural phenomenon yet suggested seems to completely account for
the UFO involved.
Menzel and Boyd (3) dismiss the objects as birds. Thei" con-
clusion, however, is phrased in a way inconsistent with the facts:
"The pictures are of such poor quality and show so little that even
the most enthusiastic home-movie fan todav would hesitate to show
thorn to his friends, t nlv a stimulated imagination could suggest
that the moving objects are anything but very badly photographed birds."
lliis gives the totally wrong impression that the objects are diff-
icult to identify merely because of poor photography. The objects
may be bird« though unresclved because of distances, but the images
are small and relatively sharp, and lack of a clear identification
cannot be ascribed to poor photography. (.The films wo have analyzed
are those shown to the Robertson panel, winch evidently did not
consider the solution as being so obvious as is implied by Menzel
and Boyd.)
The Tremonton case came at a time when members of several
official groups were privately concerned with the serious possibility
that "flying saucers" might exist in fact (cf.2). The Navy report
(4), released by the U.S. Naval Photographic Interpretation Center
(the earliest known copy is stawped "Dec. S, 19S2") , was prepared
by a group inclined to accept unknown aircraft, lor example, the
report contains under "i'i scussion" the following statements:
In the analysis conducted, no attempt is made to
explain the phenomena nor are the comments tcrapcreH by
knowledge of present day science...Comments are «s seen,
as analyzed, and as computed; and as such, are partly
at variance with the natural phenomena theories.
It is inferred in the Navy report that the objects are in-
trinsic light sources, not reflected light sources. Iliis "opinion...
is based on the time they can be viewed continuously on the film.

t>47
approximately 90 sec, and on the angle through which they can
be photographed, approximately 60°. It is felt that if these images
were reflected light, blinking would occur.." This inference ignores
the fact that the objects were "blinking," i.e. erratically chang-
ing brightness, a fact pointed out in a list of questions which the re-
port was designed to answer.
The velocity was treated in the Navy report by analyzing the
final part of the film, assuming the camera was stationary and the
objects moving perpendicular to the optical axis, "...the only
unknown in the determination of the velocity is the distance from
the observer to the object. This was arbitrarily set at five miles."
Though it is clearly stated that this is an assumption, this treatment
apparently led to misunderstandings, as we will show.
The findings of the Navy report were summarized in a list of
connients including the foil wing statements.
1. It appears to be a light source rather than re-
flected light.
2. No bird known to be sufficiently actinic. ..
9. Velocity was computed to be 3780 mph for a shift
of 1mm per frame if the object is five miles from
the observer.
The sentences immediately following the last quote show that
the actual measurements show an average displacement not of 1mm
per frame, but of "0.1729mm" per frame. It is then stated that "on
this basis the mean velocity is 653.S mph." Again, it is still
aaeuned that the distance is 5 miles.
This result, properly interpreted, is quite compatible with
that of Baker (1), who gives 670 mph for 5 miles distance. At
ten miles, the speed would be some 1,300 mph; however, Ruppelt
(2) in 1956 states, "Had the lone UFO been 10 miles away it would
have been traveling several thousand miles an hour." This incorrect
judgment is attributed by Ruppelt to the Air Force analysts, but
may represent an incorrect reading of the Navy report.

648
I
1
4
 , ;./. ,.„,, «VfHt,»?- fV» ^

In February 1953, the month after the Robertson panel meetings,

there was correspondence within Project Blue Book on the wording of
a press release on Tremonton. Ruppelt (4) suggested that it be stated
that "the images were caused by surfaces having good light reflective
qualities, such ai sea gulls..." He noted that though many experts
"firmly believed the objects to be sea gulls or balloons," the
Air Force could not prove that they were. Apparently, no complete re-
lease of its Tremonton analysis was made.
As much as the intrinsic ambiguity of the images, it was apparently
1.1) the existence of a report intimating intelligent control (however
inappropriately), (2) ill-advised statements that very high speeds
might be involved (3) . The allegation that it could be and had been
proved that spacecraft were involved, and (4) lack of serious response
to his challenge made the Tremonton film a "classic" among flying
saucer devotees .
.An example of the distortion of the case in the popular press
is an account in comic-book form, a copy of which is included in the
Blue Boo1; file that (while accurate in most other respects) shows
the key witness j' jtographing a series of large, disk-shaped objects
of, one would judge, several degrees apparent size. Such subtle
distortion makes the gull explanation seem absurd, and abets popular
misconceptions.

Anal>sis:
Angular size, distance, and velocity. The angular size of
the objects has been determined by Baker's microscopic measurements:
(1) The angular diameters of images range from 0.0016 to 0.0004
radians (5.5 to 1.5 min. of arc). Assuming a "bird-size" reflecting
circle of 8 in. diameter, these results would give distances of 415 -
l,b70 ft., respectively. Ther larger sizes are undoubtedly due
to "flaring" and consequent overexposure of the images, substantiated
by Chop's report (1) that they were very dense, "burned right down
to the celluoid backing," and ehe Air Force analysts' report (4)

b49
that when the ohjects dimmed sufficU'tit ly, they tuded out entirely
with no dark dot or silKouetto being visible.
Therefore, the minimum distance compatible with the bird
hypothesis is estimated to be about 2,000 ft. Al this distance, the
hypothetical bright reflecting 8 in. breast would subtend about 1.2
min. of arc, and a 2 ft. wingspan, 3.6 min., or about 0.1 the angular
diameter of the moon. The human eye's resolving power is 1 to 3 min.
of arc (1). As the camera was pointed about 70° elevation during
the filming, it is doubtful that the objects ever exceeded these
apparent sizes or that a better visual observation was obtained.
The dimensions given are compatible with several gulls known in
the region, such as the Calitomia and Herring gulls (1, 5). Many
of these gulls have breasts much more highly reflecting than their
wings. Consequently the fact that the wings were not resolved
either visually or photographically is lot surprising, since they
were at the margin of resolvability. This problem would be all
the more likely if the "gulls" were smaller or further away.
As noted above, the Navy's and Baker's angular velocity measurements
give similar values. Baker's measurements of the single object,
where it is reported and assumed that the camera was stationary,
gave values of 0.01 to 0.07 radians per sec. Variations were attributed
to camera jiggling. Values averaged over two sequences were 0.031
and 0.1)39 radians/sec. These correspond to linear transverse
velocities (.at 2,000 ft. distance) of 14-9S mph, with the averaged
values being 42 and 53 mph. Since the objects were at a high elevation
angle, the transverse velocity probably approximates the total
velocity. Taking into account an additional positive or negative
uncertainty due to possible residual panning motion, the indicated
range of velocities is compatible with the bird hypothesis.
Baker also measured relative angular velocities of the objects
in the cluster with respect to each other, finding values ranging from
zero to 0.0065 radians per second. At 2,000 ft. distance, this
correspond) to 0 to 13 fps or about 0 to 9 mph.

650
 1
"Flaring" and light variations. As indicated by the Robertson panel
[2), the Navy conclusion that no bird could reflect enough light to
cause such images was unsubstantiated. While there was no periodic
variation reminiscent of wing flapping, the "flaring" of the objects
and their intermingling and erratic motions suggest soaring birds.
One gains the impression that sometimes the two to four objects
in one of the sub-cons tell ations flare almost simultaneously, sug-
gestive of grouped birds wheeling in flight. (This is difficult
to establish visuallv, as the film was scratched and the image jerky.
In this regard I performed no quantitative test.

Conclusions.
In favor of the hypothesis that the Tremonton objects were
birds, probably gulls, we have the following arguments: (1) White
gulls are known to be present in the area. (2) Bird-sized objects
at a distance of 2,000 ft. would be on the limits of visual resolution,
moving at about 45 to S5 mph east to west, with relative motions up
to 9 mph; (3) Such motions are independently supported by the testimony
that the objects overtook and were first sighted from a moving car
traveling toward the NK. The objects were kept in sight until the
car was stopped, and nearly a minute and a half of film exposed.
(4) Baker points out that the departure of a single object from
the group is typical of a bird seeking a ne.v thermal updraft. (5)
Variations in motion and brightness suggest wheeling birds. (6) The
bulk of informed opinion among those who studied the film, both in
and out of the Air Force, is that birds were the most probable ex-
planation.
Arguments against gulls include the following: (1) The dis-
tances and velocities cited are on the margin of acceptability. If
the gulls were slightly closer, they should have been clearly iden-
tified since their angular size wc-.ld exceed 3 min. of arc; if they
were slightly further away, their velocity would become -jnacceptably

651
high. This argument is considerably weakened by noting that some-
what smaller birds could be unresolvable but slow. (2) Arguments
have been raised that the weather conditions would not be conducive
to thermal updrafts that would allow long, soaring flights of birds.
This is not a strong argument, however, since there is insuffient
data concerning weather conditions. (3) No clear, periodic flapping
is observed on the film. This is not critical, since there are
erratic brightness fluctuations, and since the objects were evidently
below the limits of resolution. (41 The strongest negative argument
was stated later by the witness that the objects were seen to subtend
an angle of about 0.5° and were then seen as gun-metal colored and
shaped like two saucers lie Id together rim to rim, but the photographs
and circumstances indicate that this observation could not have been
meaningful.
Although I cannot offer an expert ornithological opinion, it
appears to me that the Tremonton objects constitute a flock of white
birds. The data are not conclusive, but I have found nothing in
the detailed Blue Book file incompatible with this opinion. The
objects are thus provisionally identified as birds, pending any
demonstration by other investigators that they could not be birds.
There is no conclusive or probative evidence that the eise involves
extraordinary aircraft. On 23 August 1968 after completion of the
above report, I had occasion to drive through Utah and made a point
of watching for birds. The countryside near Tremonton is grassy
farmland with trees, streams, and meadows. It was within 30 mi.
of Tremonton that 1 noticed the greatest concentration of bird activity.
A number of large gulls were seen, some with white bodies and dusky-
tipped wings (.rendering the wings indistinct in flight) and some
pure white. About 10 mi. south of Tremonton and again about 20 mi.
north of Fanguitch (in southern Utah) I saw flocks of white or light
birds at once distinctly reminiscent of the key witness's films. The
birds milled about, the whole group drifting at about 20 or 30 mph

bS2
(I noticed no surface wind) and subtending 10° to 20°. The individual
birds (in the second case) were not quite resolvable, yet appeared
to have some structure. Sometimes pairs would move together and
sometimes individuals or pairs would turn and fade out as others
became prominent. As suggested by the key witness they appeared to
require a telephoto lens for photography. They were not prominent,
but distinctly curious once noted - a group of white objects milling
about in the sky. (The only proof that my second group of objects,
which I observed from a considerable distance, were indeed birds,
was that I saw them take off.) These observations give strong evidence
that the Trenontcn fihie io shou birds, as hypothesized above, and
1 now regard the objects as so identified.

t>53
 Sources of Information

Baker, Robert M.L., .Ir. Analysis of Photographic Material,

Douglas Aircraft Co., 1955.

Menzel, D.M. and Boyd, L.G. The World of Flying Saucers,

Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1963.

Peterson, R.T. .4 Field luide to Western Birds, Boston: lloughton-

Mifflin.

Project Blue Dook files

a. Correspondence: Key witness to U.S.A.F., 11 August
1952.
b. Interview between A.F. Intelligence Officer and
key witness, 10 September 1952.

Ruppelt, E..J. The Eefort on Unidentified Flying Objects,

Garden City, Now York: Doubleday; Ace Books.

054
 ;'

Case 50
Fort Belvoir U.S. Army Facility, Va.
September 1957
Investigator: llartmann

Abstract:
A black ring that became obscured by an opaque white cloud,
reportedly witnessed by about 15 persons and photographed by the
nrincipal witness, is identified as the by-product of an "atom bomb
simulation demonstration" on the army base. f

■■

Background:
Tame: Approx, 9 a.m.
Position: Looking NNE past building T741, Fort Belvoir, Va.
Terrain: Gently rolling hills with scattered technical buildings,
residential areas, and woods.
Weather Conditions: Exact date unknown; hence weather conditions
unavailable. Photographs show scattered cloud cover.

Sighting, General Information:

Private X, who worked as a draftsman with Post Engineers (1),
has given the following account of the visual and photographic
sighting, lie was in one of several buildings facing on a parking
lot flanked by buildings T741 and T742 (1,3). Someone from the
outside called for the men to come out and see the cur'ous object
approaching overhead. Pvt. X and several others came out in time
to see a dark, ringshaped object approaching in the north, lie ran
to his car in the parking lot and got his Kodak Brownie camera
(1.2.5).
Pvt. X thought the black ring "seemed solid," as opposed to
being "like smoke" (2), although he also stated that it was not
metallic, shiny, or dull, but very black with nc reflection (1).

655
He estimated that the ring was about 60 ft. in diameter and five to
six feet thick (2,5). He felt that it moved systematically faster
than the clouds (1), and was "high above the treetops," but below
the clouds (2). It did not stop or hover, but moved continuously (1)
and horizontally (2). Standing in one spot as well as he can recall
(1), Pvt. X took six photographs of the UFO (Plates 32 - 37). Between
taking the second and third, the black ring begdu co be "engulfed
in smoke" (2), though f'vt. X does not remember seeing how this
happened; he believes he was distracted by winding the film of his
camera at that time (1). Sources 1, 2, and 5 are in agreement
with regard to the circumstances and description of the UFO (All
three references resulted from interviews with Pvt. X.)
The duration of the sighting was estimated at not more than
five minutes (1). with perhaps 30 - 60 sec. required for the black
ring to become enveloped by smoke.
Roughly IS men saw the phenomenon, and at least two photographed
it (1). Pvt. X did not know any of these men personally, as he had
recently been assigned to work in this building. Efforts to locate
other witnesses were unsuccessful. After watching the cloud for
a while, the men returned inside without waiting to see what became
of it. There was a feeling at this time that perhaps the object
represented some kind of secret test (1,2,5).

Investigation:
Pvt. X believed that the object was connected with some sort
of test or experiment and that it perhaps should not have been
photographed. As a result he made no inquiry or report at Fort
Belvoir and did not have his photographs developed until a month
after the incident when he had returned home (1,2,5). lie notes,
"1 was only a private in the Army...the only thing mentioned was that
It was strange and maybe someone was experimenting so we didn't
tell anybody that we even took these pictures...! didn't want to get
in trouble so when I cane home I had the pictures developed then" (2).

656
 Pvt. X had changed his residence five or six times since the
photos were made and the original negatives have been misplaced,
lie still has the camera, a Brownie Holiday, purchased in 1957 (1).
He showed the photographs to various friends, whose reaction was
typically a mixture of joking and scoffing. Finally, in the spring
of 1966, he showed them to a friend who sent the photographs to
NICAP with an inquiry. Dr. .lames McDonald became interested in
them in mid-1966 and called them to our attention. In view of the
excellent photographic material we gave them a high priority.
Kith regard to the sighting Pvt. X has been an intelligent
and interested advisor. His suggestions for locating other
witnesses indicated a sincere attempt to be helpful in shedding
light on the affair.
Photographic analysis. A preliminary analysis was carried out
on this case on the basis of uhich it was regarded by us as
potentially interesting. The early tests are briefly described as
examples of the kind of analysis which allowed us to classify
UFO reports as potentially important, verifiable, and/or explicable.
Consistency with observer's report. The photographs all
overlap on a large tree whose complex foliage shows no parallax
whatsoever, verifying Pvt. X's statement that all photographs
were taken from one spot. This was later determined to be in the
middle of the narking lot near Pvt. X's building. By overlapping
and "blinking" the six exposures, motions of the background clouds
could be followed from Plates 34-37. The numbering of the
photographs was found to be consistent with the motion of the clouds.
A montage showing the object and cloud motions in the six frames is
shown in Fig. 5 . It is significant that the relative spacings of
both UFO and cloud positions are the same; this is an argument ajjainst
a fabrication created by sketching an object on six photographs,
because such a fabrication would require a certain sophistication
on the part of the artist.

057
 o •<*
a u « : K x
6 « > ec « M
•* > 0 c -* M
is
M O 4 -^ ^
•i ^ « « US
<o* 5 • -^ • »«
I -* »«H a. «
~* mm M
5t
♦> w : o
C
8513 S 2
m
•o

r 'S0 -^ÜÄ IMo «

^
(6- u y e v M
e
M a.-! » o «

n»

10

658
 The relatively long pauses after exposures 1 and 2, and the
sudden burst of exposures 3 and 4, followed by the somewhat slower
pair 5 and t>. are .judged to be psychologically consistent, with the
sudden observation that the remarkable black ring was being enveloped,
even more remarkably, by a white, misty cloud before exposure (3).
isometric and physical tests; Inclincation vs. altitude. If a
fj.it disk or ring moves with its plane parallel to th<> ground (the
•Mode of flight usually associated with "flying saucers"), the
observed inclination angle (oi>^orver-center-rimj should equal the
observed altitude. :>ne initial hypothesis was that these photos
could represent optical fabrication with an image drawn in on
piiotogi iphs made earlier. It was important to test the geometric
consistency of the images with tests more sophisticated than might
he expected of a hoaxer. Table 4 shows the results of these measures.

Tab 1e 4
Inclination vs. Altitude

Photo Inclination Altitude Pitch Angle

1 19.y° 16° 4°
* 42.0 31 11
3 46.8 47 0
4 48.1 48 0
5 49.0 49 0
6 49.1 51 2

Only in Plate 33does there appear to be a significant departure

from level flight. From the apparent attitude of the ring in this
photo it is judged to be out-ox-level not only in the vertical plane
of UFO observer, but in the vertical plane perpendicular to this.
Nonetheless, it is concluded that the ring and disk-cloud can be
described as oriented essentially horizontally, with some "Wobble"-
like perturbations.

659
 Distance vs. angular size. If the linear diameter of the UFO
is 0 and the angular dianeter 5, and if its vertical height is Z
and its altitude a, then (if 6 is small),
sin 6 D
sin a Z
if the UFO moves along a path roughly parallel to the ground. One
has a subjective impression, both from the testimony and from the
photos, that this was the motion in this case. Table 5 shows the
results of measures of this sort (made with a millimeter scale
on prints). It is concluded that within tolerances of 7%, the
object did move on a path roughly parallel with the ground, although
it may have been slowly rising and expanding.

Table 5
D sir. 6
sin a

sin 6
Photo sin a
1 .181
: .no
3 .141
4 .147
5 .146

Illumination properties. Another item of evidence against an

optical fabrication is the subtle consistency between the illumination
of the cloud and the laws of physics. In Plate 34 when the cloud
is first forming, it is tenuous. The optical depth is low, so
that we can stili see the dark ring inside quite clearly. The
sunlight is coming from the upper right. If the optical depth is
low, the sunlight must pass through the cloud with only moderate
diminution. Hence, no strong shadows can be formed on the "dark"
side of the cloud, as is shown by the photograph.

tibO
 Plates 35 tlirougli 57, the cloik! develops and l)ecoinc.s opaque,
The dark rini; becomes invisible, and a cuimiloform structure can be
seen. In Plate 37, the cloud is quite white and opaque, like a
dense cumulus cloud. The optical depth is great; the sunlight must
be absorbed and shadows must form. This is also shown by the
photograph.
It is unlikely that had the prints been fabricated by using
airbrush, the artist would have thought, even intuitively, to
establish this consistencv. This test, like the ethers, leads to
the conclusion that the data are consistent with a real object
becoming enveloped first in a tenuous, then in an opaque, cloud.
The fact that the six photos overlap lends interest to the
case, relative to cases with markedly different backprounds in
allegedly continuous photo sequences. The rather subtle discovery
of the cloud motions in the sky background confirmed that the
photos were definitely taken in the order reported. The fact
1
that the UFO spacings wer' consistent with the cloud spacings
gives no support to the hypothesis of an optical fabrication with
a drawn-in-image. The ps\chological consistency of the spacing
of exposures adds credibility.
Finally, and perhaps most significant, the UFO was moving
with a vector motion approximately equal to the background cloud
vector motion; i.e. the directions and angular velocities wt-re
about the same. This at once suggested that the whole apparition
was drifting with the wind, a conclusion consistent with the
appearance of the smoky cloud.
Estimate of dimensions of UFO. Since the approximate
velocity and heiglit of the background clouds and the time intervals
between photos are known, one can derive an approximate distance,
hence size, for the UFO as a function of the UFOs height by using
the observed cloud and UFO angular velocities. Although the
exact date is unknown and therefore weather data were unavailable,
we need only order-of-magnitude data, since the UFO dimensions are
a yrior: quite unknown. A geometric model and estimated parameters

Obl
were useJ in this way to estimate the diameter and distance of the
ring. The observation that the UFO drifts smoothly and in
approximately the same direction and with the same angular velocity
as the clouds rnake^ reasonable an assumption that the UFO is at
an appreciable fraction of the height of the clouds, and large and
high enough to be out of the region of ground eddies.
With these assumptions, using JO mph as the wind velocity at
cloud height, and various reasonable values for cloud height and
time interval.-, the assumption that the object was higher than
one-tenth the cloud height, allows a rough estimation of the ring
diameter a; 50 - DOO ft. Once again, the conclusion was that all
the data are compatible with a large, unusual, real object.
The case liad come originally through Pr. James McDonald from
NICAP. Although we made no effort to publicize it, it was
described in a magazine article by Ralph Rankow (1967). Rankow
presented it as a complete mystery, but his article generated
a letter from Jack Strong, graduate student at the University of
Wisconsin, who said that he had been present at bomb demonstration
tests at Ft. Belvoir, and descibed clouds from such tests. At
this time the suggestion v,as not taken very seriously, as none of
those involved imagined that such a phenomenon would be produced
by an explosion.
Sergeant-Major A. I Wagner, interviewed at Ft. Relvoir,
immediately identified the pictures as showing a cloud produced
by "atomic bomb simulation demonstrations" which were frequently
carried out at Ft. Belvoir for visiting officials and military
cadets. This identification was made without mention of such a
hypothesis. Before the geometry of the situation was discussed,
Sgt-Major Wagner showed a map of the base and the location of the
bomb demonstration site. It was clear that the ring and cloud in
the photographs were drifting radially away from this site (see Fig. 6)

602
 1
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
L
!l
iil I i!.i!! i

% o c
a» n

\\m
A

V tn
£ O
♦-> ^
O
<UJ1 ■
O G. V

« O w
E
X
o «-•
o
'!!

r I .a 1* !! ! . T •> E."3

tir.'''^
^fc'l
4> (A
a.
3 C
ifl o

C—'
.- -/I

^T~ «

u o

?!
s?
• o
u. a.

g!
■ J <
 .4
'»*
Scrgoant-Major A. Ilustod further conft rmod this and described
the technique of the explosion. I ive r>5-nal. drums of gasoline,
diesel fuel, INT, and white phosphorus are arranged in a circle and
detonated, llie Mast throws up a fireball enveloped in black smoke.
The top of the muFhroom cloud is a stable vortex ring, which
ultimately drifts away. Depending on the weather and explosion
conditions, this ring sometimes never forms at all and at other
times forms a perfect, persistent circle. According to Sergeant-
Major Husted, the uhite phosphorus produces a white smoke that
eventually envelopes the black vortex produced by the diesel fuel.
He estimated that the vortex occaionally held together as long as
4ü min.
Strong, who believes he witnessed the same vortex that was
photographed in this case, makes the following remarks: "I recall
that the ring could be seen to revolve rapidly up to the time that
the developing cloud had obscured details. By 'revolve' I mean,
of course, motion about the centerline of the vortex [not around
the vertical axis]. I don't recall the direction of this revo-
lution, whether upward or downward through the center...This rapid
rotation, along with the calmness of the air, probably had a lot
to do with the great stability and symmetry of the vortex."
Pnotographs of one of the tests were obtained through Sergeant-
Major (lusted. Plates 38, 39 , and 40 were made by Sergeant First
Class James O'Dell and show the early stage of such a test, ur to
production of the independent black vortex.
The dimensions of the ring are estimated from the O'Pell
photographs to be as follows: diameter 'v 200 ft. for the fireball
in Plate 38. and 260-300 feet outside diameter for the ring in
Plate 40. From the angular diameters of about 6° in Plate. 32-37,
and the estimated line-of-sight distance of 5,000 ft., a diameter
of about 500 ft. is derived by the time the ring was passing near
the witness. These figures are consistent with the expected
expansion of the ring, and with the estimates made from the
photographs (Plates 32-37) alone.

6b4
 There are, on the other hand, some indications of possible
fabrication of the photographs. Upon close inspection, Plate 33
reveals a set of radial scratches or striations around the outer
and inner borders of the black ring. Each mark is of length
comparable to the width of the ring; the pattern is reminiscent
of iron filings near a magnet. It is conceivable that these
marks represent a retouching of the original vortex ring to make
it appear more regular and thus more puzzling. It is also rrtn-
ceivablf that these arc a natural step in the formation of
white cloud. In view of the positive identification of th itire
event and consequent irrelevance to UFOs, this question wa ot
pursued further.

Conclusions:
In the light of identifications both by officials at
Fort Belvoir and other technically competent observers familiar
with the event, this case is considered positively identified as
an atomic bomb simulation demonstration of the type commonly
carried out at Fort Belvoir during this period.
The fact that this case did not come to light until nine
years after it occurred because the witness was afraid of ridicule
or possible reprimand for military security breaches testifies
to the reality of the "hidden data" problem in UFO studies.

Sources of Information:
1. Hartmann, W. K. (24 May 1967), Telephone interview with
Pvt. \.
2. N1CAP file on Ft. Belvoir incident, consisting of
correspondence and interviews with Pvt. X.
3. llartmann, W. K. (21 Dec. 1967), Interviews with staff
personnel. Ft. Belvoir, Va.
4. Klass, Phillip J. (1967), Miscellaneous correspondence with
Hartmann regarding Ft. Belvoir incident.

bb5
 5. Rankow, Ralph "The Ring-Shaped UFO," Flying Sauoero,
V.O. 4, (Fall, 1967).
6. (orrespondence between Dr. .lames McDonald and Jack Strong,
llniversitv of Wisconsin.

t)06
 f

Case SI
Vandenber^ Aii Iorce Base, Calif.
S December liUiS
Investigator: llartmann

Abstra.t:
During » daytime launch of a Thor-Agena rocket, several
tr.ickinc cameras independent 1> recorded a bright, star-like object
apparently passing the missile. The object has been conclusively
identified us Venus.

Background:
Time. 1 .04 p.m., PST
Location: Complex 75-1-1, Vandenberg AFB, Calif.
Camera data: UFO clearly shown in films from site TS10, with
a Ibmm Mitchell camera using a 12 inc. lens (frame rate: 24 FPSJ .
Two identical cameras with 6 in. lenses did not show the UFO.
Certain other films are also alleged to show the UFO but were not
examined.
Weather conditions: Deep blue sky with scattered thin clouds.
On the film sequence that shows the UFO, the sky is clear, but from
the other two sites, at that moment, thin clouos were present,
through which the rockc: was still cleaily recorded.

Sighting, General Information:

The sighting was reported by R. M. 1 B.ker (1) as an example
of an unidentified object witn potential!) di-.criminatory tracking
data. Baker had received a copy of the tracking film through
contacts at Vandenberg , J), and subsequently brought it to our
attention.

Investigat ion:
The tracking camera film.; were supplied to the project oy the
U.S. Air Forc(, and a Ibmm copy of the three sequences described
above was examined. It was n.ited that at the moment the UFO is
visible, the rocket was moving down in the sky on a southerly course
toward the horizon. Clouds drifted upward across the screen as the

C>67
>■ 1 1
I i
rocket passed them. The UFO had a similar motion, suggesting that
it might be fixed in the sky, rather than "moving up past the
rocket." This, plus the fact that the smaller lenses under poorer
conditions did not record the object, in turn suggested the pos-
sibility that the object might be Venus, which reaches sufficient
brilliance to be seen by the naked eye in a clear, daylight sky.
Plate 41 shows a sample frame.
Classified tracking data made available (3) predicted the
altitude and azimuth of the rocket as seen from "radar site 1,"
near the launch pad. I rom certain considerations related to the
film, we know the absolute lime of the passage of the UFO to within
a few seconds, and the predicted tracking data gives positions at
similar intervals Fig. 7 shows a plot of the predicted path
of the rocket, seen from "site 1" compared to the actual position
of Venus. It can be seen that the rocket should have passed within
2* of Venus within a few seconds of the time that the UFO was
observed. The predicted data can be taken as very accurate, but
the actual position of the camera site TS10, some 5,000 ft. east
of the pad, was probably east of "radar site 1," so that parallax
would shift the rocket's path to the right by probably not more
than 1°.

Conclusion f, Summary:
At precisely the time that the UFO was recorded, the missile
was less than 2° from Venus, and Venus was thus within the camera
frame. The UFO image has precisely the properties expe-cted for
Venus. This compelling evidence leads to the conclusion that
the "UFO" was Venus.
We have heard many allegations, sometimes detailed and more
often apocryphal, of UIO's being "observed," "tracked," or "photo-
graphed" during rocket tests at military bases. Many such "sightings"
have been reported at White Sands Proving Ground in the last 20 '
years, in most reports there is insufficient detail to be checked.
This case, before the films were located, had all the earmarks of
such a report: an "object" was recorded on several different,

668
 en
c

o **
x: M -^ «^
•2 •*« W

• ♦*
9 £
a • •
• *> n
> JK• •-•o O
O M «> ♦<
«

8 5«:i
•«4 M A «
M M
O p O <*

m
ui ro *> *« o
t
I MM«

00

o
<
I ^
I- .
flL UJ
00 v u.
fco
m
+
o N
s
f ff
9 #
o
CVJ <

00

« »o s 0>
(VJ
00®
CM
(o) M aaminv

669
 i independent cameras a mile or more apart. If assumed to have been
near the rocket, the object would have been properly interpreted
as very bright. A number of individuals had knowledge of the
sighting, and therefore a number of rumors of an UFO passing near
a rocket launched at Vandenberg could have been generated.
The analysis of this case leads to the suspicion, in the
i absence of better data, that most if not all such allegations may
be based on similarly inconsequential circumstances.

Sources of Information:
Baker, R. M. L., Jr. An [ntreduction to Aetrodynamias, New York:
Academic Press, 1967.

Interview with R. M. L. Baker, Jr. (W. K. Ilartmann and Roy Craig,

:i September 1967).

Classified Air Force Documents.

670
Case s:
Santa Ana, C;il if.
5 August 196S
Investigator: llartmann

Abstract:
Khile he was on duty a Traffic Investigator observed that his
two-way radio had been cut off just before a metallic-looking disk
allegedly moved across the road in front of him. He took three
photographs of the object before it moved off into the haze and
emitted a ring of smoke, lie drove down the road about a mile and
photographed the smoke cloud. The evidence regarding the object's
reality is inconclusive and internally inconsistent.

Background:
Date: 3 Augist 1965
Time: Approx. 12:37 p.m. PDT (harly reports give the time as
11:30 a.m. PDT. This was later corrected to 12:30 on the basis of
studies of telephone pole shadows (6,8). The observer had no watch (8)
Position: Myford Road, Santa Ana, Calif., approx 0.3 mi. SW
of the Santa Ana Freeway, tNH of the Santa Ana U.S.M.C. Air Facility
and within the flight pattern of the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.
Terrain: Flat farmland.
Weather Conditions: Ground observer: No wind, "some haze over-
head" (1). C.K. Kalstrom, Meteorologist-in-Charge at the Los Angeles
Airport, wrote "We do not have an observational report from Santa Ana
at 11:30 AM...but from surrounding reports it would appear that the
sky was hazy and the horizontal visibility was between 21} and S miles.,
reduced by haze and smoke. Uarlicr in the morning there had been
low overcast conditions but these clouds had apparently dissipated
leaving considerable haze." (2). The photographs suggest consider-
able haze or smog. The investigator visited the site on 9 September
1967 and found heavy smog, apparently comparable to that shown in

671
the witness' photographs, visibility was estimated at one to two
miles.
The following analysis of weather conditions is an independent
study by Loren W. Crow, consulting meteorologist, Denver:
SUURCKS ÜF DATA
Hourly surface observations from--
El loro Marine Base, Long Beach, Los Angeles,
Burbank, Ontario, March AFB, and Norton AFB,
Cali fornia.
barly morning radiosonde and upper wind obser-
vations from--San Diego, August 3, 1965, and
Santa Monica, August 7J, 1965.
GLNbRAL HEATHER SITUATION
The general weatht r situation during the forenoon
hours of August 3, 1965 in southern California was
made up of a stable air mass with onshore flow of air
during the daylight hours and a low level inversion
n?ar the coaM,
The air flow during the early morning hours
was a light drainage wind from the land toward the
coast. The inland stations of March Air Force Base
and Norton Air l-orce Base near Riverside and San
Bemadino respectively remained clear in the drier
air over these stations. Ontario remained clear
but visibilities were less than three miles between
b a.m. and 11:40 a.m. with a mixture of haze and
smoke.
Ground fog and fog formed in the moist air at
Burbank, Los Angeles International Airport and El
Toro Marine Corps Air Station during the hours of
darkness just prior to sunrise. Overcast cloud
cover with bases measuring from 3Ü0 to 600 feet
were most common for near the coastal stations until

672
after 8 a.m. when surface heating began to dissipate
the cloud cover.
Between midnight and 4 a.m. the air flow at
El Toro was from the east with velocities ranging
from 2 to 4 mph. This was followed by a calm
period lasting from 4:30 through 11 a.m. with only
a brief period at 9 a.m. registering a velocity
at 2 mph from the northwest.
At Lon', Beach the air flow was primarily from
the east southeast between midnight and 6 a.m. It
gradually shifted through southerly directions and
developed ar onshore flow beginning at 10 a.m.
The direction of air flow at Los Angeles
International Airport was quite variable between
midnip.ht and b:30 a.m. Velocities were generclly
less than 5 mph. with ten different directions
being reported in this period. From 7 a.m. through
midnight of the third, an onshore flow prevailed
with the direction of flow being generally from
140° througli 280°.
The dissipation of the fog and low cloud was
directly related to the increase in surface temp-
perature. Cloudiness would have disappeared
earliest several miles inland from the coast and
the cloudiness at any one point within 20 miles of
the coastline would have gone from overcast to
broken, then to scattered and finally to clear as
heating took place near the earth's surface.
Unfortunately, ha:e and smog increased and held
surface visibilities to low values after the cloud
cover had been dissipated by the warmer air.
The relationship between rising temperatures
and the dissipation of cloud cover is well illus-
trated in the vertical cross sections shown in

073
Figure 8 for the four stations nearest the coast.
The time period covered by these cross sections is
from 5 a.m. through noon. At the approximate time
of the UFO sighting (11:30 a.m.), scattered clouds
were still being observed at Los Angeles Interna-
tional Airport. Scattered stratus clouds at 1200
feet had been reported at the Long Beach airport
at 11 a.m. but were not observed there at noon.
The record does not indicate uihe>i they were last
seen but their final disappearance would have been
some time between 11 a.m. and noon.
MOS1 PROBABLI. KIATIILR NtAR SIGIiriNti POINI AT 11:30
a.m., August 3, 1967
By 11:30 a.m. on August 3, 1965, all overcast
cloud cover would have been limited to over-the-
ocean or a very narrow belt of land area nearest
the coast where the onshore flow of air could carry
it before the heated land surface would cause
dissipation. At the forward (landward) edge of
the cloud mass the cloud cover condition would
change rapidly from overcast to broken to
scattered to clear. The small cloud parcels
makinj; up the scattered condition could have
secned to appear and disappear rapidly. The
disappearance would have been caused by the change
of state from liquid water to vapor as raixing
with the surrounding warmer air took place.
The forward edge of the scattered cloud
condition would have been limited to the coastal
side of the Santa Ana Freeway and probably was
at a distance of 4 to 8 miles from the sighting
point. Surface visibility reported at both Long
Beach and El Toro Marine Corps Air Station at 11
a.m. was limited to 5 miles. Thus, any clouds

(.74
 OBSTRUCTIONS
TO VBWN
DAYLIGHT STANDARD TIME
5 am 6 7 F06 O

BURBANK

EL TORO MCAS

LONG BEACH

1250' -
- ••:*::::
IOOO'
LOS ANGELES 750'-::::::::::i:i::::ii:
INTERNATIONAL
SOO" - iiii;
250' - , -
W^vki
GROUND LEVEL 128 ft MSL

Hg. R

6 75
 which may havo been sighted could only have had a
rather vague outline as seen several miles away
through the hane.
Sky conditions inland from the Santa Ana
freeway are believed to have been totally cloud
free at this time.

Sightings, lieneral information:

Setting. On 3 unjust 1%5 the witness, Iraffic Inspector ie-h
J for the Orange County Road Department, Calif. (1) was driving SW
on Myford Roud in 'iu< official car, a lord van bus (.8,'J) , inspecting
overhanging growth aloiiK the roadside, lie proceeded SW on Myford
Road, turned around and drove slowly ML, at about j mph along the
ri^ht-hand shoulder of Myford Road, about 0.3 mi. SW of the Santa
Ana Freewav (.31 .
Radio distuii'aice. At approximately 1J:30 p.m. PUT (estimated
VS. HO min.} the witness began trying to contact Orange Co. Road
Maintenance headquarters by radio. According to the witness, about
three words were received by base station "8" on last Fruit St. after
which "The radio went completely dead (1)." An Air Force investigator
later recorded notes that the witness stated "that he had attempted
to use lus two-way radio once or twice just before he sighted the
UFO and could neither transmit nor receive any signal although the
radio panel lights indicated that the radio was operational. Detailed
questioning indicated that this definitely occurred before the UFO
sighting and not during the UFO sighting (?>)."
Both the witness' supervisor (4), and the Road Maintenance
Superintendent were in vehicles (3,7c, 14h). Ihe superintendent w-is
located about ü.S-1.0 mi. from the witness on ^!<e Santa Ana freeway,
and states that ho heard the witness trying to contact station "8."
lie heard the transmission begin, but after about three or four
words there was a complete, sudden, sharp cutoff, lie stated that
the sudden cutoff was unlike nornul radio interference or disturbance.

0 0
 f

The cutoff lie luMrd could not have boon producod hy simply switching
off the truck, radio (7c). llw Santa /\na l:l.(.' I'acility reported no Ulli-
or VHF interference on this day (5).
Visual and photogranhic sigliting; description of object. The witness
states:
At this time, f becune aware of the UFÜ, however
I thought it was a conventional aircraft...The UFO
moved from my left to in front of me and momentarily
hovered there. At this time I grabbed the camera
(semi-automatic-Model 1Ü1 polaroid), from the seat
of the truck and took the first photograph through
the windshield of the truck.
The object then moved slowly off to the north-
east. I then snapped the second picture through
the right door window (window closed). This is when
1 saw the rotating beam of light emitting from the
center of the UFO on the bottom side. [Sec below-KKHj
The UFO positioned itself to another angle of
view and I snapped the third picture through the
same side window a^ in picture two...
As the UFO traveled, it maintained a relatively
level altitude (150 ft.) in relation to the flat
terrain, however the UFO acted similar to a gyro-
scope when losing its stability. The UFO continued
moving away slowly gaining altitude, tipped its
top toward me slightly. It seemed to gain stability,
then it increased its velocity (speed) and altitude
more rapidly leaving a deposit of smoke-like vapor.
Hie smoke-like vapor was blue-black in color
and circular in shape as though it had emitted from
the outer ring of the UFO. This doughnut shaped
vapor ring remained in the area in excess of thirty
seconds. The UFO disappeared in a northern

077
 direction toward Saddleback Mountain (this is
known on the maps as Santiago Peak and Modjeska)
m.
Plates 42, 43, 44 show the three photographs in the order mentioned
above. Although the above reference does not mention it, a fourth
photograph (Plate 4S), of the smoke cloud, was later produced by the
witness, Ihe earliest document mentioning this photograph is a report
by the witness and a N'lCAP investigator (2), and a letter by a local
member of MCAP (j) , both dated 25 September 1965.
On the b.tsis of more di'tailcd questioning, as reported in the
referenced documents, it lias been possible to construct the following
more detailed account of the alleged visual and photographic sighting.
The camera mentioned is standard equipment for Orange Co, Road
department officials, and has the following characteristics: f-, L,
114 mm,, variable aperture from f8.0 to about f42, picture format
.Vj x 44 in,, shutter speed "unknown but variable," and black-and-
white film, speed ASA 3000 (4). The camera is described as fully
automatic, utilizing a built-in light meter which automatically adjusts
shutter speed and aperture. The only controls are a black-and-white
or tolor select and a shutter release button (41,
Doubts as to whether or not the witness could have observed the
UFO. stopped his vehicle and taken three photographs within 15-25
sec, were resolved by testing such a camera. It was determined that
an experienced man could easily take three photographs within 12 sec. {5i.
It reconstructing the incident two years later an investigator^
accompanied by the witness and several others in an identical truck
and with an identical camera, concluded that with the seat in the
appropriate position, the U10 in the first photograph would havo been
obliterated by tie tcp of the windshield as seen through the camera's
snap-UP viewfinder, but not tnrough the camera's lens. Hie witness
then remarked that he had not sighted through the viewftndcr but
"shot from the hip (8) ."

078
 According to the witness, , ? picked up liis camera, shot the first
photograph through the front windshield, then slid two feet to the
right and slightly to the rear in the front seat (6), and shot the
two other photos through the close, right window. From the second
to the third photograph, the UFO has moved to the left (approx N) and
the witness has shifted correspondingly to the right, apparently to
keep the object in sight and centered in the window.
The UFO then assertedly continued on in this direction, diverging
to the right from Myford Road by about 25° (i.e. heading 65°) and
fading in the distance due to the smog (141.
The witness told a Colorado project investigator that he is not
sure if he saw the "smudge" of smoke before he started on down the
road {'''*]. He thinks he restarted the truck before proceeding, but
does not recall definitely that he ever switched off the engine (3).
He believes that he did not see the UFO again after he became aware
of the smoke (."a). Answering the NICAP report form question, "How
did the object(.s") disappear from view?" the witness replied: "Left
the area--northerly direction (1)."
The appearance .k , JFO can be judged from the photographs as
well as from various accounts and interviews. The apparent angular
si:e, judged from the first photographiwas about 2°,4. The witness
estimated a diameter of 3Ü ft., thickness of eight feet (1,4), and
distance of about 1/8 mi. (1,4), which corresponds to angular diameter
3°.5. The object was also described on the NICAP report form as
equivalent to a dome at arm's length, i.e. about 20.b in angular
diameter.
The object was sharply defined, with a reflecting surface of
"dull gray" color, with the sun "reflectint; from different portions
of it as it wobbled (1)." It did not change color (1). It made
no sound, although the witness noted that nearby helicopters from
the Marine Corps Air facility could be heard, and that their noise
could have drowned out sounds the UFO might have made (1). The AF

o79
investigation report described the color as "silver or metallic
except for dark areas which appeared to be either whitish or metallic
such as that which could indicate light reflection from a relatively
slow-moving propeller or rotating blade. In Plate 43 there is a faint
indication of such a line running from the center outward at a
relative bearing of about 280°. Officials in the (5-2 office at F.l
Toro stated that the light line was clearly visible in the original
(Plate 45) (see Fig. 9)." Heflin refers to this feature as a "light
beam" in an accompanying sketch (1).
Asked if the bottom of t'e UFO appeared to have any type of
struclure?, openings, or what might appear to be landing gear housings,
the witness replied, "Nol The only thing 1 saw on the bottom of the
craft was a white beam of light emitting from the center and sweeping
in a circle to the outer edge of the craft. The movement of the beam
was sic.ilnr to the sweep of a radar scope beam (1)."
A number of statements attribute a wobbling, unsteady motion
to the UFO: The "object oscillated and/or wobbled (1), i "moved
slowly off to the northeast...positioned itself to another angle of
view...traveled further northeast and showed the upper portion of the
craft (1);" it "momentarily hovered (1);" it "acted similar to a
gyroscope when losing its stability...continues moving away slowly
gaining altitude, tipped its top toward me slightly...seemed to gain
stability, then increased its velocity...and altitude more rapidly (1).'
On the MICAP report sheet, the witness suggests an airspeed of "300 mi.
per hr. est. (1)," which apparently refers to the rapid departure of
the UFO.
The report to NICAP states that the interval during which the
disc-shaped UFO was visible was "20 seconds max. (1)." The Al- report
notes: "Observer estimated total period of observation to be about
13 sec- Based on a test of observer's ability to measure time, it is
believed the duration of sighting would be closer to 25 seconds (4)."
The witness drove about a mile NE on Myford Road in the direction
of the smoke ring, which would have taken him through an underpass

(»80
 PHOTO 4
(SMOKE RIN6)®iI

VICINITY OF
SANTA ANA
UFO. REPORT

"gaNlg" IZLMiili

N ^TELEPHONE
/ POLES
\
PHOTO^? \
i • i • i i ^ PHOTO 3
0 SOO STANDPIPE
(FEET) ^OBSERV^^
TO 2

Fig. 9

681
beneath the Sinla Ana ! roeway (7a) . lie had seen the ring before
crossing under the freeway fl4), and the implication of his state-
ments is that he hepan driving in that direction in order to RCX a
better look at the distant "smiidße." lie "drove his car quite some
distance closer to where the object had bocn--got out of his car and
pointed the camera right up at the smoke ring (3)." At approximately
the location indicated, on the left (NW) side of Myford Road, st?iids
a row of orange trees with overhead telephone wires, consistent with
the fourth p.'iotograph (Plate 46): apparently the observer was looking
to the NW over these trees at this point (7b). The UFO had departed
at an a:imuth about Jr>0 to the right of Myford Road, (i.e. about 65°);
the smoke ring had drifted to the left (NW) across the road (14).
(see Fig. i')- The NICAP correspondence contains the following remarks:
"You w) 1 1 notice that the smoke ring picture shows a rather cloudy
sky, and perhaps the finishing of the photo may have something to do
with it (3) ."
In an interview at the site 16 January 1968, the witness pointed
out not only the above angles, but also that the smoke "smudge,"
as seen from the first position, had an elevation angle judged to be
8*. This gives an altitude of about 7Ü0 ft. The witness stated
that the ring was larger in linear dimension than the UFO had been
although he did not actually see it expand. When he left, it was
still there, in the process of breaking up as the toroid expanded
and dissipated (14).
After the sighting. The smoke ring was estimated to have "remained
in the area in excess of thirty seconds (1)." Having destribod thr
smoke cioud and the disappearance of the UfÜ, the witness declared
in his narrative, "At this time I contacted the Santa Ana Base Radio
Station and asked them if they could now copy my transmission. Thov
replied the copy was clear (I)."
The witness made no mention of his experience over the radio (7cJ.
Later that afternoon, at the end of the working day he returned to the
office, and showed his supervisor only the first three photographs.

682
 *i

not the "smoke ring (7c)." Another person states that the witness
took, him aside to show him the fourth photo, which he had left in
the truck, but recollects that the witness probably did not show it
to the others, lie recalls that the witness said that "three were
enough for one day" and that his story was already incredible enough
(7g).
Radar results. "...\ check made by the Marine Corps inves-
tigators indicated that no UFO was observed on the Marine Corps Air
Facility radar at the tine of the reported UFO observation (5)."
The "Facility" referred to by the Air Force investigator is a
relatively small base within direct sight of the Myford Road site,
but contains only a sporadically used training radar installation.
Marine officials interviewed 15 January 1968, were unable to deter-
mine whether radar was in service 3 August 1965.
The Air Force investigator may have intended to refer to th*;
surveillance radar, used in Air Traffic control at El Toro M.C.
Air Station. Dr. J. L. McDonald and the Colorado investigator
examined this radar, which has a four second sweep time and MTI
filtering of ground clutter, such that only moving targets are
displayed. It was quite clear that a UFO such as reported by the
witness, though it would show up on the lil loro screens, would not
be remarked by the routine operators. In the first place, it would
appear as ground traffic; trucks on the Santa Ana freeway were clearly
visible. Second, the entire area traversed during the first three
photographs constitutes merely one radar "blip" diameter. Third,
even if the UFO took off at moderate speed, it would probably be
interpreted (if noticed et alii as a light aircraft. We were
informed that no action would be normally taken unless it approached
or endangered commercial or military aircraft, in which case only
the larger aircraft, not the "light aircraft," would be contacted.
Numbering and sequence continuity of photos. Since Polaroid
film packs carry numbering on the back, important confirmation for

683
the Santa Ana case could be found if any of the witness' associates
could testify that the four photos wore in a continuous sequence.
üenerally, none of them could recall noting the numbers. The witness,
however, testified in 1968 (14) that the pictures had no numbers
on the back. J. II. McDonald therefore corresponded with the Polaroid
Corporation and received the reply that "the numbers indicating picture
sequence.. .have never been omitted by deliberate design. If the Type
107 film pack in question does not have these numbers, a rare over-
sight in film manufacture is responsible (15)." However, the witness
demonstrated to MCAP investigators from county road department
records that there was film in use during the period of the sighting
that lacked sequence numbers (15).

Chronology of Sebstquent ivents and Interviews:

3 August to 14 September 1965. A friend "convinced the witness
that they should try to sell the photographs to Life Magazine (5)."
Kith the uitness' consent he called Life the afternoon of the sighting,
Cg) and later sent the photos to the Los Angeles office of Life (5,12).
According to the Air Force account, the Los Angeles office expressed
interest and advised sending the photos to New York (5,9); the photos
were sent by the witness's friend and returned two weeks later "with-
out written comment...at about the same time the Los Angeles office
telephoned the witness to say that the main office had declined to
utilize tiic material 'because it was too controversial"... (5)."
Hie MCAP account differs slightly: "After a period of one week the
pictures were returned with a letter stating that the subject was
too controversial to publish, however, they did state that the pic-
tures were the best they had seen so far (1,5)."
Liuring tiie 11 r> t few days copies of the photos were nqiusted b\
vinous of the witness' friends (f.), and the witness lot them take
the originals to a photo service where copies were made (12).
'Time passed and apparently more copies of the pictures were
made and handed out to various friends of friends, until most of
Santa Ana was saturated with the UFO pictures (5)."

684
 The witness loaned the original photos to his sister to show
to a friend (9,12), who took them to an amateur photographer (6,12),
who in turn made copies that were "poor but were not cropped (12)."
According to the Air Force account, "one of these pictures was
obtained by a druggist who then apparently showed it to a friend, a
customer whc worked for the Santa Ana Register (5)."
Possible AIT- Force Involvement in August, 1965. A document (10)
entitled "Photo Analysis Report 65-48" was supplied to us by Blue
Book. It carries the curious date "14 August 1965." The photographs
were not public at this time, nor did the Air Force appear to be
actively involved, since their first interview with the witness was
on 23 September. One possibility is that this is a typist's error
and should have read 14 October 1965, 12 days before the report was
quoted in public as the Air Force analysis of the case.
This raises the possibility, then, that without the knowledge
of any of the principals, the Air Force was involved in the case
less than two weeks after it happened.
Officials of Project Blue Book informed the Colorado project in
March 1968 that this question had been raised before, and that the
Photo Analysis Report was in error, and that month should have read
October.
15-18 September 1965. On 15 September the witness was interviewed

by a reporter Frank Hall from the :'anta Ana Register (9). According
to Hall's recollection two years later the witness brought his three
prints to the paper on the next day. These prints, the witness said,
were not originals, but Polaroid copies of the originals which had
been made by the witness' cose friend (71). lliey were good copies
in th« sense that they filled most of the f^M.e; the second showed

6 85
the "rotating light beam {7d")." It is not clear which copies these
were. On Friday, the newspaper staff visited the site (7d).
The Air lorce chronology states that on or about 18 September
the Scp:ta A>\T. .\> ^: ^' t r borrowed the three original prints from the
witness, returned them to him, and published an article with one
UFO picture on 2Ü September 1965 (5). This account is compatible
with the reporter's recollection, except that he believes the photos
were not originals.
Chief photographer of the Santa Ana R^-jister gives a similar
account of the meetings with reporters (3): "The first photographs
I saw...were copies of the originals...To me the photos looked
clear, with all parts of the picture being in focus from the windows
and [rear-view] uirror to the UHO and then farther on down the road
to the cars...As far as I could tell the photos were authentic and
had not been altered in any way whatsoever."
During the newspaper interviews, the reporter recollects, the
witness suggested a polygraph test, but wanted the Register to pay
the cost. The newspaper management, however, refused (7d). The
Marine report carries this account: "During the interview wi h the
nVjwtt/' reporter, the question was asked whether [the witness] would
submit to a polygraph examination, concerning the UFO. lie stated
that he would...only if the Register or someone put up $1,SOU.00
with no results guaranteed. [The witness] feels that from his exper-
ience as an investigator [sic] that the polygraph is not reliable
enough and that if the examination turned out negative, it would en-
danger his job (in." It is difficult to choose between those two
accounts.
IS September l'.>()3 . I he witness was "prevailed upon To allow
the a»:tJ A* a .•.._•,.•',/• to make six sets of negatives from the original
i'olaroul prints. He watched while negatives were being made. These
were cropped '«.Ul." I'lie MCM1 chronology (1J) dates this as 18 Sep-
tember, rhc reporter however, spoke of the;e pictures as the Polaroid
copies, not the original prints (7(1,. Thus it is not at dll clear

0 86
that the register negatives were made from the original Polaroid
prints, although the witness insists that the negatives were made from
his originals (14).
On the same day ttic Kl Toro Marine Air Station investigator
then interviewed the witness at his residence (9,5).
20 September 19b5. The Santa Ana Register carried an account of
the witness* story with the first photo (5,1,12). The Bulletin, in
Anaheim, also published at least one photograph (12). The Los Angeles
NICAP Subcommittee first learned or" the case on this day (12).
Aio of the three photos were released by the Register to UPI (S).
The witness lent his prints to the Marine Corps investigator
(12), who confirms that ho did so without hesitation and without
verifying the investigator's credentials or asking for a receipt (5).
According to NICAP (12), these were the original prints. The Marine
advised the witness "not to talk about his sighting (12)."
Among numerous telephone calls, the witness says he received
two of special interest: one from a man who identified himself as
a colonel attached to NORAD, the other from a man who identified him-
self as a representative of the Boeing Airplane Co. (5,12). The
first caller allegedly asked the witness "to refrain from further
comment until they have an opportunity to discuss the matter with him.
A tentative date for the discussion [was] set for September 22--but
no more was ever heard from the 'colonel' (12). The other man identi-
fied himself as an "engineer with the L.A. office of Boeing Aircraft...
not reprc- tmg Boeing, !>ut personally interested, [he] asked that
his name not uc mentioned or the fact that he had phoned. Me also
suggested that it night he better if [the witness] did net talk about
the case (12)." rhese calls are described in the same way in the \ir
Force report (5), though in less detail. Source (I) also dpscribes
the "NORAÜ" call, placing it between 18 and 25 September.
20 Septenbcr to 21 September 10t>5. The witness received a number
of calls in this period, in addition to the two described above.
These included apparent hoax calls and two homb threats (5). A letter
came from a vice-pre.sident of McDonnell Aircraft, St. Louis requesting
technical information (,7f).

687
 21 September 1965. The Santa Ana Register "reported that [the witness]
had been 'muiiled' by the government. Dale Kindschy of the Public
Affairs Office at NORAD's Colorado Springs headquarters said "We
can find no one in our organization who contacted [the witness.]
This wouldn't normallv be in our scope anyway." Col. D. R. Dinsmore,
Air Force public information officer in the Pentagon, said, "We
not yet confirmed that (the witness] was contacted by one of our
people, but it would be normal proceedure if they had (12)."
The fourth (.smoKe ring) photograph. The witness mentioned the
fourth (smoKe ringi photo to very few people up to this point in the
chronology. The witness indicated the UFO merely left the area,
tcward the Sh. One reporter recalls his saying that it went off to
the right of the road l^d). The Marine report, apparently based on
the interview of 18 September (although not prepared and dated intil
»2 Septetnberj savs merely that "the object accelerated eastward
toward the Saddleback mountains.. .I'.e lost sight of the object due to
the ha:e and distance (9)." The report carries only the first three
photos. It would appear unlikely that the Marine report would have
omitted an incident so remarkable as the "smoke ring cloud" had it
been mentioned during the interview of 18 September, or during the
transfer of the photographs on 20 September.
22 September 19(>5. The Marine Corps C-J investigators returned
the original prints (5) and obtained a signed receipt of return (12).
Later in the evening according to the witness, (source 12 places
it two or three hours alter the photos were returned) "two men, claiming
to be from SORAU, arrived at the witness' home and asked to borrovs
the original Polaroid prints. They showed identification cards identical
m »ppcarance to those shown to him by the Kl loro Marines. The
«itnos« turned the photos over to them. These three original Polaroid
prints have never been returned (12)."
P.e Air force account of the witness' version of this incident
on 2.» September is substantially the same, except that the witness
mentioned only one visitor; "...on the evening of 22 September a man

bS8
in civilian clothing visited his house, flashed an identification
card, and announced that he was 'an investigator from the North
.American Defense Command.' [The witness] said that he did nit
examine the man's credtMtials closely but recalled that the man's
I • D. card was in a special cardcase about 4" x S" and that the single
I.D. card appeared to consist of two sections--the upper half being
orange or pink in color, and the lower half being blue or bluegreen
in color in the dimness of the porch light. [The witness] stated
that he gave the original prints of the photographs to this man, again
without receipt (he being a trusting soul), and assumed that he
would eventually got the pictures back."
On IS .January 1968, the witness insisted that there had been
two men (14).
The original photographs are unrecovered. The fourth "original"
wa«; lent to a NICAP investigator and eventually misplaced. A later
investigation by NORAD resulted in a denial that any official of theirs
had visited the witness. The witness' description of the I.D. card
was likened to a gasoline credit card (11).
Some time on 22 September apparently in the evening after the
photos had been surrendered, a NICAr member interviewed the witness.
Neither this investigator nor any other NICAP member ever saw the
three original photos.
Commept on the "NORAD visitors." The fact that on the day follow-
i .g the alleged visit of the NORAD officers an Air Force investigator
woa'J leave with the clearly recorded impression (5) that only one man
hac' visited the witness is of special interest, lurther, a MCAP repor'
dated 25 September 1965, signed by the witness declares that "a wan
with a briefcase later called...and said he was...and that hr would like
to see... [The witness] agreed to loan the pictures to hir* providing ht
would...(2, my emphasis K.K.M.)."
An attempt to clarifv this on If. January 1968 (14) was made by
asking the witness in essence "Why is it that you are now clear on
there having been tuo NORAD visitors, while on the very next üay the

oft»
Air Force man cajne away with the idea that u man came up and flashed
hie card...?"
He immeili .itcly replied in effect that only one man showed his
card. He repeated that there were two men, in their early thirties,
but that one stood back while the other did most of the talking.
Since two independent reports from the next three days clearly indicate
one visitor, while the witness has since insisted there were two, the
"NORAD episode is still regarded as open to serious question.
J. E. McDonald (15) lias found an additional discrepancy con-
cerning the "NORAD visitors. In 15 January 1967, discussions with Dr.
McDonald and the Colorado investigator, the witness repeated that the
I.D. cards shown him had no photographs of the bearers, although he
described them as like those of personnel from HI Toro Marine Corps
Air Station. McDonald has learned from official sources that all I.D.
cards carried photographs at this time. Indications are that if the
two visitors did exist in fact, they were imposters.
25 September 1965. A letter dated 25 September to NICAP in
Woshington D.C. accompanying supplementary notes contained the first
NICAP reference to the smoke ring photograph: "One item of interest is,
that [the witness] retained what he calls his ACE IN THE HOLE. A fourth
picture. This picture shows clearly the vapor ring that was left by
the UFO. [The witness] asked me to keep this information in confidence
the night of the interview, however, if nothing came of the mysterious
phone call asking [the witness] not to speak, then I would be allowed
to pass on this information with a copy of the picture (2)"
A Los Angeles NICAP official wrote to NICAP headquarters: "You
will see that there is a fourth photo--the smoke ring. I don't know
what [the witness'] motive was in holding this picture back in the
beginning. Perhaps he thought it was unimportant--and as time went on
and the furor began, he hesitated to complicate the situation further
and cause more problems for himself. He seems to be sick of the
publicity and this weekend is moving and getting a new telephone number."

69Ü
 "Blaring headlines (12)" in most local newspapers announce
"AIR FORCE LAUNCHES COUNTY UFO PROBE."
Further comment on the fourth (smoke ring> photograph. We have
already seen that (the witness) was allegedly somewhat hesitant in
showing the smoke ring photo when he returned to the road department
office on 3 August and that he did not mention the smoke ring in early
talks with the Marines or the Santa Ana f/egieter. During the early
NICAP interview the presence of a fourth photo was not recorded, although
the ring was apparently mentioned. During the A?ir Force interview,
i
the witness not only did not mention tne smoke ring or fourth photo, t
|
but gave a somewhat different description of the disappearance of the j
UFO. The Air Force account states: "Just after taking the third
picture. ..[the witness] heard a vehicle approaching from the rear.
Concerned that he might have parked in an awkward position, he turned
around to see if there was enough road clearance for the vehicle to
pass him. Noting that he was on the shoulder of the road, he immediately
turned again to look at the UFO but found that it had "disappeared
into the haze' (5)." This is the only account that mentions a diversion
by another vehicle. It has been suggested by a NICAP member that
this was probably a falsehood. On 5 June 1P67 (7a) the witness said
he had been advised by NICAP to withhold information from the Air
Force to this end. An attempt was made to check this discrepancy in
more detail on 15 January 1968 (14) by asking if the incident about
the approaching vehicle had been manufactured as a cover for the
fourth photo, and the witness denied that he had fabricated any of
the testimony to the Air Force. He did not remember any passing
vehicle, however (14).
27 September 1965. The witness sought advice from County District
Attorney, Kenneth Williams, regarding the harrassment resulting from
the UFO report and publicity (12).
4 October 1965. NICAP headquarters received a preliminary report
from their photo analyst, Ralph Rankow, supporting the authenticity
of the sighting.

691

■Aifii

*
 A Saturday in mid-October (7f). The witness, a geodetic engineer,
and two NICAT investigators visited the alleged site of the smoke ring
photo and "identified the part of the tree appearing in the lower left
comer of the picture (7f)." Additional measiuos and photographs were
taken for the purpose of establishing the geometry of the sighting (12).
Clearly, the first allegation is of extreme importance, since the
existence of such a peculiar vortex smoke ring aiwve Muford Road, if
it could be established from photo four, would be strong evidence in
favor of the UFO report. As can be seen in Plate 4:1, very few physical
details (part of a tree and a wire), arc available to confirm the
Myford Road location of Plate 45. With this in mind, on 15 .January
J968 J. E. McLionald, R, Nathan, the Colorado investigatorjquestioned
one of the MICAP investigators in ietail about the identification of
the tree. It became quite clear that the witness had taken them to
the site, and that they had come away convinced by the gross geometry
that this was indeed where photo four had been made. This is easy
to do: having picked one of the several trees as the one in the
photo, one can pick the "spot" within ? few feet, using the parallax
of the tree and wire (Plate 46). However, it was also clear that the
.NICAP men and the geodetic engineer had not carried out the extremely
critical procedure of comparing the tree, hranoh by hrcoxah and tvi'j
bg, fc'fu with that on the photograph, and that on geometric grounds
it could not be said that it we.-' absolutely certain that the photo-
graph was made on Myford Road. As the NICAP man has pointed out (7f),
"trees along the road have since been trimmed back," and it is no
longer possible to perform this test
I7 October 1965, The U.S. Mr Force released an official state-
meiit disputing the UFÜs dimensions as estimated by the witness (12),
reading in part: "The...evaluation...is based on enlargements made
from copies of the original prints. Although it is not possible to
disprove the size of the object from the camera information submitted,
it is the opinion of the Air Force that the following is the true case.

oy.
The camera was probably focused on a set distance and not on infinity
as the terrain background was blurred... The center white stripe on
the road and the object.. .have the same sharp image. Therefore it is
believed that the object was on the same plane as the center white
stripe (or closer) to the camera and could not possibly be the size
quoted in the report. Using the width of the road as a factor, the
size of the object was estimated to be approximately one to three feet
in diameter and 15 to 20 feet above the ground (3)."
The statement appears to be based on, and quotes almost directly
from, an internal U.S.A.F. "Fhoto Analysis Report 64-48" requested by
Project Blue Book (10). The only significant additional information
in the analysis is a final paragraph describing an experiment to
reproduce the Santa Ana photos. "A test was conducted by the FTD Photo
Analyst and Photo Processing personnel with the results shown on the
attached photos... The object seen in the photographs was a 9" in
diameter vaporizing tray, tossed in the air approximately 8 to 12
feet high at a distance from the camera of approximately 15 to 20
feet. The result of the test shows a surprising similarity between
the object on the test photography and the object on [the witness]
photography (10)."
On 27 October 1965, Maj . Hector Quintanilla, Jr. of Project Blue
Book, told the Santa Ana Register, that the Air Force had "classified
it as a photographic hoax on the basis of extensive photo analysis
(12)." Ralph Rankow, NICAP's photo analyst immediately announced
strong disagreement with the Air Force analysis.
1 November 1965. On the basis of analyses by Rankow and Don
Berliner (an aviation magazine photographer in Washington, D.C.)
MCAP issued a press release calling the Air Force "hoax" classifi-
cation "an insult to the intelligence of the public... [The witness]
holds a responsible position and has suffered considerable embarrass-
ment upon being accused of being a hoaxer, without evidence...
Ke welcome independent analysis of the photographs by a qualified
expert... Our own photographic advisers have found no evidence

693
trickery, but if some one else can find such evidence, vc would like
to settle the matter, one way or the other (12)."
9 Ueceinber i'Jb.S. The ;>anta A}ia Rtujlatcr quotes a letter from Air
Force Col. William fc". Poe to Rep. Alphonzo Bell (R-Santa Monica, Calif.J
stating "We have not classified the photograph as a hoax (12)."
According to the witness, on 11 October 1967, during the period
when our own investigation was beginning, an officer in Air Force
uniform came to the witness' home in the evening and presented his
credentials. Mindful of past experience, the witness studied them
carefully. They gave the name (Japt. (J. II. lidmonds, of Space Systems
Division, Systems Command. The witness reported this encounter within
a few days to NICAP; he was sure about the rank and spelling of the
name (14).
The man allpgedly a^ked a number of questions, including "Are you
going to try to get the originals back?" The witness claims that the
man appeared visibly relieved when the witness replied "No." The
"officer" also assertedly asked what the witness knew about the "Bermuda
triangle" (an area where a number of ships and an aircraft have been
lost since ISOO's) (14).
This alleged encounter took place at dusk on the front porch.
During the questioning, the witness says he noted a car parked in the
street with indistinct lettering on the front door. In the back seat
could be seen a figure and a violet (not blue) glow, which the witness
attributed to instrument dials. He believed he was being photographed
or recorded. In ehe meantime, his FM multiplex radio was playing in
the living room and during the questioning it made "several loud
audible pops (14)."
In order to investigate this report, NICAP sent a letter to "Capt.
C. M. Edmonds," Space Systems Division (the office from which the
original Air Force investigating officer had come), but received no
reply. Robert Nathan, an independent investigator, phoned and talked
to people who remembered the original Air Force investigator of 1965
but could not identify "Edmonds." Robert .1. Low of the Colorado
project obtained from the Air Force data on officers of similar name.

694
The list contained four "C. H. Edmonds," but none with the correct
rank and spelling. All were of rather high rank and none should have
had any connection with the Santa Ana case (14).
ihe significance of this report is still unclear but suggestive.
Other alleged inquiries. During an interview with the witness,
15 January' 1968, he indicated that he believes his phone had been
tapped, that many friends had reported they could not reach him on
occasion, and that the phone company found that only his wires had been
tampered with. He also stated that on three or four occasions his
H
neighbors had advised him that men in military uniform had come to >
his door during the day, when he was not there. .•

it
.Analysis: f
■i,

Rather than recount in detail the long series of interviews, ':

experiments, and questions that were involved in analyzing the Santa
Ana case, only the value of the case in terms of the UFO problem and
the poj-ible reality of extraordinary flying objects will be considered
here.
From the point of view of the Colorado study the principal question
of concern is: does a aase have probative value in establishing the
reality of unusual airaraff. In a case like this, where both the
observer and photographs alearhj allege an extraordinary vehicle, a
second question is, of course, automatically implied: does the case
represent ? fabrication or was the object a true unknown? But it is
not in general our purpose to make a judgment on that question. We
are concerned only with establishing evidence as to whether or not
there exist extraordinary flying objects.
In that context, this case is equivocal.
In the course of my stuHv I was able to simulate effectively the
first three photographs by suspending a model by a thread attached
to a rod resting on the roof of a truck and photographing it (Plate 47 ).
Without assuming the truth or untruth of the witness' story this has
led me to conclude that the case is of little probative value.

695
Conclusion:
The evidence for the reality of the UFO is not sufficiently strong
to have probative value in establishing the existence of extraordinary
flying objects. The strongest arguments against the case are the clouds
in photo four and the inconsistent early records regarding the "NORAÜ"
visitors. The photos themselves contain no geometric or physical data
that permit a determination of distance or size independent of the
testimony. Thus the witness' claims are tne essential ingredients in
the case. The ca^c musf remain inconclusive.
Although the authenticity of the UFO in this case is still open to
question owin« to internal inconsistencies in the early testimony, and
inconsistency of the photographs and weather data^this case is still
held to be of exceptional interest becaus« it is so well documented.
This is a result of early attention from the U. S. Marine Corps, the U. S.
Air Force, NICAP and the press. Regardless of the existence or non-existence
of extraordinary flying objects, this case supplies good documentation
of the dealings between our society and a man who claims to have seen
one.

Sources of Information:
1. NICAP report form and handwritten narrative, 22 September 1965.
2. File of miscellaneous documents supplied by NICAP including
narrative report, 22 September through 17 December 1965.
3. File of miscellaneous correspondence supplied by NICAP including
several narrative letters, 24 September 1965 through 11 .January 1966.
4. Basic Report LAW AFR 200-2. Report to USAF based on inter-
views, 23 September 1965.
5. Narrative Report and Assessment. Report to USAF based on
interviews, 23 September 1965.
6. Re-evatuation of shadow circumstances. Report to NICAP by
NICAP investigator, 23 July 1966.
7. Hartmann, W. K. Miscellaneous telephone interviews and
correspondence, 5 June 1965.

696
 a. Telephone conversation with witness, 5 June 1967.
b. Visit to the site on Myford Road, Santa Ana, 9 September 1967.
c. Telephone conversation and correspondence 28 September 1967;
interview 16 January 1968.
d. Telephone conversation 18 October 1967.
e. Telephone conversation 22 November 1967.
f. Correspondence 5 November 1967, and 25 November 1967.
g. Phone conversation 11 January 1968.
h. Interviews at 1:1 Tore Marine Corps Air Station, and others,
15 January 1968.
8. Nathan. R.
9. U. S. Marine Corps G-2 Investigation Report, 1:1 Toro Marine
Air Facility, 22 September 1965.
10. Photo Analysis Report requested by Major H. Quintanilla for
U. S. Air Force.
11. Letter from Chief of Staff, NORAD.
12. Chronology of Events, received by W. K. H. IS November 1967.
'repared in 1967 and based on original NICAP files, 1965-67.
13. Crow, Loren W. Special report to Colorado project on weather
conditions related to Santa Ana sighting, 4 December 1967.
14. Joint meeting in Los Angeles with witness and other interested
parties, 15 January 1968; interview with the witness at Myford Road,
16 January 1968.
15. McDonald, J. E. Private communication; correspondence with
Polaroid Corporation, 19oS.
16. Vallee, J. and Vallee J. Challenge to Science, Chicago:
Regnery, 1966, pp. 30, 43.

697

^L
 Case S3
North Fastern
Summer I9t>5
Investigator; Hartmann

Abstract:
Two photographs of a bright disc with ;i reportedly invisible but (in
Plate 48) opaque, reflectingj and (in Plate 49) glowing "appendage" can be
easily produced by hand-holding an illuminated model. There »s no proba-
tive evidence tor an unusual phenomenon.

Background:
Time: 11:30, li.D.T. {\^
Locale: Backyard in populated area; hilly terrain (1,2)
Weather: Hazy evening sky; bright moon; no wind noticeable (1).
Camera: Yashika b35 camera; Altipan 120 film (ASA 100); f:3,
focus infinity, six-second exposures(.3) .

Sighting, General Information :

The key witness was aiming his camera upward at an angle of roughly
50 -45 , in a southwestern direction toward the top of a hill close to the
house (2,5). As he prepared to take a time exposure, he noticed a "bright
white", "self-luminous" object, "brighter than the moon or headlights"
approaching from behind some trees on the horizon to the left (I). The
object was seen nearly simultaneously by the key witness and his brother.
The object moved "like an airplane would go" (5), "faster than a Piper Cub"
(1), but then suddenly hovered. The key witness made a hur.ied exposure
(Plate 48).
The object then drifted to the right, brightening somewhat (1). Again
it hovered; the key witness had advanced the film and made a second exposure
(Plate 49). Then the object "zoomed up" (1), or "rose at high speed and
disappeared" (4), before a third exposure could be made. No sound was heard
(1) The object, described as a "big, disk-shaped light", uniformly white.
not reflecting; without a clearly visible surface (5), "solid, flattened on

h'ia
bottom, was visible for about 30 see.
The negatives showed an opaque, dark extension beneath the object ih
the first photo, and a bright, apparently transparent extension below in the
second; the witnesses repeatedly stated that this was not visible to them
at the time of the sighting (4, 5).

Investigation:
At the urging of friends the key witness presented the photos within a
few days to the local newspaper. (3, 4). The newspaper staff made a care-
ful study of the negatives, superimposing them, determining that there was
no parallax in the horizon trees and no shift in position of the moon, but
that the object was in two different positions.

Critique:
The similarity of the appendage of Plate 49 to a human arm and hand
with knuckles, thumb, with shadows being consistently suggested is striking.
Test photos (Plates 4U.W. and • ' ( simulating the originals were made in
the following manner: A dish was held by a hand gripping a short handle
which had been attached with tape to the bottom of the dish. The dish was
illuminated by a flashlight and moved during the brief exposure. In the
test simulation of Plate 48, the light was kept off the supporting arm,
while in Plate 49 the light was played over the wrist and additional streaks
were introduced by moving the illuminated hand across the field (after the
dish had been removed). The test exposures illustrate the possibility of
simile reproduction ( Fig. 10) of: (1) the glowing, blurred disk (plate
or model), (2) the opaque appendage in Plate 48 (unilluminated arm supporting
model); (3) the glowing appendage with hand-like features (illuminated hand);
(4) the transparency of the glowing feature (removal of the arm during the
time exposure); (5) non-detection of continuation of appendage in densi-
tometry (duration of "UFOs" presence = small fraction of total exposure time).

Conclusion:
The photographs have little value in establishing an extraordinary
phenomenon.

<*»9
 00

i)
*->
n

r
c
c: o

c c
o
•-J
i>
t-.

o
«■>

o
a.

M
a.
<*.
o u
e
w
t-
at
re
■o
u

Q
/
o Z
CL o
5 »-
o: o
ÜJ 5
C-
D Q
CO 2
<
Q: I
3
_j >-
OD CD
Sources of Information:

1. NICAP Report form lillsd out by witnesses.

2. Correspondence between P. J. Klass and W. K. Hartmann.
3. Internal NICAP correspandence, kindly provided by NICAP.
4. Klass, P.J., UFOs Identified , New York: Random House, 1968,
5. Fuller, J.G., Incident at Exeter, New York: Putnaai's, 1966.

701
 Case 54
Gulfstream Aircraft, Huntsville, Ala. to Minneapolis, Minn.
11 March 1966
, Investigator: Hartmann

Abstract:
An electronics specialist associated with the Marshall Space
Flight Center, on a flight from Huntsville, Ala. saw and photographed
an exceptionally bright, elliptical UFO. The obiect was lower than
the plane and appeared to be at a great distance moving away froi.i
the plane. The object is inconclusively identified as a sub-sun
on the basis of photographic evidence, though not all the testimony
directly supports this.

Background:
Time: About 3:00 to 3:20 p.m. CST
Aircraft Position: En route nonstop from Huntsville, Ala. to
Minneapolis, Minn. Altitude: 20,000 to 22,000 ft. Exact location
unknown. (Source 1).
Weather Conditions: Partly cloudy below the plane; complete
overcast above, with the sun not visible (1).
Photographic Data: Kodak Retina II, 35 mm Plus-X (2) black-
and-white film (ASA 160); Xenon f2 50 mm lens (uncoated, perfect
condition), focused on UFO during first exposure; exposure 1/500
sec at fl6. Exposure meter General Electric PR-1, serial number
J95126 (Source 1).

Sighting, General Information:

During a chartered Gulfstream Aircraft flight from Huntsviüe
to Minneapolis, the witness, an electronics specialist for Marshall
Space Flight Center observed from the rear left window an extremely
bright object outside. Initially the object was estimated to be

702

i
about 15° behind the plane in azimuth and 5° below. The photographs,
Plates 52-55 indicate a much greater declination below the horizon.
The initial direction of the object was believed to be southwest of
the aircraft, based on an aasimed northerly heading, and was
observed for approximately 20 min. (All descriptive material,
Source 1).
Fifteen months after the sighting the object was described by
the witness in a letter dated 13 June 1967, as follows:
Perfect ellipse with axes ratio of approximately 1:3,
with the major axis horizontal (see Fig. 11 ). The edges
were sharp and perfectly defined. Surrounding this ellipse
was a brilliant halo which I noticed but did not study as
much as I did the object. The brilliance made my eyes water
and pain.
[The color was] overall brilliant yellow-orange, ven
much like the sun...The UFO always appeared the same, uxcept
diminishing in size, perfectly outlined with a halo. No
other detail was seen. It did not change its flight line...
The UFO was southwest of the plane at first and disappeared
northwest of the plane. I am here assuming the plane was
always flying on a north heading...
The distance could not be determined accurately, but
I had a distinct impression at first that I was viewing
something from ^ to 1 mile away. Also the camera range-
finder indicated a long distance but not infinity. I have
had considerable experience in judging distance and elevations
of airplanes and in photography. Later the UFO was much
more distant, as shown in the film,..
The UFO was viewed under several different conditions.
At first it was slightly behind the plane, lighting the
inside of the plane. I moved my head to see if it would
affect the image. I cupped my hands around my face and on
the pane. Neither of these changed the view at all. For

705

j,.
ff.-' StffrT/^^Wl!»»',',? *'»■>'•

Fig. 11

Sketch of reported visual appearance of the UFO,

after a sketch by the witness. The central hori-
zontal ellipse was reportedly the brightest; the
photos show only the halo.
704
 the first picture (Plate 52) I backed about four feet away
from the window...so as to fraire the UFO with the window
frame. This was to add perspective. The other pictures
were taken through the window while the camera was held
close to it. One of the other frames shows a small
section of the left wing...
I was immediately shocked at the appearance of the
UFO. It seemed too definite in outline to be a reflection,
sun dog, or ice crystal image of the sun, even if the sun
had been shining. I have often seen such natural phenomena,
since I have studied meteorology, but pay little
attention to them. This was different. It was just too
bright to be natural, I thought. Remembering the often
reported sudden disappearance or speeding up of UFOs,
I expected it to do likewise. But it did neither. I
had waited a few minutes after seeing it before I realized
it might stay long enough for a picture. After the first
one, I took the other three at about S-minute intervals.
The situation was embarrassing. I felt I should be
able to explain the UFO but could not since the sun was
not shining. Furthermore, I could not arouse interest
in any of the other six or eight passengers, who were
playing cards. Only one man, an engineer, even bothered
to look at it, explaining it as a "reflection."
The witness considered and rejected several explanations of
the phenomenon, lie had seen and launched several kinds of balloons
and had seen skyhook balloons launched; he was sure that it was
neither a balloon, a plane, or "any other object I have eve/ seen" (1)
His background includes varied experience in radio repair and
electronics. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering and has
worked at Marshall Space Flight Center (Redstone Arsenal) since
1958. The witness has been very cooperative and articulate in
supplying supplementary information on the sighting.

705
 ffto1 1l%»4^ev ,■;-
4

Investigation:
Of several scientific colleagues with whom the witness discussed
the sighting after his return on 12 March, "a few insisted that the
light on the pictures was a sun dog or a weather balloon even though
I had insisted the sun was not out" (1).
I The witness "did not report it officially because cf the way
witnesses have been treated." After showing the film to various
other colleagues, including "Ph, U.'s and highly specialized
j scientists," the witness contacted Dr. J. A. Hynek, and the case
was subsequently brought to the attention of the Colorado project.
The similarity of the object to a sub-sun at once suggested an
explanation. A photograph of a sub-sun provided by NCAR (Section III,
Chapter ^, Plate 2) strengthened considerably the sub-sun hypothesis.
Minnaert (3) describes this phenomenon as follows:
This is to be seen only from a mountain or an airplane.
It is somewhat oblong, uncolored reflection; the sun
reflected not in a surface of water but in a cloud. A cloud
of ice-plates, in fact, which appear to float extremely
calmly judging from the comparative sharpness of the image.
Several objections and questions are raised by this hypothesis.
The most serious objection is that (1) the witness stressed that
the sky above the aircraft was so overcast that he could not see the
sun. Considering the sub-sun hypothesis it is necessary to assume
that the overcast was thin enough, especially during the first
minutes of the sighting, to allow a bright image of the sun (even
if diffused by overcast) to be produced by laminar ice crystals.
A gradual increase in density of the overcast above the airplane
would provide a natural explanation of the fading of the apparition
and would not contradict the witness1 belief in an overcast.
(2) The witness reported that the direction was initially
southwest of the aircraft "15° behind" it, but that the UFO
disappeared to the northwest. During an interval of only 20 min.
the azimuth of the sun, and hence of the sub-sun, could not change

706
by such a large angle (though th«' motion of the sun would contribute
a few degrees in this direction). These estimates were with respect
to the plane and were based on the witness* aesmption that the
plane was flying oonatantly due north. Since the witness mentions
that the initial southwest direction of the UFO was only 15° behind
the plane, it is clear that "southwest" and "northwest" are not to
be taken literally as 90° apart. Furthermore, Plates 53 and 55,which
can be oriented by the wing, were made about 10 min. apart but
indicate a shift in the UFOs position of not more than a few degrees.
Therefore, a change in flight direction of 30° or less, would explain
the apparent change in direction of the sub-sun. A change such as
this would not necessarily be obvious, especially in overcast flying
conditions. Since the course from Huntsville to Minneapolis is
north-northwest, the view out of the left side would be west-southwest
the approximate direction of the sun at 3:00 p.m., supporting the
sub-sun hypothesis.
(3) The object was described as a "sharp and perfectly
defined" horizonval disk with a vertical "halo;" but, the photographs
do not confirm the horizontal ellipse. Although the wijor axis of
the ellipse was sketched nearly as wide as the halo, microscopic
examination of the original negatives and high density prints
(Plates 56 and 57) ■jive no indication of a central bright ellipse.
Only the halo was photographed. Although the inner part of the
halo is overexposed and evidently saturated, masking a possible
small central ellipse, photographic evidence suggests that any
flattened central disk was not as well-defined or as large as the
testimony might suggest. An indication that the innar Isophotes
do not have as large a vertical ellipticity as the outer isophotes
is evidenced by the fact that the images on the last photographs,
when the apparition was evidently fainter, are more rounded. This
ivay account for the witness' impression of a horizontal, flattened
inner core. In all respects, the photographs of the witness appear
to be similar to the sub-sun photograph supplied by NCAR.

707
MMf^VW ?j'<rnr-^»'»<f»s^ '

(4) The object was so extremely bright that it was reportedly

capable of throwing the exposure meter off scale, illuminating the
inside of the plane, and hurting the witness' eyes. These observa-
tions apparently refer to the initial sighting, before the apparition
dimmed (Plates 54 and 55). One might question whether a sub-sun
could appear so bright. A sub-sun is literally a reflection of the
sun; that is, its brightness could approach that of the sun itself,
if the reflector were efficient enough. Ambient light over a cloud
deck is already large, and a relatively small fraction of the
sun's full brightness in an image reflected under especially good
conditions could produce the reported effects.
(5) The apparent decrease of angular size would not be expected
in a reflection of the sun. The witness interpreted this as a
departure of the object: "Later the UFO was much more distant as
hown in the film." The film shows only that the angular size of
the "halo" and apparently the tDtal brightness decreased. Since no
clear, hard, disk-shaped core can be made out in the over-exposed
central "halo," there is no photographic evidence for a decrease
in angular size of a well-defined object or for an increase in its
distance. The observed image sequence could have been produced
by a gradual decrease in brightness; i.e. by obscuration of the
overhead sun or by decreasing density or alignment of the reflecting
ice crystals.
(6) The witness focused on the UFO and concluded that his
rangefinder "indicated a long distance but not infinity." However,
he "had a distinct impression at first that I was viewing from
'i to 1 mile away." These two statements are inconsistent. In
conclusion it appears that there are nD significant and accurate
data on the distance of the object in view of the difficulty of
accurate focusing on ill-defined or very bright objects and of the
inaccuracy of the registration of distance on many camera range-
finders.
(7) Finally, we must remark that the witness does not believe
that the object was a sub-sun, regardless of evidence presented in
the above argument. In spite of this subjective response, one can

708
judge the case only on the most objective data, i.e. the photographs
and his most descriptive testimony. The witness makes no assertion
that the object was artificial or solid.
Reflections appear to be ruled out as the witness cupped his
hands around the window in order to study the moving object.

Summary and Conclusion:

In summary, the principal arguments in favor of the sub-sun
hypothesis are: (1) The appearance is consistent with that of a
sub-sun. (2) The azimuth is consistent, within the limits of the
known direction of flight. (3) The elevation angle of the sun
above the horizon must equal the declination of the sub-sun below
the horizon; it is calculated to be approximately 30° ± 4°.
Estimates of the declination, based on the known angular scale
(photo height ca. 26°) and the estimated vanishing point of the
clouds in the photographs (the horizon being out of the frame)
place it in the range 28 to 33°. These figures are consistent.
The sub-sun hypoth-.-iis requires that the witness overstated
the situation by insisting that "the sun was not out." An overhead
cloud deck of not too great opacity may have led the witness to this
assertion.
In spite of some questions raised by the testimony, the
apparition can be inconclusively identified as a sub-sun. In view
of the high degree of similarity of the photographed object with a
sub-sun, it would be unwarranted to assert that this sighting
constitutes evidence for an extraordinary or unknown phenomenon.

Sources of information:
1. Report of the witness to Colorado project (13 June 1967).
2. Correspondence and telephone conversations between the
witness and Colorado project (June - Julv 1967).
3. Minnaert, M. The Nature of Light, and Coluur in the
)p,:n Aii; N. Y. : Hover, 1954.

709
 fpOPSUPf,^-.' •*.., . t.
i".

Case 5!>

1 N.M. (Aircraft flight from St. Louis to Los Angeles over N.M.)
22 April 1966
Investigator: Hartmann

Abstract:
The pilot and passengers of a commercial airliner sighted a bright
cloud-like object that was in view for several minutes. The piljt spec-
ulated that it was a flare experiment launched from White Sands Proving
Grounds. The most consistent evidence is in accord with this. Ilowevor,
the case has the interesting, if dubious, distinction of having apparently
been confused later by extraneous photographs and testimony given by a
sailor, who was a passenger, to a civilian UFO investigator and enthusiast.

background:
During the evening twilight, about sunset, American Airlines night
587 from St.Louis to Los Angeles was passing over Farmington N.M., at an al
titude of 33,ÜÜ0 ft. (1). The pilot announced to the passengers that he
had spotted an unusual object outside the aircraft. A preliminary account
of the sighting is best reported in notes taken by Witness I immediately
after the incident:
....The pilot called our attention to an object off (at
a great distance) from our left win>;. It was early twilight.
He said. "1 have never seen anything like it before. Other
planes in the area have also seen it nor can thoy identity it."
We were at an altitude of approximately 33,0'° feet and well
above all clouds. The pilot moved our plane much closer. The
pilot said, "It is entirely too high to be a cloud." It appeared
at first to be a very bright cloud but there was a long rosy
cloud-like tail behind it....Then later it appeared to solidify
more and have a ring around it. It appeared in this form for
perhaps only a miin'te then went back to the original form.
After about seven minutes, it evaporated.
The pilot then said, ''In all fairness we are now over
New Mexico and it might be something from White Sands." He

710
 laughed. "If anyone reports seeing an unidentified flying object,
I will deny seeing it."
In the seat next to me sat a young sailor from CIeves, Ohio,
who took a picture of it and said he would send it to me.
Witness I's notes go on to relate two UFO incidents recounted to
her by the sailor, Witness II.

Investigation:
A year after the flight to Los Angeles (17 April 1967) Witness I was
queried by Mr. L. H. Stringfield, a private UFO investigator.
She reported the following supplementary information:
Persons sitting on the left for the most part looked
out of the window. On the right side a few persdns stood to
look out the left windows, then everyone settled back to maga-
zines and newspapers in a surprisingly short time. I think
(Witness II) and I were the only ones in our section (First
Class) who watched it until it disappeared.
The object, assuming it was a UFO, was covered by a jet-
like vapor. To me it looked like a beautiful white cloud....
Either it was enormous and a great distance away or it was
smaller and much closer than I realized. The cloud-like tail
was rosy in color. It kept pace with us (1C-1S minutes?)
until it briefly solidified, then the vapor (cloud or whatever)
stayed where it was and wafted away.
The sun must have been dead ahead. We were flying west/
southwest....The pilot said, "Please look off the left wingtip
if you want to see a flying sauce?' (or maybe he said UFO)...
We were in perfectly clear blue sky in the early twilight above
the clouds. I thought whatever we saw was an "escaped" cloud,
but the pilot said it was impossible to have clouds at our
altitude.

711
- -Mw^r*» vy > **■ ■** u *****

The sailor. Witness II, was contacted in April 1967 by Mr. String-
field, to who.n he related the additional information that the pilot had
checked with the "control tower" and found there were two other aircraft
within 100 mi. These were evidently the planes that reported the object.
Witness II stated that he thought the American Airlines plane might have
been over Utah. The object was off its left (southern) wing. He des-
cribed the object, according to Mr. Stringfield's notes, as "brilliant
white phosphorous light; oblong, without definite contour, moving parallel
to ship, same speed; one and a half minutes in view; disappeared forward
and up at tremendous speed; UFO seemed to advance and retreat in flight
without any change of light intensity or color" (3).
Witness 11 reported to Mr. Stringfield that he took "about four"
photos, two of which were submitted. He used sunglasses, described as
sunglasses for an acetylene torch, as a filter in his photographs (3).
He had earlier told Witness I (2) that the "photo" (singular) did not
"turn out". However, he subsequently claimed to Mr. Stringfield that
he hud done this to avoid publicity and that, furthermore, "there was
a top-secret mission involved and he (Witness II) could not talk about
it" (quoted from ref. 4 - not directly from Witness II).

Investigation:
On 16 January 1968, the Colorado project contacted the pilot of
the airliner, who confirmed the event. He said that he saw one brilliant
object which he thought was a sodium flare. This he reported to the l:AA
ARTC, which he said could not identify the object. The pilot said his
position was over Faradngton, New Mexico, and that the object was also
seen from several aircraft north of him. He felt that the object was
something fired from White Sands Proving Ground, about 300 mi. 3St of
Farmington. It was the brightness of the object that led him to believe
it was a sodium flare. He believed the flare was still in sunlight
although the plane was already in shadow; he also recalled the tail
extending from the object as described by Witness I.
It appears that an initially unidentified object was undeniably
seen from Flight 387. The testimony consistently indicates that the
object was distant and far above the commercir. iiliner; the pilot
believed it was high enough to be illuminated after sunsat. A quant Lt.'it ivc,

712
order of magnitude estimate of the distance cm be based on
the fact that the object appeared to "keep pace" with the aircraft for
a matter of at least 1.5 min.(Witness II), or 10 to 15 min. (Witness I).
That is, the parallax was negligible for, say,10 min. (Witness IPs
testimony is given lower weight; see below). At approximately 500 mph,
the plane would have moved through a baseline of the order 80 mi. during
this interval. Had the object drifted through <20 parallax during this
ten minutes, its distance would have been of the order ^240 mi. This
estimate is consistent with other sightings by other planes in a distance
range on the order of 100 mi.
It should be noted that the position for optimum visibility of a
high, illuminated cloud was at a considerable distance away, but not far
to the west, so that the still-illuminated cloud was seen low in a twilight
sky. A pi lot more nearly beneath it might not have seen it during its
few minutes of visibility.
The object described clearly had the appearance of a cloud. Witness
I's sketch depicts a somewhat elliptical cloud (with traditional scallop-
like outlines and a smoky tail extending upward to the right). The "ring"
to which Witness I refers is shown in a second fketch as a streak or bar
in front of the cloud. Because the object was suspected to result from
an experiment launched from White Sands, the project requested information
on this possibility from the Air Force. Col. Quintanilla, of Project
Blue Book, informed us that (1) there was no record of any test on this
date, (2) tests that could produce such phenomena (flares, etc.) were
not rare in this southwestern area, and (3) systematic records of such
scheduled tests are generally not preserved after three to six months.
Verification of a flare experiment was therefore not possible.
The following data strongly suggest a high-altituds flare and/or
rocket experiment: (1) large distance and altitude inferred by several
witnesses and the order-of-magnitude calculation; (2) the tail, charac-
teristic of exhaust train left by the vehicle carrying the "flare";
(3) bright light which attracted the pilot's attention; (4) rapid fading
or "evaporation" in a matter of minutes (dissipation of emitted material
or termination of illumination?); (5) pinkish color of tail suggests
illumination by setting sun.

713
If/' iffi.-tyrmw-r' ■"■t:^»',. '.*•■ . ..,v -.

Highly inconsistent with these factors is a part of the testimony

of Witness II. Other witnesses did not report the remarkable motions he
described. His photographs, made with a Kodak 126 Instamatic with color
film, (Plate 58) show not the cloud-like, slightly elliptical object of the
other observers, but a highly flattened orangish ellipse with a sharp out-
line, against a black background. Witness 1 reported that Witness II
took "a picture" of the cloud-like object, which he subsequently said
did not come out. He reported four photographs and submitted two to
Mr. Stringfield, who forwarded the negatives to the project. At this
time, Witness II told Mr. Stringfield thit he could not discuss the matter
further because of a secret project. (If the implication is that he was
associated with the project that produced the object, his presence on the
commercial airliner would seem irrelevant; if another project is indi-
ated, silence would be unnecessary.)
The photographer who prepared color prints from the two submitted
negatives advanced a hypothesis that the photo was a fabrication. The
blue-green object in the upper left (alleged to be the aircraft wing)
was held to be a fluorescent light fixture; the orange ellipse, an elec-
tric lamp, seen from the side; and several other orangish light spots,
reflections off a chair. The colors are consistent with this. This
alleged wing appears to be entirely in the wrong position.(i.e., over-
head; the top is defined by other scenic negatives on the film) for the
wing of an American Airlines commercial airliner to be seen from the
left side from a First Class seat. The "wing" is of brightness comparable
to the reportedly very bright UFO. It appears that there is considerable
support for the hypothesis that the photos in this case are extraneous.

Conclusion:
Kvidence suggests that some type of man-made flare experiment or test
was sighted by the pilot and passengers of American Airlines Might 387, as
the pilot speculated. The case was complicated by some inconsistent and
apparently extraneous photographs for which there is evidence of fabrication.

714
Sources of Information:

1. Notes by Witness I, 22 April 1966.

2. Correspondence between Witness I and L. H. Stringfield.

3. Notes by L. H. Stringfield on conversations with Witness II.

4. Colorado project notes on conversations with L. H. Stringfield,

5. Conversation between the pilot and Colorado project personnel.

715
'Z&r*"■!" '*►«»

Case 56
North Pacific
Winter 1967
Investigator: Hartmann

Abstract:
This case involves two photographs of a disk-shaped UFO. The
apparent time interval between the photos is inconsistent with the
eight-second reported interval (which was based on careful restaginp,
of the alleged incident). The report must be listed as internally
inconsistent and therefore is not satisfying evidence for an
unusual phenomenon.

Background:
T'me: 3:45-3:46 p.m. PST
Location: Backyard of suburban residence.
Weather: Some rain earlier in the day, overcast (1). The ob-
servers reported wind as "north to south--16 mph" and "cloud cover
at 21'JO ft.," allegedly based on contact with the weather bureau (1).
Hie weather bureau (2) data: for 5:40 p.m. ground winds were recorded
as gusting up to 39 mph from the WSW with a squall line moving
through; at 3:58 p.m. the winds were 14 mph from the SSW and clouds
were scattered at 2100 ft.; broken at 2500 ft.; and overcast at
6000 ft. The conflict in reported wind direction between the
witnesses' report and weather bureau may be due to their misunder-
standing the reported direction, "210°," {from the SSW).
Camera data: Polaroid "Swinger" camera.

Sighting, General Information:

Witnesses I, II, and III were in the backyard when Witness III
reportedly saw a disk-like object hovering above them and pointed it
out. lie continued watching while Witness I ran indoors and got the
camera. Witness II immediately took the camera and shot the first

716
photo (Plate 59) as the object still hovered. His brother,Witness I
tore off the exposed picture and held it as the Polaroid film developed,
At this point, the disk had begun to move. As soon as Witness IT
was able, he took a second picture (the last one on the roll) as the UFO
moved off in the distance (Plate 60). The position from which this
second photo was made was about five yards to the right of the previous
photo. The UFO disappeared in the distance with a smooth motion.
The object was described as solid, of a definitely metallic, dull-
grey color (3) estimated to have been as much as 25 ft. in diameter (1).
The witnesses took the photos to the local newspaper. The photos
were later distributed by a wire service.
By restaging the entire sequence of events it was determined that
the interval between the two photos was about eight seconds and not
longer than ten seconds, the time required to make two rapid-sequence
photos, and that the entire sighting lasted about 45 sec. ftiis timing
was held to be fairly accurate; i.e. to within about 25^ (3).

Critique:
However, overlapping and blinking of the two prints indicated
that, while the principal dark grey cloud mass beneath the disk in
Plate 59 is probably the same as the mass over the church in Plate 60
it had considerably changed its form and the other clouds were not
recognizably the same.
Parallax of the trees indicates a shift in camera position that
is small compared to the distance to the tree. These reported positions
were later measured to be about five yards apart, consistent with the
photos. Plate 60 was reportedly taken from a position to the right
of Plate 59 on a line nearly perpendicular to the direction of view
in Plate 59. Since this position is not appreciably further from
the trees, the considerable downward shift of the cloud is not related
to parallax, unless the reported separation was incorrect in azimuth
and in distance bv a factor of about three.

717
•f"i •ff*'*?' '-•■ • ■■ i ffft-"; -nil»

!
Thus, the photos appear to be inconsistent with the testimony. |
The time interval and possibly the positions would have to be
independently and simultaneously in error by factors of about three
to explain the inconsistency between the photographed clouds and
the testimony. In fact the downward (westward) motion of the main
dark cloud, combined with the direction of winds aloft from the SW,
inconclusively raises the possibility that the pictures were taken
in reverse order from that reported.
The angular diameters of the object in Plate 59 and 60 are about
2°.7 and 0o.82, respectively. The elevation angles are about 24°.6
and ll^O. If the boys' distance estimate of 0.5 mi. in Plate 5U
were correct, the corresponding diameter of the craft would be 120 ft.
(In Plate 60 at the estimated five miles, it would have to be about
380 ft., but we have already assumed that the five mile figure was
erroneously large.) If one assumes a diameter of 50 ft. (compro-
mising between the 25 ft. estimate and the 120 ft. result), the slant
range distance would be 1100 ft. in Plate 59 and 3500 ft. in Plate 60;
the corresponding altitudes above the ground would be about 460 ft.
and 670 ft., indicating that the craft was not flying parallel to
the ground.
Alternatively, if one assumed that the object was 12 in. in
diameter, the slant ranges would be about 22 ft. and 70 ft.; and the
altitudes would be about nine feet and 13 ft.

Conclusion:
Inconsistency botween the reported eight-second interval and
gross changes in cloud structure and position impair the usefulness
of these photographs as evidence to establish the existence of
"flying saucers" or other unusual phenomena.

718
Sources of Information:

(1) Report form filed with Colorado Project.

(2) Telephone conversation with U. S. Weather Bureau, McNary Field,
Salem; 6 June 1967.
(3) Interview with the three boys and the mother and father, 6 June
1967.
(4) Letter from the father to Colorado Project, 27 March 1967.
(5) Interview with Salem Capital Journal staff, 7 June 1967.

719

^
qw"

Case 57
Highwood Ranger Station, Alberta
3 July 1967
Investigator: Hartmann

Abstract:
The witness and two companions reportedly sighted and took two
photographs of an object described as shiny, and approximately 2.c>-ft.
in diameter. The craft reportedly dropped a small object, which when
recovered was reported to be composed of solder, aluminum, and magnesium.
A report by the Royal Canadian Air Force implied substantial evidence
that the sighting was authentic and that the object was, subject to
certain assumptions, 40 to 50 in. diameter. Although the case was
widely described, both in the press and by several investigators,
as beiny exceptionally strong, examination of the original photographs
and the circumstances indicates no evidence of probative value for
the existence of unusual aircraft. Only the sworn testimony of the
witnesses could be described as making this case more impressive than
most others.
The key witness and his two companion? were hiking east in the
rugged mountain terrain when all three of them reported seeing an
object approaching (la, b, c).
The key witness is described as a salesman and one of his companions
as a student ca. 16 years old (1,3). Various individuals contacted by
the project, either involved in or investigating the case, remarked on
the "quizzical" nature of responses of the principals to certain situ-
an
ations (see below), questioning in particular the key witnesses' d
companions' actions. Reference (2) describes the "two observers" --
evidently the key witness and a companion as engaged in "gold prospecting."
Reference (4) describes them as looking for a legendary lost mine.

720
Background;
Time: "At or about 6:30 P.M." (PDT?) (la, lb, lc). Ref. 2
gives "approximateiy 1700 hrs."
Location: "Approximately 80 miles SW of . . . Calgary" (1); "approxi-
mately 30 miles W of Naton, Alberta" (2); "about 3 to S miles E of . . .
Coleman-Kananaskis Highway" (1); "approximately 3 ir.iles SSE of the High-
wood Ranger Station" (2). Note: 80 mi. SW of Calgary would fall in
British Columbia; it appears from the other data that the phrase should
read approximately 50 mi. SW of Calgary.

Sightings, General Information:

According to the witnesses the object approached from east, and
at a relatively close distance and passed out of sight behind some
trees; it reappeared, hovered, and then was lost to sight to the south (1).
There were scattered cumulus clouds with base level approximately 10,000 ft.
above sea level (2, quoted frcm "Met Office"). The observers were at
altitude approximately 5,000 ft. (2), where there were winds of 15 mph. (2).
When first sighted, the "craft" was at an altitude not more than
2,000 ft. and distance not more than 2 mi. (ia, b). It was gradually
losing altitude (la, b). According to the key witness in his deposition
approximately eight months later (la):
It was traveling toward us gradually losing
altitude, passed in front of us, arid as it passed
slightly out of view behind some trees, it then
reappeared and hovered in open sky, and something
of a much smaller size fell from the craft.
One of the witness's companions reports in his deposition (lb):
It travelled towards us gradually losing al-
titude and at a distance of not more than % mile
it hovered for moments, at which time some object
was seen to fall from the craft. The fallen ob-
ject was possibly one hundredth (.01) the size of

721
 the mother craft. At tree-top level the craft
in question then disappeared from sight.
I am not sure at this point whether It
became invisible, or dissolved , or merely sped
out of sight at such a great speed that it was
hard for the eye to follow. At any rate, it was
moving away from us at a great speed when it
disappeared from sight.

Photographs:
TTie Key witness took the two photographs in rapid succession (2),
and stated (la) "I . . . took two pictures of this strange craft and
swear, to the best of my knowledge, that there were no other humans in
tlint i and that there was no camera trickery involved." See Plates
(»I and l>2. Hie key witness was using an Olympus PHN liE. The slide
format was 18 x 24 mm. (half the standard 35 mm. format). The film
speed was 'SA (>-l, set 7 ft. to infinity (2).

Investigation:
In the initial report to the Canadian Department of National
LVfince, dated "Sept. 67," the object was described as "circular,
shiny, aluminium, approximately 25 feet in Hiameter. First observed
2,000 to 2,500 feet above the altitude of the observer, banked and
descended much lower, disappeared behind the trees moving south at
high speed" (2).
One of the key witness's companions, whose deposition is most
detailed, states;
No sound accompanied the sigiiting and no
exhaust or colours of any kind were seen. What
we saw was a disc-shaped object with a silvery
tone to it, with a size that the Department of

722
 National Defence in Canada described to be 35 to
40 feet in diameter with a depth ratio of 4 to 1.
My guess as to its size would put it as certainly
no bigger than that.
(Note: The depositions referred to are signed and carry the proviso:
"Anu I make this soicmn declaration conscientiously believing it to
he true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if
made under oath, and by virtue of The Canada F.vidence Act.")
In the weeks following the sighting, the UFO report gained some
publicity. A report containing the details was sent from the "Can
Pers Unit, Calgary" to The Royal Canadian Air Force Headquarters,
Ottawa, dated 7 Sept. 1967, Further data were received by the Canadian
Air Force through a telephone conversation, 11-12 October 19b7.
On 18 October 1957, a report was sent by the Defence Photographic
Interpretation Centre of the Air Force to the Director of Operations
of the Air Force. This report, by Major K. J. liope (ref. 2), contained
an analysis of the photographs.
The Canadian analysis was in the form of four tests. In "Lxercise
A" it was concluded that the cloud masses shown in the two photos were
essentially the same, consistent with the quick succession of the photos
and 15 mph. winds, and that tuo different photographs were taken on the
site, consistent with very slight differences in foliage pattern in
the trees. However, the possibility that the case involved "a photo
montage combining a studio prepared UFO with each of two on-site shots"
could not be "proved or disproved."
"Lxercise B" used the camera characieristies to conclude that the
fu::iness of Plate b2 could be due either to out-of-focus recopying
or camera movement. The shutter speed of 1/25 sec. was consistent
with, but did not prove camera motioi..
"Ixercise C" used meteorological data (.clouds at about 5,000 ft.)
to show that the alleged visibility of the objects at 2,000-2,500 ft.
was credible.
"Fxercisc D" concluded that since the observation was made in
a wilderness area that it was reasonable that no other reports had
been obtained.

723
,■-..

Hie Canadian report also concluded fiom the photographs that

the object had a torus or possibly oblate ellipsoid shape, and that at
about 2,000 ft. its diameter would have been 40-50 ft. and its thick-
nes* 11.5-14 ft. The two photos together indicated ascent or descent,
in accord with the testimony.
The language of the report implies that since all tests were
"passed," i.e., since the photos were in several ways consistent with
the testimony, the case was very strong. Amonr the conclusions were
the statements: "From statistical data supplied the object has a
diameter of 40'-50' and hae a depth of U^'-U' . . ." (WKH emphasis);
"A review of all technical data, . . . indicated a very acceptable degree
of compatibility. If the story and photographs are a hoax, then it is
a well prepared one, that would require on the hoaxer's part knowledge
of photography and possibly photogrammetry to support the written and
verbal information .... Alternatively, the data supplied a most
fortunate and lucky combination of circumstances to make a hoax realistic;
. . . the four exercises . . . reasonably substantiate the observer's
report, by both technical data and logic; . . Conclusion: The findings
arrived at above are supported by technical data . . . ."
At this lime in the investigation (snow was already on the ground),
one of the companions returned to the woods to locate the site and
look for the object reportedly dropped by the UFO (3). He instructed
friends to notify the authorities if he was not back within three days. (3)
After one week, the key witness notified the local news media, instead
of the police. When the companion emerged unscathed from the woods, he
objected to the excitement and searches being conducted at that time
by army and police (3). Dr. J. Allen Hynek, consultant to U.S.A.F.
Project Blue Book, advised the Colorado project that a specimen or
specimens brought out by the companion thought to be related to the
sighting, were solder with particles of aluminum-magnesium alloy embedded
in them (3).
Later investigators (3) questioned (without conclusive results) the
motivation of the key witness in his handling of publicity, e.g.,

724
nocifying the news media in preference to search authorities. Hynek,
who later described the case (4) as being the closest he had come to
fully documented, believable photographs, worthy of further investigation,
studied the original slides in January, 1968. At this time, permission
was obtained through a Montreal lawyer for the Colorado project to
study the originals.
According to notes in the Colorado files (3), Hynek visited Calgary
and interviewed the key witness and other persons involved in the case.
This trip was made shortly after national disclosure of a photographic
UFO hoax in Texas; Mr. Mike Adamson, of Calgary radio station, CKXI
arranged at this time for lie detector tests to be given to the key
witness and other companion who were both anxious to take such tests.
These tests were to be at the expense of CKXL.
However, in a misunderstanding. Dr. Hynek left Calgary before such
a test could be performed, and the radio station personnel, to whom the
test was worthless without Dr. Hynek's participation in the resulting
broadcast, canceled the test.

Analysis:
The analysis by the Royal Canadian Air Force reported above, is
regarded as technically valid, although I believe that the interpretation
attaches unwarranted credence to the case. In particular, the state-
ments that a hoax "would require . . . knowledge of photography and
possibly photogrammetry to support the written and verbal information
. . ." and that "it would require a most fortunate and lucky combination
of circumstances to make a hoax realistic" are too strong. It should
be remembered that if a hoax were involved, the written and verbal
information would be prepared after the photographs were taken, in
accord with what the photographer thought he had "recorded" on film.
Certainly, the "Calgary" photographs do not require photogrammetric
knowledge or sophisticated photographic experience to produce. In fact,
the rapid panning and blurring of the second photo, and the pitch of the
disk toward the observei are characteristic of photographs of hand-thrown
models. In my opinion, it is basically this problem that makes the
"Calgary" photos of no probative value in establishing the existence of

725
■ *^is*-r-

I
i

"flying saucers": the photographs cannot be distinguished from

photographs of a hand-thrown model.
The R.C.A.F. report is reminiscent of the early U. S. Navy laboratory
report on the Tremonton motion pictures: the report was prepared by
a group that was inclined to believe in the existence of "flying saucers"
and while the analysis was more or less valid, it did not warrant the
conclusion, presented to the Robertson Panel, that possibly alien intel-
ligent control was involved.
An important test passed by the photographs is that the background
cloud patterns are identical, consistent with the statement that the
photographs were taken in rapid succession. (The Salem case, for
example, was classified as containing fatal internal inconsistencies
when this test was not passed.)
Measurements of Plates 61 and 62 (on 8 x 10 enlargements) give
angular diameters of 0?98 and 0f84, respectively. The key witness and
his companion testified (attested to by the other companion) that the
object was initially "no higher than 2,000 feet" (la), and "first sighted
at an altitude of not more than 2,000 feet" (lb), and losing altitude.
The object had approached from a discance of "no greater than two miles"
to ''not more than one-haif mile" when the pictures were made. A
horizontal range of, say, .'',000 ft. would require an altitude of approxi-
mately 1,400 ft. to be compatible with the elvation angle of approximately
35° measured in the first photo. In the second photo, the ÜF0 has
dropped vertically downward to an elevation angle of about 14°, corres-
ponding to an altitude of about 240 ft. These figures are consistent
with the verbal testimony.
Using a line-of-sight distance of about 2,200 ft., the measured
angular diameter of 0?9 corresponds to a linear diameter uf 35 ft
The distance uncertainty results in a diameter uncertainty of perhaps
40%. Thus, the verbal testimony, combined with the photographs,
indicates a linear diameter of 35 ^14 ft.
After examination of enlarged images, 1 see no evidence to support
the R.C.A.F. assertion that the object has a toroidal shape. Only the

726
blurred image (Plate 62) is pitched up toward the observer, and a light
zone not quite centered in the dark disk can be interpreted as a high-
light, as opposed to a central hole.
Dr. Hynek reported to the project that Fred Beckmann, of the
University of Chicago, had studied the original slides with a densi-
tometer and concluded that the image was a "real," photographic image,
and that there seemed to be some haze in front of the object suggesting
considerable range (See the similar analysis of McMinnville, Ore.,
Case 4b). However, in view of the shiny nature of the surface, the
clear presence of bright highlights, and the relatively high contrast
of distant ground details, it would be difficult, in my judgment, to
get a clear indication of enough scattering between the observer and
the UFO to indicate a distance of the order of only 2,000 ft.

Conclusion:
The tests which could be performed were consistent in all respects
with the verbal testimony. The tests included: (1) Time spacing of
the pictures; (2) compatibility of reported range and altitude with
measured elevation angle; (3) compatibility of reported size with
measured angular size and reported distance. Characteristics of the
reported "craft," assuming the reported distance, would be diameter
35 ^ 14 ft. and thickness 8^3 ft.
In spite of the internal consistency of these results, it must be
stated that the photographs are also consistent with a hand-thrown model
and that there is insufficient information content to rule out this
hypothesis. Therefore, the case cannot be said to contribute significant
evidence in establishing the existence of unusual aircraft.

727
^•*^ ^~ ■''r>'-ar.'W'f^ 7 ^'w«

Sources of Information

Statutory Declarations, 28 February 1968

a. By the key witness
b. By the first companion
c. By the other companion
Hope, Maj. K. J. (18 October 1967) "Photographic Analysis - Two
Copy Colour Slides of Alleged UFO"
Notes on telephone conversations between Dr. Roy Craig (Boulder),
Dr. J. A. Hynek, and others concerned with case. January - March,
1968.
Grescoe, Paul. The Canadian Magazine, 25 May 1968.

728
Case 58
Sonora and Camarillo, Calif.
1 November 1967 (Sonora); 27 December 1967 (Camarillo)
Investigator: Hartmann

Abstract:
Two objects photographed in unrelated incidents by Universal
City Studios are judged to be real but of little probative value
in establishing the existence of extraordinary flying objects. These
objects can be attributed easily to airborne debris.

Background:
Time: 12:10-12:15 p.m. PST (S); 10:00 a.m. PST (C)
Location: On location near Sonora; Broom Ranch near Camarillo
Camera Data: 35 mm motion picture camera; 24 frames/sec; Eastman
Color film processed by Techniscope; approx. f9; f.l. 30 nun (S)
100 mm (C);
Scene (from "A Man Called Gannon"): 59A-2, "A" Camera (S); 317A-5,
"B" Camera (C).
Direction of view (both cases): eastward, elevation about 30°
above horizon.
Weather conditions: Cloudless deep blue sky in both cases.

Sighting, General Information:

During the filming of a feature motion picture, "A Man Called
Gannon," two lengths of footage, when developed, showed unidentified
images drifting across the field of view. In neither case did any of
the film crew or actors recall seeing an object. According to film
company personnel, this was the strangest aspect of the case, because
the cameramen habitually look for aircraft or contrails, especially
in historical dramas. In situations where aircraft are filmed the

729
scene is immediately reshot, and the footage showing inappropriate detail
is rejected. However, in these two cases the images were discovered
only during the editing, when the processed film was being viewed.
The first case, shot at Sonora, Calif., 1 November 1967, showed
a small bright source drifting slowly toward the top of the screen
(Plate 63) at the very beginning of a sequence, while the camera slate
is still being shown. The slate is removed and the scene shows only
deep blue sky and the drifting object, which leaves the upper margin
near the left corner after roughly ten seconds, before r.ny subsequent
action starts. The object is below or near the resolution of the film
and resembles a wide-angle shot of the moon, except that the camera
was stationary and the object is drifting.
The second case involves film shot on the Broom Ranch near Camarillo
27 December 1967. During a dialogue sequence the camera was focused on
the head and shoulders of an actor who was astride a horse. The horizon
is out of the picture. At this time a pale, circular extended objecv,
which appears to be an out-of-focus image of a point source or a small
bright source, drifts across the screen from the right edge to the left
edge in roughly 15 sec. (The image does not reproduce well in black-
and-white.) The object definitely appears to pass behind the actor
a« it is not visible against several dark portions of his clothing.
Again, the camera was fixed, although there is a sudden offset to com-
pensate for a movement of the horse. The shooting of this scene will
not be cut from the final motion picture.

Investigation:
At my request, Mr. William J. Wade, head of the camera department
at Universal Studio used his standard depth-of-field tables to check
the depth of field in each case. These tables are based on a circle of
confusion of 0.002 in. diameter. In the Sonora case, the camera was
focused quite close (after the slate is removed and the UFO has disappeared,
an actor jumps into the foreground). For a 35 mm lens at f8, focused

730

\
at 25 ft., the depth of field is 7 ft. 2 in. to infinity. Thus an
object passing anywhere in the background would be in focus. This
is consistent with the small, apparently unresolved, bright image.
In the Camarillo footage, the longer focal-length lens had less depth
of field. For a 100 mm lens at f8, focussed at 20 ft. (the approximate
distance of the actor) the depth of field is 16 ft. 1 in. to 27 ft.
2 in.; at 25 ft. it is 19 ft. 2 in. to 36 ft. 8 in. This restricted
depth of field is consistent with the image being badly out of focus,
assuming that the object passed at a distance greater than some 30 ft.
There is no reason to suspect that any fabrication is involved.
The officials with whom I spoke were helpful and appeared genuinely
puzzled. There has been no evidence of any attempt to capitalize
on the event. Had the studio wanted to fabricate an UFO, the facili-
ties were readily available to create a much more vivid result.

Conclusion;
It is concluded that real objects were photographed in both cases,
consistent with the camera geometry. The information content of the
films is so low that the cases are of little value in establishing the
existence of "flying saucers." In addition, it strains credulity
to argue that a single film crew would unknowingly and accidentally photo-
graph rare, extraordinary objects on two occasions occurring 56 days
and approximately 275 mi. apffrt.
Alternatively, it is easy to argue that both objects may have
been some sort of wind-blown debris, either natural, such as a bit of
milkweed-type plant debris, or artificial, such as a bit of white
tissue. A two-inch diameter white object at about 50 ft. distance
would be consistent with the observations. The camera crew, checking
for aircraft, would not have seen anything. The object would be in
focus in the Sonora case, out of focus in Camarillo. In the Sonora
photographs the object would subtend an angle of only 0!2 and show up
as only a small bright source. During the shooting, the object would
be unlikely to attract the attention of the camera crew, being neither
"up in the sky" at infinity, nor in the region of focal interest.

731
Sources of Information:
Personal visit by W. K. Hartmann to Universal City Studios,
Universal City, Calif.; personal discussions with Howard Cristie,
Producer, and William J. Wade, Head, Camera Department.

732
Case 59
Lakeville, Conn.
January 1967
Investigators: Ayer, Wadsworth

Abstract:
Many unidentified sightings, principally of lights at night, were
reported in the Lakeville area over several months. Most, including a
photograph, came from a boys'prep school. Some of the sightings
probably were aircraft lights, but no generally applicable explanation
is apparent.

Background:
Various reports had indicated a wave of UFO sightings in the
Lakeville area from about Thanksgiving Day 1966 into the spring of
1967; these emanated chiefly from a boys' prep school near Lakeville.
On 20 September 1967, while the CU investigators were in that area,
they visited the school and also obtained copies of State Police
reports on some of the sightings.

Investigation:
From the police reports and investigators' interviews, 20
September 1967 at the school, it developed that a teacher and at
least seven students had seen an unidentified object or objects on
various nights from 12 to 23 January, and that one student had taken a
photograph of it. The teacher described it as an elliptical object
with two pulsating red lights on the sides, moving south in the west-
em sky. His sighting was on 19 January, about 9:55 p.m. on a clear,
cold night. The boys gave essentially the same description as the
teacher, except one who reported erratic motion and hovering in various
parts of the sky on several occasions.
The investigators learned also that a 12-yr.-old boy who lived
near the school had made a Polaroid photo of a pattern of colored

733
'
lights that he had seen in the sky from the living room of his home
on the evening of 24 January; but they were unable to interview the
family or obtain the photo.
No practicable means of clarifying the visual sightings was
available, so that the investigation reduced to examination of the
photograph the student had made (Plate ^,4 ). The object was sighted
about 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. on or about 23 January. According to the
17-yr.-old student, who was photographer for the school paper, others
saw the object and called him; but it had disappeared when he arrived
outside the dormitory with his camera equipment. He set up the camera
on a heavy-duty tripod and aimed at the last observed position of the
object. After about five minutes it reappeared, and he exposed the
film for about seven seconds. The object was in view for about five
seconds of the exposure, during which time it pulsated twice before it
disappeared behind Indian Mountain. He immediately rewound the film,
with only the one exposure on it, and developed. The exposed frame
.vas torn in rewinding, apparently because it had become very cold and
he did not wait for it to return to room temperature.
The object was seen in the western sky, north of Indian Mountain,
moving south. The photographer described it as a "bright point of
light" that blinked or pulsated irregularly. From his estimate of
its location relative to the mountain, it was apparently a few hundred
feet above the ground and at least 2.5 miles distant. The ni^ht was
clear and very cold.
!he camera was a Voightlander Ultramatic 35mm., with a 50 mm.
Skopar f/2.8 lens. A ülaiiz-Samigon monocular was attached to the
lens to give 7X magnification (the student photographer had prepared
the combination after earlier sightings). The optical combination had
a focal length of 550 mm., aperture f/8. The film was Kodak Tri-X,
speed ASA 8ÜÜ; it was developed in U-76 diluted 1:1, at b8o-70ly for
14 min., agitated ten seconds each half-minute for maximum contrast.

734
The Photograph:
The edges of the image parallel to the direction of motion are
sharp, as confirmed by densitometer traces, indicating that object
was accurately focussed. Measurement of its diameter, toge' with
the known focal length of the camera system, gives an angula- Jiamcter
of about 7' of arc, more than one-fifth the diameter of tht i../on. This
observation conflicts with the photographer's description of it as a
bright point. In explanation, he stated in a letter dated 22 October
1967: "Because of the relatively poor quality of the opt cal system
I was using, the images on the film are rather crude representations
of the UFÜ. It was actually a bright point of light. The lens and
possibly the film have diffused the image somewhat into circular
form." Nearly all of such diffusenes-j would have to be attributed
to the lens system, as the film was capable of rendering detail well
under 1' of arc; and such serious aberration does not seem likely for
the equipment he was using, if it was properly fccussed. The photo-
grapher s judgment of the visual appearance of the object would have
been influenced by its brightness and his state of accommodation,
as well as his visual acuity.
The fact that part of the film frame is missing raises obvious
questions as to authenticity. However, the rather jagged tear, with
emulsion pulled off the film base in a sawtooth pattern, is character-
istic of Tri-X film torn at a temperature of around 0oF. At room
temperature it tears smoothly, leaving a nearly straight edge on
both film base and emulsion. This observation obviously supports the
statement that the film was accidentally torn while being rewound at
low temperature.
It should be mentioned that the State Police report 25 January
1907 on the sightings at the school listed as exhibits "two photos of
UFÜ taken on Jan. 19, 1967," at approximately 9:00 p.m. and approxi-
mately 9:10 p.m., both with five seconds exposure. The student photo-
grapher told the CU investigators that he had made only the one
exposure.

735
;!?

If the photograph is indeed the image of a moving luminous disk,

then it is a time-exposure showing a disk that was not uniformly
bright over its area, and was either moving erratically or changing in
brightness erratically, or both. However, these unsophisticated
observations offer little basis for speculation as to the identity of
the object or the authenticity of the photograph.
Dr. William K, Hartmann notes that "the image bears a strong
resemblance to a slitless spectrogram of an annular emission-line
source."

736
 PLATES

The plates and legends following

include not only plates in the
case study section (IV) but all
plates in the report.

737
 LEGENDS

PLATE
NO.
1. Lenticular cloud photographed in Brazil. Photo courtesy APRO,

2. Sub-sun. Photo courtesy NCAR.

3. Time "trail" exposure of the moon. Photo by author.

4. Reported "UFO" identified as a film defect. Palomar Mt.

Photo courtesy Mrs. Z. Rungee.

5. Reported "UFO" identified as a developing defect. Pinawa,

Manitoba. Photo courtesy of the witness.

6. Lens flare (upper right) caused by street lamp in photograph

of Comet Ikeya Seki. Photo by author.

7. "Physically fabricated" UFO photo made by hand-throwing a

spinning model. Photo by author.

8. "Physically fabricated" UFO photo - a suspended mode:. Photo

by author.

9. "Physically fabricated" UFO photo. Nighttime time exposure

of a model held by hand and illuminated by flashlight. (Cf.
Beaver, Pa., case.) Photo by author.

10. "Optically fabricated" UFO photograph. Double exposure of

elliptical lamp superimposed on a landscape. (Cf. El Guapo,
Venezuela, case, APRO bulletin.) Photo by author.

11. "Optically fabricated" UFO photograph. Cut-out drawing

superimposed on a print and recopied. Photo by author.

12. "Optical fabrication." Full moon in the midst of a sunset

scene -- a physical impossibility. Image of moon (behind
the observer) was reflected in a sheet of glass through
which photo was taken. P!ioto by author.

738
13. Photograph taken from an orbiting spacecraft showing the
luminous airglow layer above the earth illuminated by moon-
light. At an oblique angle to the earth's surface the
zodiacal light band is apparent as a conical band. The
bright object near the apex of the zodiacal band is the
planet Venus.

14. The airglow layer photographed from a rocket. The earth's

surface is not illuminated by moonlight in contrast with
the photograph in Plate 13. Just beneath the airglow layer
are many stars and the solid earth can be delineated by
means of city lights.

15. Auroral zone inclined to parallels of geographic latitude.

16. Sketch made by Gemini 7 astronauts of an auroral arch below

the airglow layer.

17. A lOOx (approx.) enlargement of Gemini 11. Frame 10, of

Magazine 8. S66-54661.

18. A lOOx (approx.) enlargement of Gemini 11. Frame 9, of

Magazine 8. S66-54660.

19. Photograph of a Radar Evaluation Pod (REP) made by Gemini S

astronauts.

20. The appearance of Agena as seen at distances varying from

25 to 250 feet.

21. A spectacular photograph showing the rendezvous of GT-6

and GT-"'.

22. "Uriglow." Brilliant stars appeared when crystals formed

from a urine dump at sunrise were illuminated by the sun.

23. McMinnville photo 1. Photo courtesy U.P.I.

24. McMinnville photo courtesy U.P.I.

25. Approximate apparent path of UFO. Photo by author at oriRlnal.

site, June, 1967.

739
26. Enlargements of UFO images from photos 1 and 2.

27. Portion (about 1/3) of a frame (approx. no. 114) of the

Great Falls motion picture. At bottom edge of frame are
ventilator ducts on a nearby building.

28. The first Barra da Tijuca photo, reportedly showing the

disk approaching. Photo courtesy APRO.

29. Barra da Tijuca photo 4. Lighting of the disk is clearly

from the left, but details of the hillside suggest lighting
from the right. (Cf. Plate 30) Photo courtesy APRO.

30. Detail of Plate 29. The palm tree and clumps of foliage
indicate shadows on the left with incident illumination
from the right. Photo courtesy APRO.

31. Typical frame from the Tremonton, Utah, movie. Black bars
mark the top and bottom of the original frame.

32. Ft. Belvoir photo 1. The army private who took the photo-
graphs was called from his building to see the approaching
object, which appeared to be a black, non-reflecting ring.

33. Ft. Belvoir photo 2.

34. Ft. Belvoir photo 3.

35. Ft. Belvoir photo 4,

36. Ft. Belvoir photo 5.

37. Ft. Belvoir photo 6.

38. Detonation of "atom bomb simulation demonstration" at Ft.

Belvoir. Photo courtesy of the witness.

39. Black mushroom cloud produced by "atom bomb simulation

demonstration" at Ft. Belvoir. Photo courtesy of the witness.

40. Stable black vortex ring detaching itself from mushroom

column in "atom bomb simulation demonstration" at Ft. Belvoir.
Photo courtesy of the witness

740
41. Frame from the Vandenberg tracking film. Rocket is moving
away and down toward southern horizon. Only the bright
exhaust is visible. The UFO, identified as Venus, appears
to move upward past rocket. Width of field approx. 2°.

42. Santa Ana photo 1, looking NNE down Myford Road through front
windshield of Heflin's truck. Santa Ana freeway about 0.5 km
distant.

43. Santa Ana photo 2, looking out right window of Heflin's truck.

44. Santa Ana photo 3, looking out right window of Heflin's truck.
Standpipe about 80 m distant.

45. Santa Ana photo 4, alleged to be looking NNW from middle of

Myford Road, outside truck.

46. Alleged site of photo 4, showing match with tree and wire.
(Cf. Plate 45.)

47. 4 1/2 cm (1 3/4 in) diameter Leica lens cap suspended on a

fine thread a few inches outside van window, 16 January 1968.
Copied from a Polaroid print»
48. The first of the two Case S3 photographs. Object reportedly
approached from the left, then hovered. The moon is at the
left.

49. The second of the two Case 53 photographs. The moon is at

the right.

50. Attempted simulation of Case 53 photo 1, made by holding an

illuminated object (blurred by hand motion). Moon at right.
51. Attempted simulation of Case S3 photo 2, made by holding a
plate, illuminated by flashlight and blurred by hand motion.
Moon at left.

52. Gulf stream Aircraft photo 1. The photos were made at about
5-minute intervals over a period of 20 minutes. Note re-
flection of window curtains.

741
53. Gulfstream Aircraft photo 2. The negative was inadvertantly
creased when a book was rested on it prior to receipt by the
Colorado Project. This accounts for the diagonal streak
through the image. Aircraft wing in upper right.

54. Gulfstream Aircraft photo 3.

55. Gulf stream Aircraft photo 4. Wing in upper right.

56. Enlargement of Gulfstream Aircraft Plate 53, printed at low

density to show the structure of the outer halo. Scale is
defined by the pattern of film defects and the grain.
(Cf. Plate 53.)

57. Enlargement of Gulfstream Aircraft Plate 53, printed at high

density to show the core of the bright object. While the
core is overexposed, there is no evidence for the horizontal
disk shown in Fig. 11 and reported visually. Scale is the
same as Plate 56.

58. First of two similar alleged photographs of object seen from

American Airlines Flight 387.

59. First photo of North Pacific UFO. Copyright Kenneth Baker 1967.

60. Second photo of North Pacific UIO. Copyright Kenneth Baker 1967,

61. First photograph of alleged UFO photo by the witness.

62. Second photograph of alleged UFO photo by the witness.

63. The Sonora, California, UFO. Arrow shows small, bright source
which drifts toward top of frame on motion picture footage.

64. Polaroid photo of a pattern of colored lights made by a

12-yr.-old boy in Lakeville, Conn.

65. Time lapse photograph of PPI. Diameter of area covered is

300 nautical miles.

66. PPI presentation and location of targets from which radar

echoes were received during the occurrence of a strong
elavated duct.

742
 1

67. Examples of radio interference.

68. Reflection echo during anomalous propagation conditions

a. stratiform precipitation
b. normal ground clutter
c. anomalous propagation
d. reflection geometry

743
Plate 2

745
0.
Plate 4

747
0)
ft
i—(
a.
v
cd
a.
Plate 10

753
\
Plate 11

754
1
Plate 14
LT,

0>

et
 /y* c* oyuf y*<*~* -4*5&4

DSt&s

^a r
**c V** c4hQ •** *4*>n nrcr-sfl

r ^ '/> ^

Plate lh

753
Plate r

760
Plate 18

761

•i'
Plate 19

762
(N
4)
fl)
<-•
a.
 ?• —
, V It «.
P l a t e 26

769
P l a t e 28

111
P l a t e 29
o
to
<&
•->

H
a.
y$>* %v'rvm^-* &n ■>«»■

;■' vV^tl^^fte

Plate 31

77 A
0
 fO
0)
••>
c3

J zs* '

> • 'f
*/
P l a t e 37
 00

it
*.t
ft
.—>
a,

.
:*:

10
4>
CO
«W? -'•«»^»f.»' » .!VK>»WRp.,, ... r.-

«>
(8
cd
a.
 . ^.^^.«».^-»...j.i.«» .. .■—rn-mm* ■ - ■» i JW»««W»»—WW*

**m*i
Plate 46

789

i.
00,
^
0)
a
a.
«■ -,*i»4«i»r»Kfl.,,

«
o

a.
I/)
0)
cd
a.
0)
«8
1/)
«>
<9
If)
V
*-»
«a
r-l
a.
 " - ♦»

. *r i - *■

r 1
i^.' :-<»*^
-* .
.V • ■ ■

I«

I«
a.
Plate S8

801
Ok
in
v
•-4
o.
P l a t e 61

804
P l a t e 62

805
*:•» y , .

>. »\t- >£. r .

P l a t e 63

806
cd
TIME LAPSE PHOTOGRAPH OF PPI. DIAMETER OF
AREA COVERED IS 300 NAUTICAL MILES

Plate 65

808
 I

«.■• *&&&■!/ 'jmmMMßtttf TW

PH pmxHTKnm AND UKAHM OF

«NBN fUOAR ECHOES «DC NBODWED DUMM TMi
OOOUMOCE OF A STUONB CLCWID OUCT

Plate 66

809

*
m^':y

EXAMPLES OF RADIO INTERFERENCE

Plate 67

810
o STRATIFORM PRECIPITATION 6. NORMAL GROUND CLUTTER

C. ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION 4. RCPUCTIOII GEOMETRY

NCFUCTION fCHO
00N0ITION8

Plate 68

811
 Section V
Historical Aspects of UFO Phenoaen«

No study of UFO Phenoaena would be coaplete without providing

the historical and international context within which the present
inquiry has been conducted. In the succeeding three chapters events
leading up to 1947 are considered over the sweep of recorded history;
the two decades of intensive UFO activity are reviewed; and the
degree to which foreign countries are officially studying UFO phe-
noaena is surveyed.

812
i
 Chapter 1
UFOs in History
Samuel Rosenberg

In his summary of the work of the Colorado project, which appears

as Section II of this report. Dr. Condon defines (at p. 13 supra) an
UFO as follows:
An unidentified flying object (UFO, pronounced
00F0) is defined as the stimulus for a report made
by one or more individuals of something seen in the
sky (or an object thought to be capable of flying
but seen when landed on the earth) which the obser-
ver could not identify as having an ordinary natural
origin . . . (emphasis--SR).
Dr. Condon's definition accurately mirrors the persistent, tanta-
lizing inconclisiveness of all UFO reports, modern and ancient. In this
chapter this definition will be applied to the past from which a sampling
of "UFO reports" gathered from various books and records is readily
forthcoming -- so readily, in fact, that a report of al. such sightings
of mysterious objects which the observer "could not identify" would fill
the entire space devoted to the project report as a whole.
The wealth of ancient "UFOs" is due to a basic fact about man's
perception of his contemporary universe. A concentrated glance back-
ward in time quickly reveals that throughout our recorded history (and
presumably before that), mankind has always seen UFOs and reported
"sightings" that remained unexplained even after examination by persons
believed to be competent. Our earliest ancestor gazed earnestly into
terrestrial and outer space to witness an infinite variety of phenomena
and -- understood virtually none of them. In fact, his entire universe,
both "external" to himself, as well as "internal," was largely outside
of his comprehension. He had only the most rudimentary pragmatic
knowledge and was totally unable to explain factually or conceptually
whatever he plainly saw. In short, to him everything woe UFO.

813
 This in no way prevented him from interpreting what he saw or
utilizing his interpretations in a manner that seems to have been
convenient to the needs of his contemporary society. A reminder of
the social consequences of the ancient attitudes toward "things seen
in the sky" may therefore be helpful in dealing with present-day
reactions to UFO reports.
Ne know some of early man's UFO sightings as sun, moon, lunar
halo, stars, constellations, galaxies, meteors, comets, auroras,
rainbows, wind, rain, storm, tornado, hurricane, drought; others as
sunrise, sunset, mirage, phosphorescence, lightning, etc, etc. In
modern times, inductive scientists have given us rational explanations
for a great many natural phenomena, or they have asked us to suspend
judgments of the still vast unknowable, pending further investigation.
But our inveterate impatience persists.
Perhaps the most persistent and dramatic early UFO sightings of
the species that has with characteristic self-importance designated
itself as Homo sapiens (intellißent man) were the "heavenly" lights he
saw whenever he looked upward or outward into space. Without knowing
what they were -- and what, wild guesses were made! -- man was still
able to use the moving points of light for his navigating, hunting or
rigrating orientations. But our ancestors could not endure living
without immediate explanations for all of the natural phenomena that
surrounded them. So, in the absence of scientific explanations for
what they saw, they conjured up other interpretations equally satis-
fying to them: the poetic, the dramatic, the supernatural, the mytho-
logical, and even the nonsensical, or comic. Any explanation was
better than none at all, because man, a part of nature, abhors a
(mental) vacuum. Indeed the need to establish orientation by means
of hastily improvised hypotheses or fantasies appears to be a fundamental,
almost instinctual biological adjunct.
Bits of the vast accumulations of intuitive rationalizations
concocted by early man while he waited impatiently for more accurate
answers, still continue to satisfy our craving for poetry, drama and

814
other imaginative story-telling. Francis Thompson wrote: "Man was
able to live without soap for thousands of years, but he could never
live without poetry." So for multimillenia we have had poeiry and
allegory and all sorts of remarkably ingenious supernatural fantasies
standing in for crucially needed, verifiable factual truth. Some-
times the interim quasi-sciences have served us pragmatically and have
led to positivistic science and to some degree of environmental control.
But, on balance, it becomes painfully evident from reading history
that hasty, premature, wrong explanations -- however pretty or ingenious
have led only to more wrong explanations, to a crippling of correct
analytical functioning, to the substitution of dogma for fresh research,
to the stifling of debate, to punishment for dissent -- and to frequent
disasters.
There were always some isolated scientific experimenters who worked
in many fields (usually in secret), but they did not make much head-
way against the politically entrenched supernatural theoreticians and
their MIFOe - mistakenly identified flying objeate. It was not until
the end of the sixteenth century that emerging nationalistic power-
politics and the new mercantile and manufacturing demands of Western
Europe ;..ade scientific methods highly desirable and profitable.
Before that, for hundreds of thousands of years, most human pro-
cedures were based on magical interpretations of environmental phenomena.
From remote times, magicians and astrologers were consulted before
any political or military decisions were made; and justice was admini-
stered according to magical formula«. Until a moment or two ago in
man's long history all natural phenomena were devoutly believed to be
gods, angels, spirits, devils, fairies, witches, vampires, succubi and
incubi; or omens of fortune, good and evil. What remains today as
semantic residues, or charming fairy tales or myths, were once life-
and-death formulations acted upon with the utmost seriousness. In many
of the so-called "primitive" societies still extant, the magical interpre-
tation of the world still prevails. Even today, most American newspapers
print magical astrological predictions. In 1962, all governmental

815
'»

business In India was suspended on the day when, for the first time in
several hundred years seven of the major planets were lined up in
conjunction. All of India heaved a collective sigh of relief when that
fruitcake day ended.
In their book Lure and Lore of Outer Space, Ernst and Johann?. Lehner
(1964) have compiled an illustrated review of the cosmos as it was
understood and visualized by earlier cultures. The Lehners make it evident
that the inventors of cosmic diagrams were convinced that their images
of outer space were real and completely factual. Pseudo-explanations
of the nature of the cosmos were at the very core of their religious
and political ideologies; belief in them was mandatory and could be
disputed only at the risk of imprisonment or death.
The Chinese evolved a celestial globe completely
different from the Western concept in which our earth
was surrounded by the Four Supernatural Creatures pre-
siding over The Four Quadrants of Heaven: the Azure
Dragon over the East; the Vemilion Bird or Phoenix
over the South; the White Tiger over the West; and the
Black Warriort or Tortoise over the North. These four
quadrants are enclosed by the Pa Kua or Eight Diagramß,
representing heaven, water, lightning, thunder, wind,
clouds, mountains and earth. They are encircled by the 12
zodiacal animals which, in turn, are surrounded by the
28 Kung, or constellations of the Chinese Heaven: the
Earth Dragon, the Sky Dragon, the Badger, the Hare,
the Fox, the Tiger, the Leopard, the Griffon, the Ox,
the Bat, the Rat, the Swallow, the bear, the Porcupine,
the Wolf, the Dog, the Pheasant, the Cock, the Raven,
the Monkey, the Ape, the Tapir, the Sheep, the Muntjak,
the Horse, the Deer, the Snake, and the Worm. (Lehner,
1964).
These were some of the UFOs seen by the ancient Chinese. The
Egyptians following the universal rule of interpreting UFOs in terms

816
of the technology of the time -- depicted interstellar vehicles as
"barges of the Sun" carried on the "star-studded back of Nut, the
Heavenly Vault." Later, cosmic UFOs 'seen' by the Greeks and the
Romans (and inherited by us) resulted in a fascinating heavenly attic
chockful of people, gods and goddesses, flora and fauna, mythological
beasts, assorted seafood, furniture, equipment, and miscellaneous
bric-a-brac. Here, from an American astronomical chart published in
the 1830s, is a partial list of constellations that were visually ex-
trapolated from a few randomly scattered points of light: Peaoook,
Hereohel'e Teleeoope^ Camleopard, Bird of Paradiae, Hadley'a Quadrant,
Sun Dial, King Charlea ' Oak, Phoenix, Andromeda, Perseus, Centaur,
Water Snake, Dog, Lobster, Painter's Easel, Cross, Beca*, Cow. Most
appropriately for this report, there were also three interstellar
vehicles: Argo Navis (The Sailing Ship), The Chariot, and Noah's Ark.
There are also other constellations in which Gods or Goddesses 01
beasts act as heavenly carriers: Iris, the Goddess of the Fairibow, for
example, carried sinners to perdition.
The worship of the sun was endemic in antiquity. In nearly every
religion the sun was the supreme deity and in some societies was even
giver the ultimate tribute of human sacrifice. To the Greeks he was
Helios; to the Egyptians Horus. For a time, in the guise of the Persian
God iHthras, he very neatly became the predominant deity of the Western
world before Christianity finally prevailed. The Incas and most other
American Indians regarded the sun as their principal deity and worshipped
the dominant astronomical phenomenon that was blindingly visible to
everyone, but never properly understood. The sun was a veritable UFO
sighting of the first magnitude.
But the concept of the UFO sun as deity was not merely metaphorical.
Its identity as god was declared to be irrevocably Truth and Dogma and
was backed up by courts of law, police and armies. In theocratic states,
an avowed disbelief in the theological explanation of the relationship
of the sun to our earth was tantamount to treason and punished as such.
On 1 July 1968, the Catholic Church announced "tl^at it might revise its

817
censure of GalDeo Gallilei for his heretical statement that, contrary
to the official Catholic dogma, the sun did not revolve around the
earth, but vice versa." (New York Times, 1968) The article in the
Times appears cheek-to-cheek with another news story about some UFOs
that turned out to be parts of Russian satellites that ignited as they
re-entered the earth's atmosphere (see Section VI, Chapter 2). ITie
juxtaposition of these two "news items" is not accidental: they are
part of a persistent pattern of response to UFOs that have always
been plainly visible to mankind - and misinterpreted.
In The Rainbou, Carl Boyer writes:
Anaxagoras, the friend and tutor of Pericles,
found a popular atmosphere in Athens which was hostile
to natural science; and, when he asserted that the
sun, far from being a divinity, was nothing but a
huge white-hot stone, he was jailed for impiety.
Anaxagoras also courageously questioned the divinity
of Tria, the Goddees of the Rainbow.
It seems that Iris has been a major UFO for many thousands of
years, with a highly charged emotional effect upon those who witnessed
the phenomenon. Some like the Hebrews, were delighted to see the
rainbow, because they interpreted it as a sign of God's forgiveness of
the tew survivors on Noah's Ark after He had destroyed all other life
on rarth. But to the highly sophisticated Greeks and Romans, the
rainbow was a terrifying sight because Iris was regarded as the
harbinger of evil tidings. It was her special mission to cone down
to earth, after the storming thunder and lightning rages of Zeus, to
inform men of their transgressions and to execute the penalties imposed
by the Deity. Iris was ominously present after the grear deluge of
Deucalion, when Zeus decided ti.at mankind was unredeemable and must be
totally eliminated. His "final solution" was to be an extreme coldness
that would freeze all humans to death. It was Iris who was sent to
inform Menelaus of the elopement of his daughter, Helen of Troy, an
act that started the Trojan Wars. Iris announced the tempest that

818
shipwrecked Aeneas. She severed the last slender thread that kept Queen
Dido alive; and it was Iris who thereafter carried water from the River
Styx and forced condemned sinners to drink. Shakespeare, steeped in
Ovidian mythology, knew Iris well. In "All's Well" he called her "the
distempered messenger of wet" and in "Henry VI, Part II," he had the
Queen threaten the exiled Duke of Suffold: "For wheresoe'cr thou art
in this world's globe, I'll have an Iris that shall find thee cut."
There was no escape from the rainbow messenger and executioner.
The trepidations of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Elizabethan
English were shared by primitive ufologists the world over. Africa
tribal lore regarded the rainbow as a giant snake who, seeking a meal
after the rain will devour whomever he comes upon. In the Americas, the
rainbow was also a hungry god, fond of indiscriminately ingesting water,
cattle, and tribesmen, especially the youngest members. The Shoshoni
Indian believed that the sky was made of ice against which the serpent
rainbow rubbed its back, causing snow in the winter and rain in the
summer. It is not recuJ^d whether the Shoshoni's heavenly serpent
thus relieved some a,- ; itch, but other primitive descriptions of the
rainbow reveal a very chirsty god indeed: Plutarch describes Iris
as having a head of a bull that drinks the water of rivers and streams,
while Ovid also depicts her as distinctly bibulous. Other explanations
of the rainbow include the hem of God's garments (Greenland); a hat
(Blackfeet American Indians); a bowl for coloring birds (Germans); a
camel carrying three persons, or a net (Mongol); and, in Finnish lore,
a "sickle of the Thunder-God."
Homer may have been the champion literary projectionist of Greece.
He too saw Iris either literally or figuratively as a serpent. The
Great Visualizer of modem times, however, is beyond any doubt Professor
Hermann Rorschach. That compulsive spiller of ink is surely the twen-
tieth century's patron saint of visualization. The doctor of ink and
blot has convinced psychologists that whenever we look at something that
is disorderly, meaningless, amorphous, or vague, we immediately project
upon something else. And that aomeihing elae is an image withdrawn

819
from our internal picture library and projected onto the shapeless
blob placed before us. It seems that we cannot tolerate vagueness
and insist on replacing it with what we wish to see or what we dread

Some experts insist, however, that we pretend to see something

in order to be kind to the earnest psychologists who try to be helpful
by showing inky messes to total strangers. During World War II, I
was present as an observer when a brilliant young lieutenant was being
tested. He did quite well until he was handed an enormous inkblot and
asked to describe what he saw. He gazed at it dutifully for quite a
while, then handed it back, and said : "It looks like an inkblot to me
sir." He was disqualified for his flagrant anti-social response, of
course, and it served him right! I also looked at the configuration,
and there plainly visible was a lovely picture of an old woman dressed
all in black, riding her monocycle down a deserted cou.i road.
And, speaking of tests, in 1875, after conducting a long series
of experiments, the eminent physiologist Dr. Francis Galten published
his discovery that a surprising number of "entirely normal and reliable"
Englishmen he had tested habitually saw objects, colors, forms, and vivid
kinaesthetic patterns involving mixed image and color not seen by others.
I offer these digressions with the suggestion that a great deal of
work still remains to be done on the visualizing characteristics of the
so-called "normal and reliable" people who have made "sightings" of
all kinds. I do this not to challenge the validity of all UFO 'sightings,'
but to call attention to the possibility that not very much is known
about the nature of visualization. It has been generally assumed that
if a man is a respected member of a respected profession (like a
commercial jet-pilot) he is ipeo facto free of any visualizing aber-
rations, and that he always sees the world and its phenomena as nakedly,
as honestly as my young lieutenant saw it when he declined to play the
inkblot game.
It is therefore hardly surprising that strange objects and phenomena
of all kinds have been chronicled and reported for about 3,500 years,

820
and for thousands of years previously as oral tradition in systems of
religion, mythology, and folklore. The number of reports of "strange
phenomena" have increased steadily with time, as increase caused by
the great proliferation of journals and newspapers since their start in
the seventeenth century. As the new media increased in number, they
gathered and printed more and more reports of strange happenings that
would otherwise have remained localised and been forgotten, The cur-
rent great interest in UFOs has resulted in a ransacking of religious
i
literature, mythology, as well as the old newspapers and journals »
for UFO-like sightings and their inclusion in the current UFO literature.
'
With the help of another researcher, I have gone through many old
sources in search of new significant "UFO" material, but have found that
the ufologists have covered the ground quite thoroughly not hesitating
to graft new interpretations on the old reports.
Led by the genius poet-investigator, Charles Fort (1874-1932), who
for about 40 years assiduously gathered reports of "strange phenomena"
from scientific journals and news media, the ufologists have ferreted
out and compiled many hundreds of reports of "UFOs" that were seen
oefore the age of aviation s.r,A rocketry.
The use of selected UFO books -- with frequent spot checks of
their sources and veracity -- serves a double purpose. It enables us
to read the "ancient reports" in them and -- this is nearly as important --
it permits us to see what the modern ufologist selects from the past
and how he utilizes and interprets the evidence he has compiled.
Such compilations pose some serious problems for the r-sader not
already convinced of the existence of UFOs. They inflict mental fatigue
and anxiety after the reading of each "report" because one is inevitably
led into the same brain-numbing round of unanswered questions: Does the
alleged book or manuscript in which the report was found really exist?
Where is it? Did the writer actually see the original document or
is he quoting a secondary source? Is the version presented here a
faithful copy of the original or an accurate translation? Is the
"report" in question a factual honest report of something actually seen,
or is it a poetic, metaphorical, religious, symbolical, mythical.

821
 political, fabrication made legitimately within its own social context,
but one that is no longer viable or meaningful to us now? If the
f "strange phenomenon" was actually seen, then, we ask; "Was this "light,"
or fiery sphere," "wheel of fire," or "flaming crois," or "cigar-shaped
object" or "saucer" or "disk" seen by reliable witnesses? How reliable
is the judge of their reliability? What did they actually see? Where
did it come from? What was it made of? Who, if anyone or anything,
was in it? And so forth, far, far, into the night. Inconclusiveness,
the mental plague of ufology, invariably cancels out or suspends in
mid-air the great majority of the fascinating reports and leaves the
reader (this reader for sure) quite frustrated and disappointed.
It soon becomes clear that it would take years of fulltime
research to track down and verify the thousands of "ancient" reports
included in the nearly 1600 books and articles about UFOs. This means,
then, that the general reader, who rarely ever bothers to verify what
he reads, is merely given the option to trust or distrust the scholarly
accuracy and motivations of the writers who offer him the impressive-
lookiii^ lists of UFOs sightings. This becomes a very narrow choice
indeed: one that is negotiable only in the arena of speculation provided
by the writers who believe in UFOs. And, since to my knowledge, no one
lias written an impartial or objective book about ancient "UFO reports,"
the nature of the dialogue between an UFO author and his reader becomes
that of a man convinced of the existence of UT-Gs anJ a reader whom he
hopes to convert to his belief.
The strategy for UFO proselytising is predictable. In book after
book, the reader is assured that UFOs are not a sudden, modern manifes-
tation but that there have been numerous reports of similar visitations
"down through the ages." The author then proceeds to list the most
impressive and authoritative-sounding of the "ancient UFO reports,"
stressing those that most closely resemble modern accounts of "spacecraft
sightings."
He also seeks to create an aura of believability and respectability
for UFO phenomena by quoting and re-interpreting "UFO reports Trom the

822
 f
1

Holy Eible," from ancient Roman authors like Pliny The Elder, from
Shakespeare, from Hindu religious texts, from "ancient manuscripts found
in monasteries," or as in one notable example, from a "papyrus manuscript
found among the papers of the late Professor Alberto 1\illi, former
director of the Vatican Egyptian Museum."
This is a legitimate procedure, of course, and we know that many
important scholarly discoveries have been made in church archives, (to
take that example) because in many periods in history, the church did
chronicle and preserve records of important events. But the presenta-
tion of such prestigious ecclesiastical material is used in UFO literature
in order to bestow an aura of sanctity upon all UFOs, ancient and
modern; i.e., to make them respectable by association.
Thus, for example. The Flying Saucer Reader, edited by Jay David
(19 67) self-described as "an anthology of the best and most authori-
tative of the incredible but undeniable phenomenon of UFOs," begins
with "evidence" from Biblical times; and a chapter written by
Paul Thomas in (19 65) in which he declares that the famous "miracle of
Fatima, Portugal" (13 October 1917) was actually a flying saucer that
was inistakenly identified as the Virgin Mary. The book also includes
excerpts from two books in which the authors describe their fluent
communications with "extra-terrestrial beings" with the aid of: (1) a
ouija board using a pencil taped to a water glass, and (2) "mental
telepathy."
For the true-believing ufologist, the Holy Bible is a veritable
treasure-trove of sacred and profane UFOs. In Chapter 13, verse 21 of
the Bock of Exodue, "... the Lord went before them by day in a pillar
of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night." Ufologists
regard this as evidence that God sent a spaceship to guide the Israelites
during their 40-year journey to the Holy Lund,
The image from Exodus is repeated in the New Teetament in the
"Star of Bethlehem": According to St. Matthew, (2,9) "and, lo, the
star, which they saw in the East, went before them, till it came and
stood where the young child was." Though not regarded as an UFO, but
a "star," it also behaved like some UFOs that start and stop.

823
 There are, also, many "fiery chariots," "angels with wings," and
"cherubim" in the New and Old Testaments, all of which have been claimed
by the occultistic modern ufologists as UFOs.
The selected list of "ancient" UFO reports that follows is taken
mainly from various books written by contemporary ufologists. TTiey
are all writers who believe "flying saucers" really exist, and who offer
various speculations on their origin, mode of "flight" and significance.
213 B. C. "In Hadria an 'altar* was seen in the sky, accompanied
by the form of a man in white clothing. A total of a dozen such sight-
ings between 222 and 90 B. C. can be listed, but we have eliminated
many more sightings because we felt that they could best be interpreted
as misinterpretations of meteors or atmospheric phenomena." (Vallee,
1965).
218 B. C. "In Amiterno district in many places were seen the
appearance of men in white garments from far away. The orb of the sun
grew smaller. At Praeneste glowing lamps from heaven. At Arpi a
shield in the sky. The Moon contended with the sun and during the night
two moons were seen. Phantom ships appeared in the sky." (Trench, 1966).
100 B. C. 'Pliny mentions the strange shields in Natural History
Volume II, chapter XXXIV: 'In the consulship of Lucius Valerius and
r
;anius Valerius (about 100 B. C.) a burning shield scattering sparks
ran across the sky at sunset from east to west."1 (Green, 1967).
742-P14 A. D. "During the reign of Charlemagne, spacecraft took
away some of the earth's inhabitants to show them something of the way of
life of spoce people. These events are described in the Comte de
Gabalis' Diaoouraea." (Trench, 1966).
"Hovever, when the space craft returned bringing back the Earth
people they had taken away, the population were convinced that they
were actual members of the spacecraft whom they regarded as sorcerers."
1270 A. D. Bristol England: "In Otto Imperialia, Book I, Chapter
XIII, Gervase of Tillbury wrote about an aerial craft over a city.
The craft caught an anchor in a church steeple and a occupant of the
ship scampered down a ladder to free the device. The man was stoned

824
by a crowd and asphyxiated in the earth's atmosphere. The 'demon's body'
was said to have been burned." This story is to be found in several
UFO books, and is quoted here from Let's Face the Facts about Flying
Saucers, (1967) by Warren Smith and Gabriel Green, President of the
Almalgamated Flying Saucer Clubs of America.
1561 A. D. "In Nuremburg, April 14, 1561, many men and women saw
blood-red or bluish or black balls and circular discs in large numbers
in the neighborhood of the rising sun. The spectacle lasted one hour
'and appeared to fall to the ground as if it was all on fire and
everything was consumed amid a great haze."' (Cited from a mediaeval
text found in the Annals of Nuremburg by C. R. Jung).
7 August 1566 A. D. "People saw a crowd of black balls moving at
high speed towards the sun, they made a half turn, collided with one
another as if fighting. A large number of them became red and fiery
and there after they were consumed and then the lights went out."
(Quoted by Dr. Jung from the Annals of Basle.)
6 March 1716 A. D. "The astronomer Halley saw an object that
illuminated the sky for more than two hours in such a way that he
could read a printed text in the light of this object. The time of
the observation was 7:00 P. M. After two hours the brightness of the
phenomenon was re-activated 'as if new fuel had been cast in a fire.1"
(Vallee, 1965).
There are hundreds of astronomical "sightings of strange lights,"
to be found in the modern UFO books. For example, Jacques Vallee,
quotes the following from the Journal of Natural History and Pkilocophy:
I saw many meteors moving around the edge of a
black cloud from which lightnings flashed. They were
like dazzling specks of light, dancing and traipsing
thro' the clouds. One of them increased in size un-
til it became of the brilliance and magnitude of
Venus, on a clear evening. But I could see no body
in the light. It moved with great rapidity, and
pasted on the edge of the cloud. Then it became

825
 stationary, dimmed its splendor, and vanished. I
saw these strange lights for minutes, not seconds.
For at least an hour, these lights, so strange,
played in and out of the black cloud. No lightning
came from the clouds where these lights were play-
ing. As the meteors increased in size, they seemed
to descend ..."
This observation was made by John Staveley, an astronomer, at
Hatten Gardens, London, on 10 August 1809 and reported in the Journal
of natural Hietory and Philosophy and Chemietry. (Vallee, 1965).
1820. Francis Arago, in Anmlee de ahimie et de phyaiqu*'., wrote
"concerning observations at Embrun, France: 'numerous observers have
seen, during an eclipse of the moon, strange objects moving in straight
lines. They were equally spaced, and remained in line when they made
turns. Their movements showed a military precision.'" (Vallee, 1965).
"Lights in the dark of the moon" are considered to be UFO space-
craft by many ufologists. Fort cites many, and here are some:
November 1668. A lettei from Cotton Mather to Mr. Waller of the
Royal Society dated "at Boston, November 24, 1712" (now in the Library
of Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston) refers to "ye itar below
ye body of ye Moon, and within the Horns of it . . . seen in New England
in the Month of November, 1668." (Lowes, 1927).
1783. In Philoeophiaal Transaationa (Volume LZZVII) for 1787,
the great astronomer reports a "bright spot seen in the dark of the
moon . . . which seen in the telescope resembled a star of the fourth
magnitude as it appears to the natural eye." (Lowes. 1927).
1794 In Philoaophioal Tvansaationa, 1794, a total of seven
letters in Volumes XXVI and XXVII, reporting "lights in the dark
portion of the moon." The principal sighting was communicated by the
Astronomer Royal, the Reverend Nevil Maskelyne, on the "observations
of Thomas Stretton, who saw the phenomenon in St. John's Square, Clerkenwell
London. In another letter to the Royal Society, a Mr. Nilkins reports
his "sighting" in terms exactly like those used by many who claim to
have seen UFOs. "I was," writes Wilkins, "as it were, rivetted to the

826
spot where I stood, during the time it continued, and took every method
I could to convince myself that it was not an error of sight, including
the testimony of one who passed and said it was a star." (Lowes, 1927).
"I am very certain," he adds in his third letter, "of this spot appearing
within the circumference of the moon's circle." Mr. Stratton declared
that it was a "light like a star, as large as a star, but not so bright,
in the dark part of the moon." (Lowes, 1927).
July 1868. In Lol by Charles Fort, as quoted by Jacques Vallee
(1965) "at Capiago, Chile, an aerial construction emitting light and
giving off engine noise was interpreted locally as a giant bird with
shining eyes, covered with large scales clashing to give off a metallic
noise."
22 March 1870. "An observation was made aboard the 'U-dy of the
Lake' in the Atlantic Ocean. The object was a disk of light grey
color. What appeared to be the rear part was surrounded by a halo,
and a long tail emanated from the center. This UFO was viewed between
20° and 80° elevation for half an hour. It flew against the wind and
Captain Banner made a drawing of it." (Vallee, 1965).
24 April 1874. "On the above date, a Professor Schafarick of
Prague saw 'an object of such a strange nature that I do not know what
to say about it. It was of a blinding white and crossed slowly over
the face of the moon. It remained visible afterwards.*" iAttronomioal
Regieter will, 206 quoted by Vallee, 19 ).
15 May 1379. < "On the above date, at 9:40 p.m. from 'the Vultur'
in the Persian Gulf, two giant luminous wheels were observed spinning
slowly and slowly descending. They were seen for thirty-five minutes,
had an estimated diameter of forty meters (130 feet) and were four
diameters apart. Similar 'giant wheels' were seen the year after,
again in May, and in the same part of the ocean, by the steamer 'Patna'"
Quoted by Vallee, (1965) from Knowledget a journal.
This list of "strange phenomena" could easily be extended over
hundreds of pages. The reader, if he wished, can consult the writings
of Charles Fort (1941) and others. At the end of all this reading,
he will probably find that the mysterious phenomena remain mysterious.

827
He can then exercise his option to believe that the strange phenomena
reported down through the ages are reports of extra-terrestrial visitors
from planets whose civilizations are infinitely older and superior to
ours. On the other hand, his curiosity may be aroused in quite a different
direction. The citations of "ancient UFO reports" by the ufologists
have one hauntingly familiar common characteristic: the authors are
uniformly highly uncritical of the authenticity of these reports, so much
so that their presentations of them falls well outside the boundaries
of normal scholarly skepticism.
Let us take as an example one particular "UFO case history" given
credence and awesome attention in books by Vallee, Green, Trench, Desmond
and Adamski, Jessup, and Thomas. The report is an alleged "observation
made in 1290 at By land Abbey, Yorkshire, of a large silvery disk flying
slowly, a classical one and [one that] can be found in a number of
books" (.Vallee, 1965). Each of these authors quotes it from one of his
colleagues but none has taken the precaution of checking on the "manu-
script scroll that was discovered several /ears ago (1953) in Ampleforth
\bbey in England.
After deciding to check on the "Byland Abbey sighting on 1290," I
backtracked through the various books and read the complete transcript
of the "Ampleforth Abbey UFO sighting of 1290" as it is given in Desmond
and Adamski's Fluing Sauoeva Have Landed (1953):
oves a Wilfred suseptos die festo sanctissorum
Simon is atque Judae asseverunt. Cum autum Henricus
abbas gratias redditurus erat, frater guidam Joannes
referebat. Turn vero omnes eccuccurerunt et ecce res
cirandia, circwnairaulavis airgentea disco quodam hand
diseirnila, lente e super eos volans atque maciman
terrorem exitans. Quo tempore Henricus abbas adultavisse
(qua) de causa impius de . . .
"Mr. A. X. Chumley," who supplied the information, gives the
following translation:
. . . took the sheep from Wilfred and roast them
in the feast of SS. Simon and Jude. But when Henry

828
 the Abbott was about to say grace, John, one of the
brethren, came in and said there was a great portent
outside. Then they all went out and LOI a large
round silver thing like a disk flew slowly over them,
and excited the greatest terror. Whereat Henry the
Abbott immediately cried that Wilfred was an adulterer,
wherefore it was impious to . . .
Authors Desmond and Adamski comment: "What probably happened is
that a flying saucer did, in fact, pass over Byland Abbey at the close
of the thirteenth centruy and that the astute Abbott Henry seized the
opportunity to admonish Wilfred for his carryings on, and the community
for their lack of piety."
Then, in Paul Thomas's Flying Saucers through the ages (1965), we
read the following: ". . .in Yorkshire, a flat shining disk flew over
the monastery of Byland. (Translater's note: There are grave doubts
on the genuineness of this. Two Oxford undergraduates admitted to me
in 1956 that they forged this document for a joke -- but there is
nothing to prove that they really did so!) (emphasis--SR).
After wondering why the translator did not, in the nine years
between 1956 and 1965, seek to verify the ancient manuscript by means
of a visit, letter or phone call to "Ampleforth Abbey", I began my
own investigation. The British information Service in New York verified
the existence of Ampleforth Abbey, now a Benedictine College, in York,
England. Then, I cabled a friend, Mr. John Haggarty, in London, and
asked him to verify the existence and contents of the "Byland Abbey
manuscript." Haggarty cabled promptly:
HAVE CHECKED WITH COLLEGE STOP AMPLEFORTH
DOCUMENT A HOAX PERPETRATED BY TWO SIXTH FORM
BOYS IN LETTER TO TIMES (LONDON) REGARDS
Such a fabricated "UFO report" has been used for the greater glory
of the new mythology in Let 'a Faae the Faote About Flying Souoere,
(Green, 1967).
The authors have offered their own enlarged and embellished version,
of the "Byland Abbey sighting," complete with some nifty, monk-type

829
dialogue (not in the original fabrication); and some 'inner thoughts'
of the monks -- also absent from the 'original.' They have even pinned
the heinous crime of "sheephiding" on "Wilfred, the adulterer":
Brother John'a Medieval Sacuoer
It was an early afternoon in October, A. D. 1250
(Jacques Vallee writes that it occurred in 1290), and
the monks at Byland Abbey in Yorkshire, England pre-
pared to celebrate the feast of St. Simon and St. Jude.
Henry the Abbott had previously discovered that Brother
Wilfred had hidden two fat sheep on the Abbey grounds.
The abbott confiscated the sheep from Wilfred and
their succulent carcasses were roasting over a roaring
fire in the dining hall.
The brothers were in a jovial mood. "I wish thee
would till the fields as willingly as thee would watch
the mutton," one said to an eager friend.
"Black bread and cheese do not compare with mutton,"
answered his companion.
As the brothers assembled for their evening meal,
they heard a noise in the doorway Brother John stood
in the doorway with a terror-stricken look on his face.
"What happened. Brother John?" inquired the abbott.
"I was walking towards the abbey from the fields
and thinking about the roast mutton dinner. A strange
noise overhead scared me. I looked up in the sky. A
large silver plate is up there in the sky."
The monks forgot their dinners and dashed into
the yard.
"There it is," shouted Peter.
"Mother of God!" said a brother.
Henry the Abbott and Brother John stepped from the
dining room. A giant flying disk hovered in the sky and
drifted slowly in the clouds. The monks were panic-stricken.

830
 They fell to their knees with shouts of "Judgement
Day", and " 'tis the end of the world" punctuating
their frantic prayers.
The shaken monks turned to Henry the Abbott for
clarification. "What does the appearance of this
mean?" they inquired.
"Wilfred is an adulterer and must be punished,"
snapped the abbott.
A second "spot-check," made of one of the more spectacular
"ancient UFO reports," has produced some fascinating results. It is
the "UFO legend" offered by Mr. Frank Edwards in his Flying Sauoera —
Serioue Bueineee (1966), In his opening chapter entitled "What Goes
On Here?" Edwards, from a source not mentioned, gives us the following
awesome account:
A chronicle of ancient India known as the Book
of Dzyan i^ in a class by itself, not only because
of its age, but because of a surprising account
therein. The Book is a compilation of legends passed
down through the ages before men were able to write,
and finally gathered by the ancient scholars who
preserved them for us.
They tell of a small group of beings who came
to Earth many thousands of years ago in a metal craft
which first went AROUND Earth several times before
landing. "These beings," says the Book, "lived to
themselves and were revered by the humans among whom
they had settled. But eventually differences arose
among them and they divided their numbers, several
of the men and women and some children settling in
another city, where they were promptly installed as
rulers by the awe-stricken populace."
The legend continues:

831

A
 "Separation did not bring peace to these people
and finally their anger recched a point where the ruler
of the original city took with him a small number of
his warriors and they rose into the air in a huge shining
metal vessel. While they were many leagues from the
\ city of their enemies they launched a great shining
lance that rode on a beam of light. It burst apart
* in the city of their enemies with a great ball of
flame that shot up to the heavens, almost to the stars.
i All those in the city were horribly burned and even
those who were not in the city—but nearby—were
burned also. Those who looked upon the lance and the
ball of fire were blinded forever afterward. Those
who entered the city on foot became ill and died. Even
the dust of the city was poisoned, as were the rivers
that flowed through it. Men dared not go near it, and
gradually crumbled into dust and was forgotten by men.
"When the leader saw what he had done to his own
people he retired to his palace and refused to see
anyone. Then he gathered about him those of his warriors
who remained, and their wives and their children, and
they entered into their vessels and rose one by one into
the sky and sailed away. Nor did they r«turn."
This would seem to be an account of an attempt
by some extra-terrestrial group to establish a colony
on Earth in the distant past. Like so many colonizing
attempts by man, it appears to have ended in dissension
and conflict. The most interesting portion of the
story is the description of the great "lance that traveled
on a beam of light," which bears a surprising resemblance to
a modern rocket and its jet of flame. The effect of this
so-called "lance" brings to mind a rather detailed pic-
ture of a nuclear blast and its catastrophic sequels. If

832
 this Is a mental concoction of some primitive writer,
it is at least remarkable. If it is a reasonably accurate
piece of factual reporting, then it is even more remark-
able. Since it is unverifiable, we must at this late
date classify it as "interesting, but unproved."
This most impressive, goosepimply account of extra-terrestrial
colonists who once waged nuclear war on our planet and then left has
only one thing wrong with it -- it is completely spurious.
To begin with, the so-called Book of Dzyan is not, as Edwards
writes, "a compilation uf legends passed down through the ages . . .
and gathered by scholars who preserved them for us." Tlie "Book or
Stanzas of Dzyan" made their very first appearance in 1886 in the
famous book The Secret Doctrine, written by the high prietess of Esoteric
Theosophy, Madame Helene Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891). The stanzas
are the basis of her preposterous Atlantean "Theory of Cosmic Evolution."
An unauthorized biographer declares that: "the mysterious 'Dzyan manu-
script' like the 'Senzar' language they were written in, seem wholly
to have originated in Madame Blavatsky's imagination." (Roberts, 1931).
Madame Blavatsky's own account, and those of her disciples, or the
origin and meaning of the "Dzyan Stanzas" quickly show that they were
concocted for an "occult" audience with a very low threshold of mental
resistance.
That the "Stanzas of Dzyan" exist only in Madame Blavatsky's The
Secret Dootrine, or in commentaries written by her disciples is clearly
stated in the foreword of the only separate edition of the "Stanzas"
published by the London Theosophical Society in 1908:
For the information of readers into whose
hands these Stanzas may now fall, it is desirable
to give some brief account of their source, on the
authority of the Occultist Madame Blavatsky who
translated and introduced them to the world of
modern thought. Hie following particulars are derived
from Madame Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine and Voice

833
^ma^mntnnmm«» -^IV- «f\^

of The Silence; which Madame Blavatsky tells us form

a part of the same series of long-concealed manuscript
treasures in which the Stcnaaa of Dzyan belong.
Book of Dzyan ie not in the poBBeeeion of any
European library, and uaa never heard of by European
eoholarehip: nevertheless it exists and lies hidden,
even from the enterprising war correspondent, in one
of the myeterioue rook librariea that the spurs of
tlie Himalayae may yet contain. (emphasis--SRl.
In her own inimitable style Madame Blavatsky adds: "In the Tsaydam,
in the solitary passes of the Kuen-Lun, along the Altyn-Tag" [this
"Tibetan" word sounds German; "Alten-Tag" or "olden days"--SR] whose
soil no European foot has trod, there exists a certain hamlet lost in
a deep gorge. It is a small cluster of houses, a hamlet rather than
a monastery, with a poor terrple on it, and only one old Lama, a hermit,
living near to watch it. Pilgrims say that the subterranean galleries
and halls under it contain a collection of books . . . too large to
find room even in the British Museum" (Introduction to The Secret
Doctrine, Madame Blavatsky).
The preface of the London Theosophical Society's edition of the
"Stanzas" explains more about them;
The Stanaae of Dzyan . . . are written in a
language unknown to philologyt if indeed the word
"written" is applicable to ideographs of which they
largely consist, and this associated with the use
of a colour system of symbology.
They are given throughout, in their modern
translated version, as it would be worse than use-
less to make the subject still more difficult by
introducing the archaic phraseology of the original
with its puzzling style and words. The terms used
were non-translatable into English, are Tibetan and
Sanskrit, and . . .will frequently be a stumbling

834
 block unless reference i« made tc '^ feovet Doctrine
where the commentaries on the text will generally be found
to supply the meaning (London Theosophical Society, 1908).
A thorough search of the Stanzce in Madame Blavatsky's books and
those of her commentators has failed to divulge the enthralling
"legend from the Book of Dzyan" quoted by Hdwards. Now since the
Stanaae exists only in The Secret Doctriyie, and they, in turn, exist
only "in the imagination of Madame Blavatsky," then the question arises;
Where did the additional long account of "extra-terrestrial colonists' -•
come from? It sterns that Edwards had "been had" by one of his sources,
and has innocently passed on to his readers a fabrication superimposed
on a gigantic hoax concocted by Madame Blavatsky.
Then there is the "UFO sighting" sometime "during the reign of
Thutmosc III, (1504-1^50 B. C.l," cited by Trench (1966):
Among the papers of the late Professor Alberto
Tulli, former director of the Egyptian Museum at the
Vatican, was found the earliest known record of a
fleet of flying saucers written on papyrus long,
long, ago in ancient Egypt. Although it was damaged,
having many gaps in the hieroglyphics Prince Boris
da Rachewilt?. subsequently translates the papyrus and
irrespective of the many broken sections he stated
that the original was part of the Annale of Thutmoe» III,
oiroa 1594-1450 B. C. The following is an excerpt:
"In the year 22, of the third month of winter,
sixth hour of the day ... in the scribes of the
House of Life it was found a circle of fire that
was coming from the sky ... it had no head, the
breath of its mouth had a foul odor. Its body was
one rod long and one rod wide. It had no voice.
Their bellies became confused through it: then
they laid themselves on their bellies.. . . they
went to the Pharoah, to report it . . . liis Majesty

835
7 rJ J '"^GWVf?1* \ " l<^.1' ' >■ -l' in««|-- —:tr

ordered . . .has been examined . . . as to all which

is written in the papyrus rolls of the House of Life.
His Majesty was meditating on what happened. Now
after some days had passed, these taings became more
numerous in the sky than ever. They shone more in
the sky than the brightness of the sun, and extended
to the limits of the four supports of the heavens. . .
Powerful was the position of the fire circles. Hie
army of the Pharoah looked on with him in their midst.
It was after supper. Thereupon these fire circles
ascended higher in the sky to tne south. Fishes and
volatiles fell down from the sky. A marvel never
before known since the foundation of their land.
And Pharoah caused incense to be brought to make
peace on the hearth . . . and what happened was
ordered to be written in the annals of the Houee of
Life ... so that it be remembered for ever.'
As I read, reread, and compared the "Tulli Egyptian papyrus"
(c. 1500 B. C.) with the Book of Ezekiel, written about 900 years
later (c. S90 B. C), I became aware of a number of striking similarities
betwicn the texts. The most celebrated and oft-quoted of the ancient
"UFOs" is "Fzekiel's wheel of fire, (Old Teetamentj Ezekiel, Chapter
One, King Jcanee Veraion):
1: Now It came to pass in the thirtieth
year in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the
month, as I was among the captives by the river
of Cheba/, that the heavens were opened and I saw
visions of God.
4: And I looked, and behold a whirlwind came
out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infold-
ing itself, and a brightness was about it, and out
of the midst thereof as the color of amber, out of
the midst of the fire.

836
 5: Also out of the midst thereof came the like-
ness of four living creatures . . . they had the
likeness of a man.
6: And every one had four faces, and every
one had four wings.
10: As for the likeness of the faces, they
four had the face of a man, the face of a lion . . .
and the face of an eagle . . .
17: ... their appearance was like burning
coals of fire, and like the appearance cf lamps:
it went up and down among the living creatures,
and the fire was the fire bright and out of the
fire went forth lightning.
IS : Now as I beheld the living creatures,
behold one wheel upon the earth by the living
creatures, with his four faces.
16: The appearance of the wheels and their
work was like unto the colour of beryl; and they
four had one likeness; and their appearance and
their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of
a wheel.
17: When they went, they went upon their four
sides: and they turned not when they went.
18: As for their rings, they were so high
they were dreadful; and their rings were full of
eyes round about them four.
19: And, when the living creatures were,
the wheels went by them: and when the living
creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels
lifted up.
20: ... for the spirit of the living creatures
was in them.

837

M
'■•»»<»'■

27M Book of Eaekiel consists of 48 chapters, most of which are

devoted to Jehovah's bitter complaints about the immorality of his
own people; and his lengthy tirades against all of Israel's enemies,
taptoially the Pharoaha of Egypt,
29, 1 : In the tenth year, in the twelfth day, the
word of the Lord came unto me, saying . . . Prophesy
against . . . Pharoah, King of Egypt.
The "Tulli papyrus" and Eaekiel show so many exact similarities of
style, language and detail in aequenoe, that one wonders whether, despite
its alleged time priority, the "Tulli papyrus" may be taken from the
King James version of the Book of Eaekiel, Or, if the "Tulli papyrus"
is genuine, and its translation by Prince de Rachewiltz is accurate,
then the Book of Eaekiel may have been plagiarized from the Annals of
Thutmoee III!
A tabulation of the similarities follows:

Egyptian Ezekiel

"the House of Sorilea" "the House of larael"

"was aoming in the eky" "the heavene were opened"
"it was a airole of fire" "always referred to as vheel of fire"
"it had no food" "h~ade with four faces' — "everyone
had four faces"
"It had no voice." "I heard a voice that spake"
"Their hearts became con- "When I saw it, I fell on my
fused through it: then face,"
they laid themaelvee on
their bellies"
"Hie Majesty ordered . , . "and God spread a roll before me
written in roll*" and it was written ..."
"tooarda the aouth" "out of the north"
"the brightneaa of the sun" "and a brightneaa was about it"
"it was after supper" "cause thy belly to eat."
This all takes place al- "in the land of Egypt"
legedly in Egypt during the "I am against Pharoah, king of Egypt"
reign of Ihutmose III
"Fiahea and volatiles fell 29:5, 3: "thee and all the fishes:
down from the aky," thou shalt fall upon the open fields."

838
 These dozen sequential similarities are so remarkable and raise
so many questions as to the authenticity of the "Tulli papyrus," that
a cable was despatched to the Egyptian section of the Vatican Museum
seeking more information about both the "papyrus" and the "de Rachewiltz
translation." The reply follows:
Papyrus Tulli not propriety [sic] of Vatican
Museum. Now it is dispersed and no more trace-
able.
The Inspector to Egyptian
Vatican Museum
(signed) Gianfranco Nolli
Cit.ta del Vaticano 25 Luglio 1968
Skepticism being the mother of persistence, we nevertheless
decided to trace it as far as we could. Dr. Condon wrote Dr. Walter
Ramberg, Scientific Attache at the U. S. embassy in Rome. IT. Ramberg
replied:
. . . the current Director of the Egyptian Section
of the Vatican Museum, Dr. Nolli, said that . . .
Prof. Tulli had left all his belongings to a
brother of his who was a priest in the Lateran
Palace. Presumably the famous papyrus went to
this priest. Unfortunately the priest died also
in the meantime and his belongings were dispersed
among heirs, who may have disposed of the papyrus
as something of little value.
Dr. Nolli intimated that Prof. Tulli was only
an amateur "Egyptologist" and that Prince de
Rachelwitz is no expert either. He suspects that
Tulli was taken in and that the papyrus is a fake ....
Do these startling coincidences or downright hoaxes mean that all
such "ancient UFO reports" are fabrications? ?!r>, it does not. But
they do indicate that the authors of at least seven UFO books have
attempted tu build up the argument for the existence of UFOs with

839
"eise his tori«.«'' taken .TOB secondary and tertiary sources without
anv attempt to verify :':iginal sources, and that they orbit around
«such other in a fmxry u u chase of mutual quotation. If any scientist
or scholar htd ^«,,^ayrtd similarly, he would have long since been hooted
out of his px ;f*ssiO' . My conclusion: all accounts of "I'FO-like sight-
ings hand^d down through the ages" are doubtful—until verified.
Thsiv is a pös.tive side to all of this, however. The low-grade
cont;?öV'>r:r geicratH by "devout believers in the existence of UFOs"
(book ii|j in ilie New York Times) has attracted a great deal of atten-
tion »'< the news ^«dia of the world. A lot of rubbish about UFOs
h«5 ittv printed, and the entire field of speculation remains chronically
tn.'*:!!',.. ;5lve, bvt attention has also been drawn to a profound question:
Ar- m- alant in .'„.i universe? Is there life on other planets? And
jr ^i**-'iy aP of this has led to support and interest in governmental
-4;,*..r- pTQ%.'ar*t ,

Jkit w»>a' of UFOs, ancient or modern? The best proposition I know

f T '/•viliiaUK- any hypothesis was offered 40 years ago by Bertrand
i>,-. 'i'/l in '•optical Eeeaye:
There are matters about which those who have
investigated them are agreed: the dates of eclipses
may serve as an illustration. There are other matters
about which experts are not agreed. Even when all
the experts agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein's
view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light
by gravitation would have been rejected b,, all experts
twenty years ago. Nevertheless, the opjuisn of experts,
when it is unanimous, must be accepted by nor -experts
as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion.
The skepticism that I advocate amounts only to this:
1) that when experts are agreed, the opposite opinion
cannot be held to be certain; 2) that when they are
not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by

840
 a non-expert; 3) that when they all hold that no
sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exists,
the ordinary man would do well to suspend his
judgments. These propositions seem mild, yet, if
accepted they would revolutionize human life. ■
The revolution is not yet, but as a very ordinary non-expert and
a card-carrying skeptic, I will begin it by regarding no opinion as
certain.
/

841
f/'j ■ QMRff! tgumtm 4 .*«"»»'»<•« •«•fl!»iw. -■ "f ■»:» .^t-rKM" N
j< II '»If»- r»«.i -. «»rt i

References

Blavatsky, H. P. Stanaaa of Dzyant London: London Hieosophical Society,

1908.

. The Secret DoQtrinet London: London Theosophical Society, 1888.

. The Voice of Silenoe, New York: E. B. Page, 1899.

Boyer, Carly B. The Rainbowt New York: Thomas Yosalef, 1959.

David, Jay. The Flying Sauoer Reader, New York: New American Library,
1967.

Desmond, Leslie and George Adamski. Flying Saucers Have Landed, New
York: British Book Centre, 1953.

Edwards, Frank. Flying Saucere — Serious ^uatneae, Ne* York: Lyle

Stuart, 1966.

Furt, Charles. The Books of Charles Fort, New York: Henry Holt S Co.,
1941,

Galton, Francis. Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development,

London: J. M. Oent and Co., 1908.

Green, Gabriel. Let's Face the Facts about Flying Saucers, New York:
Popular Library, 1967.
hynek, J. Allan, Christian Science Monitor, (23 May 1967),

i^ehner, Ernst and Joanna. L'xre and Lore of Outer Space, New York: Tudor
Publications, 1964.

Lowes, John Livingston. The Road to Xanadu, Cambridge: Houghton,

Mifflin, 1927.

flew Testament, King James Version, Book of Matthew, 1604,

Old Testament, King James Version, 1604.

Old Testament, King James Version, Book of Ezekiel, 1604.

Pliny, The Elder. Natural History, Vol. II, Chapter XXXVIV, Cambridge:
Harvard Press, 1962.

Roberts, C. E. B. The Mysterious Madame, London: John Lane, 1931.

842
 •-nr-'i"'' <■ ■ • • '

RUS5.U. B.«^. ^H^t *,.*.. N«. V.rt: -on .na Co >« •

.„.„. P.U1. n.^ — W «■• ^- ^: S

^™'™-
1966.
v.n... ..co»«. .^ o/^—.-^ H.-^---

1954.

843
 f.'itlWWf V.WM«"'«" "-■ «vrvtw.->.■ ^».,..-,.^

Chapter 2
UFOs: 1947 - 1968
E. U. Condon

?. Initial Activity; Project Sign.

This chapter provides a concise historical account of the develop-
I ment of official and public interest in the UFO phenomenon, principally
as it occurred in the United States from the initial sightings of
Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947 to the present. It does not undertake
to make a detailed study of the more famous of the past incidents, but
merely to give a brief account of them as examples of the way in which
interest in the subject developed.
The Kenneth Arnold sightings were accorded a large amount of news-
paper publicity throughout the world. The most detailed account of the
Arnold sightings is to be found in a book written and published by
Arnold with the collaboration of Ray Palmer, a science fiction editor
and author (Arnold and Palmer, 1952).
The Arnold sightings and the accompanying flurry of UFO reports
occurred just before the Army Air Force was reorganized as the U. S.
Air Force and made a part of the newly created Department of Defense.
In the first few months, the Army Air Force began to study UFO
reports that came to its attention at the Air Technical Intelligence
Center, (ATIC) located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton,
Ohio. About the earliest formal action looking toward establishment of
a study of flying saucers -- the term UFO was not coined until later --
was a letter dated 23 September 1947 from Lt. Gen. Nathan F. fining,
Chief of Staff of the U. S. Army to the Commanding General of the
Army Air Force (Appendix R ). This letter directs establishment of
a study of UFOs. The new activity was given the code name, Project
Sign, and assigned a priority 2-A in a letter dated 30 Uecember 1947
from Maj. Gen. L. C. Craigie to the Commanding General of the Air
Materiel Command (Appendix S).

844
 Many of the attitudes which are held today began to be apparent
almost at once, and many individuals in the public as well as in the
military services began to adopt somewhat emotional positions. Some
were ready to believe from the beginning that the UFOs were interplane-
tary or interstellar visitors, while others thought that UFOs were secret
weapons of a foreign power, Russia being most frequently mentioned in
this context. Still others tended to think that all UFOs were hoaxes
or honest misidentifications of ordinary phenomena. Within the Air
Force there were those who emphatically believed that the subject was
absurd and that the Air Force should devote no attention to it whatever.
Other Air Force officials regarded UFOs with the utmost seriousness
and believed that it was quite likely that American airspace was being
invaded by secret weapons of foreign powers or possibly by visitors
from outer space. The time in question was just two years after the
end of World War II. The period of difficult diplomatic relations
between the United States and the U. S. S. R. had already started.
Negotiations aimed at achieving international control of atomic energy
had been under way for some time at the United Nations, but negligible
progress was being made.
Four days after Arnold's sightings, an Air Force r ^l pilot saw
a formation of five or six circular objects off his right wing while
flying near Lake Meade, Nev. in the middle of the afternoon. That
same evening near Maxwell AFB, Montgomery Ala., several Air Force
officers saw a bright light that zigzagged across the sky at high speed
and, when overhead, made a 90° turn and disappeared to the south.
From White Sands Proving Ground in N. M. came a report of a pulsating
light travelling from horizon to horizon in 30 sec. Reports poured in
from many parts of the country.
On 4 July 1947 excitement was generated by the report of the first
UFO photograph from Portland, Ore. "Hiis was later identified as a
weather balloon, but only after the picture had been given newspaper
publicity .

845

JL
pmmMM <WWH t»'s~«i'MM'T»»»« *••

During World War II, the Navy had developed a plane designated as
XF-S-U-1, and popularly referred to as the "flying flapjack," but this
project had been abandoned. Nevertheless some thought that perhaps it
was still being worked on and that this secret plane might be flying and
giving rise to soae of the UFO reports. This plane was nev?r flown.
At the end of July 1947, the first tragedy associated with the UFO
story occurred. It is known as the Maury Island Incident. Two Tacoma,
Wash, "harbor patrolmen," declared that they had seen six UFOs hover
over their patrol boat. A private citizen reported this to an intel-
ligence officer at Hamilton AFB in Calif., claiming that he had some
pieces of metal that had come from one of the UFOs.
As a result, Lt. Brown and Capt. Davidson flew from
Hamilton to Tacoma and met the citizen in his hotel room at Tacoma.
The citizen then told them that he had been paid $200 for an exclusive
story by a Chicago publisher, but that he had decided the story ought
to be told to the military. Tht two "harbor patrolmen" were sumnoned
to the hotel rcom to relate their story to Brown and Davidson. In
June 1947, the patrolmen said, they sighted the doughnut-shaped UFOs
over Puget Sound about three miles from Tacoma. The UFOs were said
to be 100 ft. in diameter with a central hole about 25 ft. in diameter.
One appeared to be in trouble and another made contact in flight with it.
According to the story, the disabled UFO spewed out sheets of light metal
and a hard rocklike material, some of which landed at Maury Island. The
harbor patrolmen went to the island and scooped up some of the metal.
They tried to use their radio but found so much interference that they
could not communicate with headquarters three miles away. While this
was happening, the UFOs disappeared.
The next morning, one of the patrolmen said, he had been visited
by a mysterious man who told him not to talk. Photographs were taken
during the encounter with the UFOs, but the film was badly fogged, the
patrolman claimed.

846

.-.—- . .■n^»,^rfJfc.t^^|te?a, itn*<A,iuaton.*t**

 Uurinn ^c interview between the harbor patrolmen and the Air
force officers, which occurred sometime after the event itself, Tacoma
newspapers received anonymous tips about the interviews in the hotel
room.
They returned to McChord AFB near Tacoma, and after conferring
with an intelligence officer there, started the return flight to Calif,
in the B-25 in which they had come. The plane crashed near Kelso,
Wash. Although the pilot and a passenger parachuted to safety, Brown
and Davidson lost their lives.
In the investigation which followed the "harbor patrolmen" ad-
mitted that the whole story was a hoax intended to produce a magazine
story for the Chicago publisher. The alleged photographs could no
longer be found. The men admitted that they were not harbor patrolmen.
One admitted to having telephoned tips on the interviews with Air
Force officers to the Tacoma newspapers. The Air Force officers had
already decided that the story was a hoax, which was why they did
not take with them the metal fragments alleged to have come from the
UFO.
This case is presented in somewhat more detail in Ruppelt (1956).
Another version of the same case is given in Wilkins (1954). Life
acknowledged the UFO wave with an article "Flying Saucers Break Out
over the U. S." in its 21 July 1947 issue. Neuaweek covered the story
under the headline "Flying Saucer Spots Before Their Eyes" in the
14 July 1947 issue.
The following year another case ended in tragedy when Capt. Thomas
Mantel1 lost his life on 7 January 1948. He was attempting to chase an
UFO near Louisville, Ky. This is the first fatality on record directly
connected with an UFO chase (Ruppelt, 1955).
At 1:15 p.m. reports from private citizens were made to the
Kentucky State Highway Patrol describing a strange, saucer-shaped
flying object, some 200 - 300 ft. in diameter. Soon it was seen by
several persons, including the base commander, at the control tower of
Godman AFB, outside Louisville.

847
 «ftp trrfiw--» «rtv •- «F«--»» p

Abour «his time a group of four F-51s arrived and the flight leader,
Capt. Mantel 1, was asked by the base commander to have a look at the
UFO. Three of the planes took up the investigation. Unable to see the
UFO at first they followed directions from the control tower.
After a while, Capt. Mantel1 reported that he had found the UFO
ahead of him and higher. He told tl>e tower that he was climbing to
20,000 ft. The other two planes remained behind. None of the three
planes had oxygen. The others tried to call Mantel1 on the radio, hut
he was never heard from again. By 4:00 p.m. it was reported that MantelI's
plane had crashed and that he was dead.
Initially it was concluded that Mantell had been chasing Venus.
I The case was restudied b*' Ruppelt in 1952 with the assistance of Hynek,
who concluded that the UFO was probably not Venus, because although
I
the location was roughly appropriate, Venus was not bright enough to be seen
vividly in the bright afternoon sky. Ruppelt's later study led him
f
to the belief that what Capt. Mantell chased was probably one of the
large 100 ft. "skyhook" balloons that were being secretly flown in
< 1948 by the Navy. Their existence was noc known to most Air Force
pilots. This explanation, thougn plausible, is not a certain identification,
TWo other 1948 cases figure largely in reports of UFO sightings.
On 24 July 1948 an Eastern Airlines L)C-3, piloted by Clarence S. Chiles
and John B. Whitted, was on a regular run from Houston, Tex. to
Atlanta, Ga. At 2:45 a.m. they saw a bright light dead ahead coming
rapidly toward them. They pulled to the left to avoid a collision.
Looking back they saw the UFO go into a steep climb. The pilots des-
cribed it as a wingless B-29 fuselage and said that the underside had a
deep blue glow. Two other reports from the general vicinity at the same
time gave a similar description.
On 1 October 1948, at 9:00 p.m. Lt. George F. Gorman of the North
Dakota National Guard was approaching Fargo, N. I), in an F-51. The
tower called his attention to a Piper Cub which he saw below him. A:;
he prepared to land, suddenly what he took to be the tail-light of
another plane passed him on his right, but the control tower assured

i
848
him no other planes were in the area. Chasing the light, he got within
1,000 yd. of it. It had been blinking but suddenly became steady and
started to move rapidly with the F-51 pursuit. There followed a com-
plicated chase in which Gorman had to dive on one occasion to avoid
collision. Suddenly the light began to climb and disappeared.
Some months later, 24 January 1949, the Air Weather Service provided
ATIC with an analysis which indicated that Gorman had been chasing a
lighted balloon. This explanation is not accepted by Keyhoe (1953),
who says that although the Weather Bureau had released a weather balloon,
it had been tracked by theodolite and found to have moved in a different
direction from that in which Gorman had his UFO encounter.
In late July 1948 an incident occurred of which much is made by
critics of Air Force handling of the UFO problem. The staff of Project
Sign, on the basis of study of cases reported in the year since the
original Arnold sightings prepared an "Estimate of the Situation."
This is said to have been classified "Top Secret" although "Restricted"
was the general classification applicable to Project Sign at that time.
The intelligence report was addressed to Air Force Chief of Staff,
Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg.
According to the unconfirmed reports, the "Estimate" asserted that
the staff of Project Sign were convinced that the UFOs were really
interplanetary vehicles. This report, never became an official document
of the Air Force, because Gen. Vandenberg refused to accept its con-
clusions on the ground that the Project Sign "Estimate of the Situation"
lacked proof of its conclusion. Copies of the report were destroyed,
although it is said that a few clandestine copies exist. We have not
been able to verify the existence of such a report.
Some Air Force critics make much of this incident. As they tell it,
the Estimate contained conclusive evidence of ETA, but this important
discovery was suppressed by arbitrary decision of Gen. Vandenberg. We
accept the more reasonable explanation that the evidence presented was
then, as now, inadequate to support the conclusion.

S49
$ f 4|Ni* tmhvmmt fcw «rt/». .-» -■••*( . »A» .«n^»-,- , ir»M-«W

Project Sign at ATIC continued its investigations of flying saucer

reports until 11 February 1949 when the name of the project was officially
changed to Project Grudge.
The final report of Project Sign was prepared and classified "Secret"
February 1949, and was finally declassified 12 yr. later. It is u
document of vii ♦ 35 pages officially cited as Technical Report-TR-2J74-IA
of the Technical Intelligence Division, Air Materiel Command, Wri^Mt-
Patterson AFB, Ohio.
This report concludes with these recommendations:
Future activity on this project should be
carried on at the minumum level necessary to record,
t summarize and evaluate the data rece;ved on future
reports and to complete the specialized investiga-
tions now in progress. Mien and if a sufficient
number of incidents are solved to indicate that
these sightings do not represent a threat to the
security of the nation, the assignment of special
project status to the activity could be terminated.
Future investigations of reports would then be
handled on a routine basis like any other intelli-
gence work.
Reporting agencies should be impressed with
the necessity for getting more factual evidence
on sightings, such as photographs, physical evi-
dence, radar sightings, and data on size and shape.
Personnel sighting such objects should engage the
assistance of others, when possible, to get more
definite data. For example, military pilots should
notify neighboring bases by radio of the presence
and direction of flight of an unidentified object so
that other observers, in flight or on the ground,
could assist in its identification.
Of particular interest even today, as indicating the way in which
the problem was being attacked in that early period are Appendices ('.

SSO
and I) of the report which are reproduced here as our Appendices D anJ T.
Appendix C i« by Prof. George Valley of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology who was at that time a member of the Air Force Scientific
Advisory Board, attached to the Office of the Chief of Staff. Appendix
I) is a letter by Dr. James E. Lipp of the Rand Corporation, Santa Monica,
Calif., to Big. Gen. Donald Putt who was then the Mr Force's director
of research and development, which discusser Txtr;1-Terrci^vi. 1 Hypotheses.
Historically it serves to show that the Air Force was in fact giving
consideration to the F.TH possibility at this early date.
A curious discrepancy may be noted: On page 38 of the paperback
edition of Keyhoe's Fhttnj ^auwiw ;V. r' ihiti-r ;'; ii(.v (Keyhoc, li)S4) there
is given a two-paragraph direct quotation from the Project Sign report.
However a careful examination of the report shows that these paragraphs
are not contained in it.

2. Project Grudge. Harly Magazine Articles and Books.

After 11 February 1^49, the work at ATIC on flying saucers was
called Project Grudge. It issued one report, designated as Technical
Report No. 102-AC 49/15 - 100, dated August 1949, originally classified
"Secret," and declassified on 1 August 19SJ. The report concerns
itself with detailed study of 244 sighting reports received up to
January 1949. Comments on individual cases from an astronomical
point of view by Dr. Hynek predominate. About 321. of the cases were
considered to have been explained as sightings of astronomical objects.
Another 12% were judged to have been sightings of weather balloons
on the basis of detailed analysis of the reports made by the Air
Weather Service and the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory.
Some 33% were dismissed as hoaxes or reports that were too vague for
explanation, or as sightings of airplanes under unusual conditions. A
residue of 23% was considered as "Unknown."
Although the report was declassified in 1952, not many copies are
in existence. We were supplied a copy by the Air Force for our work
on this project. The report is discussed in i»ome detail by Ruppelt (1956).

8S1
 r_r-< '>y<!t'..i'i"jwi

He implies that the investigations of the residue were incomplete and

inadequate.
Examination of the record indicates that many of the reports were
too vague for interpretation and that if anything, the Air I'orce
investigators gave them more attention than they deserved. Two of the
reports are reproduced here as a sample of the kind of material involved,
'i and the kind of comment on it that was made by Air Force investigators:
Incident No. 40. 7 July 1947, 1600 hours. Phoenix,
Arizona. One observer witnessed an elliptical, flat
gray object, measuring 20-30 ft. across, flying 400-
600 mph, spiraling downward to 2000 ft. from 5000 ft.
then ascending at a 45° angle into an overcast. Ob-
server ran into a garage where he obtained a Kodak
Brownie 120 box camera, and snapped two pictures;
one negative, and a print of the other, are contained
in project files. The negative displays a small
apparently flat object rounded on one end, and pointed
or the other. The object appears to have a hole
in the center. The iirage is in stark contrast with
the background of clouds. From the print, the ob-
ject appears to be jet black with sharp outlines.
Four expert photographers concur in the opinion that
the image is of true photographic nature. However,
they disagree with each other as to the possibility
of filming such an occurrence under the conditions
described. Considering the object was gray as
described, and at a distance of 2000 ft., it seems
unlikely that it would appear pure black on the
print. in subsequent correspondence to the reporter
of this incident, the observer refers to himself as
Chief of Staff of Panoramic Research Laboratory, the
letterhead of which lists photography among one of
its specialities. Yet, the negative was carelessly

852
 cut and faultily developed. It is covered with
streaks and over a period of six months, has faded
very noticeably. An OSI agent discovered that a
letter by this observer was published by Amazing [
Stories nagazine early this year. In this letter \
I
he stated that he had been interviewed by two (
Federal agents, had given them pictures of "flying
discs" and that the pictures had not been returned.
He requested the advice of the magazine as to how
to proceed to sue the Government. This individual [
is aware of the whereabouts of these pictures, but
has never requested their return. There are other
undesirable aspects to this case. The observer's
character and business affiliations are presently
under investigation, the results of which are not
yet known. Dr. Irving Langmuir studied subject
photographs, and after learning of the prior pas-
sage of a thunderstorm, discounted the photographed
object as being merely paper swept up by the winds.
AHC Opinion: In view of the apparent character
of the witness, the conclusion by Dr. Langmuir seems
entirely probable.

Incident No. 51. 3 September 1947, 1215 hours,

Oswego, Oregon. A housewife observed twelve to
fifteen round silver-colored objects at a high al-
titude. No further information was submitted,
therefore no conclusion can be reached.
The Grudge Report contains these recommendations:
1. That the investigation of study of reports
of unidentified flying objects be reduced in scope,
a. That current collection directives
relative to unidentified flying

853

A
T|f- |Wlpnip,nwijii imij wsmr- ■."•--^-r.-,- w.

objects be revised to provide for the

submission of only those reports clearly
indicating realistic technical applications.
2. That Conclusions 1 and 2 of this report, with
sufficient supporting data be declassified and made
|t public in the form of an official press release.
| 3. That Psychological Warfare Division and
other governmental agencies interested in psychological
warfare be informed of the results of this study.
In accordance with the recommendations, a press release announcing
the closing of Project Grudge was issued on 27 December 1949.
A fuller statement of Conclusions and Recommendations is given on page
10 of the Grudge Report and is quoted here in full :
A. There is no evidence that objects reported
upon are the result of an advanced scientific foreign
development; and, therefore they constitute no direct
threat to the national security. In view of this, it
is recommended that the investigation and study of re-
ports of unidentified flying objects be reduced in scope.
Headquarters AMC will continue to investigate reports
in which realistic technical applications are clearly
indicated.
NOTE: It is apparent that further study
along present lines would only confirm the
findings presented herein.
1. It is further recommended that pertinent
collection directives be revised to reflect the
contemplated change in policy.
B. All evidence and analyses indicate that reports
of unidentified flying objects are the result of:
1. Misinterpretation of various conventional
objects.
2. A mild form of mass-hysteria and war nerves.

854
 3. Individuals who fabricate such reports to
perpetrate a hoax or to seek publicity.
4. Psychopathological persons.
It is, therefore, recommended that Conclusions 1
and 2 of this report, with sufficient supporting data, be
declassified and public in the form of an official press
release. This action would aid in dispelling public
apprehension, often directly attributable to the sensational-
istic reporting of many of these incidents by the press and
radio.
C. There are indications that the planned release
of sufficient unusual aerial objects coupled with the
release of related psychological propaganda would cause
a form of mass-hysteria. Employment of these methods by
or against an enemy would yield similar results.
In view of this the Psychological Warfare Division
and other governmental agencies interested in psychological
warfare should be informed of the results of this study.
These agencies should then coordinate in and provide further
recommendations for public release of material relative to
unidentified flying objects as recommended herein.
The remarks under B. and C, originally dated August 1949, indicate
that the Air Force was aware of the public relations problem involved
in the UFO situation. The Air Force was also aware that public concern
with the problem could be used in psychological warfare. This was just
two years after interest in the subject had been generated by newspaper
publicity about the Kenneth Arnold sighting. The same kind of problem
in a slightly different form was an important consideration when the
problem was again reviewed by the Robertson panel in January 1953.
Even in 1968 opinion remains sharply divided as to whether or not
the Air Force should have done more or less to investigate UFOs.
By 1950 magazine and book publishers had discovered that money could
be made in the UFO field. The first major magazine article appeared

855
'wf ' ^'yfffKjl'iiifse^'r! i;fiwfi.t*Mw

in the issue of True magazine dated January 19S(). It was entitled

"The Flying Saucers are Real," written by Donald Kcyhoe. Two' III.IJ;.I7.ino
is an unusual place in which to announce a major scientific discovery,
but that is what this article did: it unequivocally asserted that
m flying saucers are vehicles being used by visitors from outer space to
scrutinize the earth. Tlie 1950 Keyhoe article was the subject of a
great deal of radio, television, and newspaper comment.
i In the March 1950 issue. True extended its coverajje of UFOs with
an article entitled "How Scientists Tracked Flying Saucers," written
by Commander R. B, McLaughlin, U.S.N. CDR McLaughlin came out on the
side of Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis. Describing an UFO he had seen
at White Sands, he declared, "I am convinced that it was a flying
saucer, and further, these discs are spaceships from another planet,
operated by animate, intelligent beinps." True continued to establish
its position by publishing a collection of seven UFO photographs in
its April 1950 issue.
More serious interest developed in the news media. The Nev Y.'fk
Times (9 April 1950) published an editorial entitled, "Those Flying
Saucers -- Are TTiey or Aren't They?" and the U. Ll, Neua and World
report (7 April 1950) carried a story relating the flying saucers to
the Navy's abandoned XF-5-U project. Hdward R. Murrow produced ( 9 September
'>7 ) an hour-long television roundup on the subject. In its lb .June
1950 issue. Life published an article on "Farmer [X's] Flying Saucer"
based on the photographs taken at the witness* farm near McMinnville,
Ore. (sec Section III, Chapter 3).
The first three books on flying saucers also appeared in H>5.0.
The smallest of these was a lö-page booklet by Kenneth A. Arnold
entitled, "Tbe Flying Saucer as 1 Saw It." Next there appeared a
book by the Hollywood correspondent of Variety, Frank Scully, entitled
"Behind the Flying Saucers" published by Holt and Co., New York. In
the fall of 1950, Donald Keyhoe's first book, "The Flying Saucers arc
Real" appeared, published by Fawcett Publications of Greenwich, Conn.
It was essentially an expansion of his article in the January 1950
issue of True,

856
 A new field for book publishing had been established: each year i
since 1950 has seen the publication of an increasing number of books
on the subject.
In accordance with policy decisions based on the final report of
Project (.irudge, the activity was discontinued as a separate project and
ATIC's investigation of UFO reports was handled as a part of regular ?
intelligence activities. Then, on 10 September, 1051, an incident :|
occurred at the Army Signal Corps radar center at l-ort Monmouth, N. .1. [
An UFO was reported seen on radar travelling much faster than any of
the jet planes then in the air. Later it turned out that the radar
operator had miscalculated the speed and the "UFO" was identified as
a conventional 400 mph jet airplane.
Before this explanation was discovered, however, the case attracted
the attention of Maj. Gen. C. P. Cabell, director of Air Force Intelligence.
He ordered a re-activation of Project Grudge as a new and expanded
project under the direction of E. J. Ruppelt (1956). Ruppelt headed the
new project Grudge from i ts former establishment on 27 October 1951, and
later under its new designation as Project Blue Book in March 1952,
until he left the Air Force in September 1953.
Starting in November 1951, Project Grudge and later Project Blue
Book issued a series of "Status Reports" numbered 1 through 12. Numbers
1 through 12 were originally classified "Confidential," while 10, 11,
12 were classified "Secret." All were declassified as of 9 September
1960 but copies were not readily available until 1968 when they were
published by NICAP.
Hie story of the Fort Monmouth sightings is told in Special
Report No. 1, dated 28 December 1951, and is quoted in part here
both for its intrinsic interest and as representative of the way in
which the investigations were reported:
On 10 September 1951 an AN/MFG-l radar set picked
up a fast-moving low-flying target (exact altitude un-
determined) at approximately 1100 hours southeast of
Fort Monmouth at a range of about 12,000 yards. Hie

857
 C tfWv***. ■•*■«'»■'■(» n ■ t^« «r^

target appeared to approximately follow the coast

line changing its range only slightly but changing
its azimuth rapidly. The radar set was switched to
full-aided azimuth tracking which normally is fast
enough to track jet aircraft, but in this case was
too slow to be resorted to.
Upon interrogation, it was found that the
operator, who had more experience than the average
student, was giving a demonstration for a group of
visiting officers. He assumed that he was picking
up a high-speed aircraft because of his inability
to use full-aided azimuth tracking which will nor-
mally track an aircraft at speeds up to 700 raph.
Since he could not track the target he assumed its
speed to be about 700 mph. However, he also made
the statement that he tracked the object off and on
from 1115 to 1118, or three minutes. Using this time
and the ground track, the speed is only about 400 mph.
No definite conclusions can be given due to
the lack of accurate data but it is highly probable
that due to the fact that the operator was giving
a demonstration to a group of officers, and that
he thought he picked up a very unusual radar re-
turn, he was in an excited state, accounting for
his inability to use full-aided azimuth tracking.
He admitted he was "highly flustrated" in not
being able to keep up with the target using the
aided tracking. Hie weather on 10 September was
nut favorable for anomalous propagation.
Here is a quotation from the report of another sighting at Fort
Monmouth made the next day:
On 11 September 1951, at about 1330, a target
was picked up on an SCR-584 radar set, serial number

858
315, that displayed unusual maneuverability. Hie
target was approximately over Haves ink, New Jersey,
as indicated by its 10,000 yard range, 6,000 feet
altitude and due north azimuth, the target remained
practically stationary on the scope and appeared to
be hovering. The operators looked out of the van in
an attempt to see the target since it was at such a
short range, however, overcast conditions prevented
such observation. Returning to their operating posi-
tions the target was observed to be changing its
elevation at an extremely rapid rate, the change in
range was so small the operators believed the target
must have risen nearly vertically. The target ceased
its rise in elevation at an elevation angle of approxi-
mately 1,500 mils at which time it proceeded to move
at an extremely rapid rate in range in a southerly
direction once again the speed of the target exceed-
ing the aided tracking ability of the SCR-584 so that
manual tracking became necessary. The radar tracked
the target to the maximum range of 32,000 yards at
which time the target was at an elevation angle of
300 mils. The operators did not attempt to judge
the speed in excess of the aided tracking rate of
70C mph.
It is highly probable that this is an example
of anomalous propagation as the weather on 11 Septem-
ber was favorable for this type phenomenon. The
students stated that they were aware of this phenomenon
however, it is highly probable that due to the previous
sightings of what they thought were unusual types
of aircraft, they were in the correct psychological
condition to see more such objects.

859
■« wyiurn*,-'»" -T'

Meantime the news media continued to give the UFO stories a big
play. In August 1951, the incident now known to all UFO buffs as
"The Case of the Lubbock Lights," attracted a great deal of attention
(Ruppelt 1936).
In the closing months of 1951, Ruppelt arranged for the technical
assistance of "a large well-known research organization in the Mid-West"
for his reactivated Project Grudge. This organization was assigned the
task of developing a questionnaire for formal interviewing of UFO
sighters. It was also to make a detailed statistical analysis of the
UFO reports on hand at that time and later.
At the beginning of 1952, public interest had reached a point at
which the first of the amateur study organizations to function on a
national scale was formed. This was the Aerial Phenomena Research
Organization(APRO) of Tucson, Ariz., founded by Mrs. Coral Lorenzen.
Its first mimeographed bulletin was mailed out to 52 members in July.
In 1968 this organization claimed 8,000 members.
With the change of name from Project Grudge to Project Blue Book
in March 1952 there soon followed a step-up in support and authority
for UFO study at ATIC. The instructions to Air Force bases relative
to the new level of effort are contained in Air Force Letter 200-5, dated
29 April 1952. Among other things it specifies that early UFO reports
from the bases throughout the country are to be sent by telegram both
to ATIC and to the Pentagon, followed by fuller reports to be submitted
by air mail.
The big event of 1952 was the large number of reports of UFOs seen
visually and on radar in the Washington, D. C. area during June and
July. This was a big year for UFO reports elsewhere as well, the
largest number on record having come to the Air Force during that year.
Table 1 gives the number of UFO reports received at Wright-Patterson
for each month from January 1950 to the present. Inspection of Table 1
shows the great variation of reports that exists from month to month
and from year to year. It is not known whether these fluctuations

860
 Table 1
Number of UFO Reports Received each Month by Project Blue Book.

(Sum of those received from Air Force Bases and those received directly
from the public.)

JFMAMJJASOND Total
1950 15 13 41 17 8 9 21 21 19 17 14 IS 210
51 25 18 13 6 S 6 10 18 16 24 16 12 169
52 15 17 23 82 79 148 536 326 124 61 SO 42 1501
53 67 91 70 24 25 32 41 35 22 37 3S 29 509
54 36 20 34 34 34 SI 60 43 48 51 46 30 487
55 30 34 41 33 S4 48 63 68 57 55 32 25 545
56 43 46 44 39 46 43 72 123 71 S3 56 34 670
57 27 29 39 39 38 35 70 70 59 103 361 136 1006
58 61 41 47 57 40 36 63 84 65 53 33 37 627
59 34 33 34 26 29 34 40 37 40 47 26 10 390
60 23 23 25 39 40 44 59 60 106 S4 33 51 557
61 47 61 49 31 60 45 71 63 62 41 40 21 591
62 26 24 21 48 44 36 65 52 57 44 34 23 474
63 17 17 30 26 23 64 43 52 43 39 22 22 399
64 19 26 20 43 83 42 110 85 41 26 51 15 562
65 45 35 43 36 41 33 135 262 104 70 55 28 887
66 38 18 158 143 99 92 93 104 67 126 82 40 1060
67 81 115 165 112 63 77 75 44 69 SB S4 24 937
68 18 20 38 34 12 25 52 41 29

861

I
 f'*'•''■ «»'W^rj

reflect a real actual variation in number cf sightings by the public,

or are largely the result made up of shifts in the propensity of the
public to make reports. Attempts have been made to correlate the
( maxima with waves of press publicity, with oppositions of Mars, and with
other events, but none have yielded very convincing evidence of ? real
% association between the events. For an appreciation of the perils
inherent in the statistical analysis of such data, the reader is re-
ferred to Section VI, Chapter 10 of this report.
I On 19 August 1952 there occurred the case of Scoutmaster D. S.
'• Desvergers in Forida, which Runpelt, fl956) has called the "best hoax
in UFO history." It is also discussed in Stanton (1966) and Lorenzen
(1962).
The scoutmaster was taking three scouts home about 9:00 p.m.,
driving along a road near West Palm Beach. He thought he saw something
burning in a palmetto swamp and stopped to investigate, leaving the
boys in the car. As he drew nearer he saw that the light was not
from a fire but was a phosphorescent glow from a circular object
hovering overhead. Krom it emerged a flare that floated toward him.
When, after some 20 min., the scoutmaster had not returned, the
boys summoned help from a nearby farmhouse A deputy sheriff was called,
l.Tien he and the boys returned to the car they found the scoutmaster
emerging in a dazed condition from the palmetto thicket. His forearms
had been burned and three small holes were found burned in his cap.
In the investigation that followeü some grass near where the
"saucer" had been was found scorched at its roots but not on ton. How
this could have happened is not clear.
According to Ruppelt's account, the scoutmaster was an ex-Marine
whose military and reformatory record led the Air Force investigators
ultimately to write his story off as a hoax.
News media and the magazines continued to build up Interest in
the flying saucer stories. Table 2 is a partial tabulation of the
treatment of the subject in the major magazines of America.

862
 Table 2
Partial list of UFO articles in major U. S. magazines in 19S2,

Magazine Title Date Page

Amerioan Mercury "Flying Saucer Hoax" October 61-66

Collier'8 "How to Fly a Saucer" 4 October 50-51
Life "Have We Visitors from Outer 4 April 80-82
Space?"
"Saucer Reactions" 9 June 20
Neu Republic "New Saucer Epidemic" 18 August 49
Newsweek "Korean Saucers" 3 March 44
"Saucer Season" 11 August 56
"Saucers Under Glass" 18 August 49
New Yorker "Reporter at Large" 6 September 68
Popular Science "Flying Saucers are Old May 145-47
Stuff"
"How to see Flying September 167-70
Saucers"
"Hollywood ßuilds Flying November 132-34
Saucers"
Reader's Digest "Flying Saucers, New in July 7-9
Name Only"
Time "Those Flying Saucers" 9 June 54-56
"Blips on the Scopes" 4 August 40
"Something in the Air" 11 August 58
"Theology of Saucers" 18 August 62
"Wind is Up in Kansas" 8 September 86

363
'.«■• r *,**%,..■.;

Project Grudge Report No. 6 reports the following concerning the

public response to the 4 April articles in Life:
During the period of 3 April to 6 April
approximately 350 daily newspapers in all parts of
th3 United States carried some mention of the article
and some mention of the fact that the Air Force was
interested in receiving such reports.
It should be noted here that the conclusions
reached by Life are not those of the Air Force. No
proof exists that these objects are from outer space,
ATIC received approximately 110 letters in re-
gard to the article. The letters are divided among
those that offer theorie? as to the origin of the
objects as well as those reporting objects. TTie
letters offering theories comprise about 20 per
cent of the total. Although it cannot be stated that
the theories are incorrect, a majority of them can-
not be further evaluated since they have very little
scientific basis .... The writers of these letters
ranged from mystics to highly educated individuals ....
It has been reported that Life Magazine has received
700 letters in response to the article.
Ihe subject was also beginning to attract journalistic attention
in Europe, for example France Illnetration of Paris published "line
Enigme Sous Nos Yeux" in its 5 May 1951 issue and "Scuccupes Volantes"
on 4 October 1952.
Table 1 indicates that the number of UFO reports in 1952 was
some eight times the number for the previous twu years. The investigation,
however, continued to give no indication of a threat to national security,
and no "hard evidence" for the truth of ETH.
Blue Book Report No. 8, dated 31 December 1952, says that an
astronomical consultant to the project had interviewed 44 professional

864
astronomers as to their attitude on UFOs. He found their attitudes
could be classified as
1
Completely indifferent
Number
7
I
Mildly Indifferent 12
Mildly Interested 17
Very Interested 8 i
The Air Force's astronomical consultant commented: j
Over 40 astronomers were interviewed, of [whom]
five made sightings of one sort or another. This is
a higher percentage than among the populace at large.
Perhaps this is to be expected, since astronomers do,
after all, watch the skies. On the other hand, they
will not likely be fooled by balloons, aircraft, and
similar objects, as may be the general populace.
It is interesting to remark upon the attitude
of the astronomers interviewed. The great majority
were neither hostile nor overly interested; they gave
one the general feeling that all flying saucer reports
could be explained as misrepresentations of well-known
objects and that there was nothing intrinsic in the
situation to cause concern. I took the time to talk
rather seriously with a few of them, and to acquaint
them with the fact that some of the sightings were
truly puzzling and not at all easily explainable.
Their interest was almost immediately aroused, indi-
cating that their general lethargy is due to lack of
information on the subject. And certainly another
contributing factor to their desire not to talk about
these things is their overwhelming fear of publicity.
One headline in the nation's papers to the effect that
"Astronomer Sees Flying Saucer" would be enough to

865
 *? PfS W'1^m-?M^~*m~m*ik*ftm *.***■**■_■,..,1*.^4-agi,: ■■ jjcp, .,,.... ^.,1,. r

brand the astronomer as questionable among his colleagues.

Since I was able to talk with the men in confidence, I
was able to gather very much more of their inner thoughts
on the subject than a reporter or an interrogator would
have been able to do. Actual hostility is rare; concern
with their own immediate scientific problems is too great.
There seems to be no convenient method by which problems
can be attacked, and most astronomers do not wish to
become involved, not only because of the danger of publi-
!
city but because the data seems tenuous and unreliable,

3. The Robertson Panel.

Some persons in the Defense establishment began to worry about the
trend of public interest in UFOs from a different viewpoint, namely, the
possibility that the military communication channels might be jammed
with sighting reports at a time when an enemy was launching a sneak
attack on the United States. On the other hand, there was the possi-
bility that an enemy, prior to launching such an attack, might deliberately
generate a wave of UFO reports for the very purpose of jamming military
communication channels. The Central Intelligence Agency undertook to
assess the situation with the assistance of a Special Panel of five
scientists who had distinguished themselves in physics research and in
their contributions to military research during and after World War II.
The panel spent a week studying selected case reports ami examining
such UFO photographs and motion pictures as were available at that
time. In mid-January, 1953, the panel produced a report which was
classified secret until it was partly declassified in 1966 (Lear,1966).
The report is still partially classified to the extent that the names
of some of the members are deleted from the declassified record of the
proceedings.
The late Prof. H. P. Robertson of the California Institute of
Technology served as chairman of the panel. He had been a member of
the Mathematics Department of Princeton University form 1928 to 1947

806
 when he joined the faculty of Calif. Inst. of Tech. In -icademic work
he distinguished himself by his research in cosmology and the theory of
relativity. During the war he made important contributions to operation
research of the Allied forces in London (Jones, 1968). After the war i
he -.erved from 1950-52 as research director of the Weapons Systems
Evaluation Group in the office of the Secretary of Defense and in
1954-56 was scientific advisor to the Supreme Allied Commarder in
Europe.
D
Prof. Samuel A. Goudsmit, with rof. George Uhlenbeck, discovered
electron spin while they were young students in Leiden, Holland, in
1925. Soon after that both came to the University of Michigan where
they developed a great school of theoretical physics which contributed
greatly to the development of research in that field in America.
Goudsmit is best known outside of academic physics circles as
having been scientific chief of the Alsos Mission toward the end of the
war. This mission was the intelligence group that was sent to Germany
to find out what the oermans had accomplished in their efforts to make
an atom bomb (Goudsmit, 1947; Groves, 1962; Irving, 1967). Most of the
post-war period he has served on the physics staff of the Brookhaven
National Laboratory on Long Island.
Luis Alvarez is a Professor of Physics at the University of Cali-
fornia at Berkele) and vice-president of the American Physical Society
(1968).*During World War II he was a member of the Radiation Laboratory
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he made a particularly
outstanding contribution in the development of a micro-wave radar system
for guiding plane landings in heavy fog. The research then known as
Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) was of decisive importance in the war.
The location of the incoming aircraft is followed closely by the radar
system on the ground whose operator instructs the pilot how to bring
the plane onto the runway for a safe landing. In the latter part of
the war he served under J. Robert Oppenheimer on the great team that
developed the atom bomb at Los Alamos. In the post-war period, Alvarez

*Alvarez das awarded the 1968 Nohel Prize for rhysios.

P*>7
 W^ffS^^^ysftiis^-.-»- -

has made many great research contributions in high-energy physics. At

present he is engaged in using cosmic ray absorption in material of the
Egyptian pyramids near Cairo to look for undiscovered inner chambers.
f Lloyd Berkner, bom in 1905, was an engineer with the Byrd Antarctic
|! Expedition as a youngster in 1928-30. Most of the pre-war period he was
a physicist in the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism of the Carnegie
Institution of Washington. At the beginning of the war he became head
of the radar section of the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics, and for a time
at the end of the war was executive secretary of the Research and Deve-
lopment Board of the Department of Defense. In 1949 he was special
assistant to the Secretary of State and director of the foreign military
assistance program. While in the Department of State he prepared the
report which led to the posting of scientific attaches to the principal
American embassies abroad. From 19S1 to 1960 he was active in managing
the affairs of Associated Universities, Inc., the corporation which
operates Brookhaven National Laboratory, and toward the end of that
period was its president. In 1960 he went to Dallas, Tex. where he
organized and directed the new Graduate Research Center of the South-
west. During most of his life he was a member of the U. S. Naval
Reserve, and rose to the rank of rear admiral. The concept of an
International Geophysical Year, (1957-581 -- the greatest example of
international scientific co-operation that has yet occurred -- was
his brainchild.
Prof. Thornton Page has been professor of astronomy at Wesleyan
University in Middletown, Conn, since 1958. During the war he did
research at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, mostly in connection with
design of underwater ordnance and operations research on naval weapons.
This year (1968) he is vice-president for astronomy of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. In astronomy he has worked
mostly on the atomic spectra of planetary nebulas.
rtie panel has been criticized for not having spent more time
studying its problem. But in January 1953, the subject only had a

8(.S
four and a half year history and it was really quite possible for
a group of this competence to review the whole situation quite |
thoroughly in a week. The panel has also come under incessant fire
from UFO enthusiasts because of its recommendations. :
It might have been possible to put together other panels that would
have performed as well, but it would not have been possible to choose ■
one superior in scientific knowledge, background of military experience,
and soundness of overall judgment.
The Robertson panel report was originally classified "Secret" and
i
declassified in the summer of 1966. Because of its central importance
to the UFO story, and especially because it has been the subject of many
misrepresentations, we present here the text of its main conclusions,
and in Appendix U the full text of the declassified report just as it
was released to the public with the names of certain participants
deleted.
1. Pursuant to request . . . the undersigned
Panel of Scientific Consultants has met to evaluate
any possible threat to national security posed by
Unidentified Flying Objects ("Flying Saucers"), and
to make recommendations thereon. The Panel has
received the evidence as presented by cognizant
intelligence agencies, primarily the Air Technical
Intelligence Center, and has reviewed a selection
of the best documented incidents.
2. As a result of its considerations, the
Panel concludes ;
a. That the evidence presented on
Unidentified Flying Objects shows no indication
that these phenomena constitute a direct physi-
cal threat to national security.
We firmly believe that there i« no residuum of cases
which indicates phenomena which are attributable to

8(.'l
tfc- "-w*f-im-*.mißt'ß *f"y- i<re->Miil<y»^"r* r'^■^^r^^-^* «r''"'"'" "■"■"' ■.n-,-,^-.,. .T-^^,--

foreign artifacts capable of hostile acts, and that

there is no evidence that the phenomena indicates
a need for the revision of current scientific con-
cepts .
3. The Panel further concludes:
a. That the continued emphasis on the
reporting of these phenomena does, in these
parlous times, result in a threat to the
orderly functioning of the protective organs
of the body politic.
We cite as examples the clogging of channels of
communication by irrelevant reports, the danger of
being led by continued false alarms to ignore real
indications of hostile action, and the cultivation
of a morbid national psychology in which skillful
hostile propaganda could induce hysterical behavior
and harmful distrust of duly constituted authority.
4. In order most effectively to strengthen
the national facilities for the timely recognition
and the appropriate handling of true indications of
hostile action, and to minimize the concomitant dangers
alluded to above, the Panel recommends:
a. That the national security agencies
take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified
Flying Objects of the special status they have
been given and the aura of mystery they have
unfortunately acquired;
b. That the rational security agencies
institute policies on intelligence, training,
and public education designed to prepare the
material defenses and to react most effectively
to true indications of hostile intent or action.
Wo suggest that these aims may bo achieved by an
integrated program designed to reassure the public

870
 of the total lack of evidence of inimical forces
behird the phenomena, to train personnel to recop-
nize and reject false indications quickly and
effectively, and to strengthen regular channels J
for the evaluation of and prompt reaction to true
indications of hostile measures. t
Table 3 shows the number of rases studied by Project Blue
Book in the years 1953-1965 and how the Air Force classified them. '*
So far as can be determined, little was done to implement the *
recommendations contained under 4a and 4b of the report of the Robertson
panel. It would have been wise at that time to have declassified all
or nearly all of the previous reports of investigations of flying
saucer incidents such as those making up the bulk of the Project Grudge
and Project Blue Book reports 1 - 12. In fact they were not declassified
until 9 September 1960. Had responsible press, magazine writers, and
scientists been called in and given the full story, or had a major
presentation of the situation been arranged at a large scientific con-
vention, such as at an annual meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, they would have seen for themselves how
small was the sum of all the evidence and in particular how totally
lacking in positive support was the ETH idea. Hie difficulty of
attempting to base a rareful study on the anecdotal gossip which was
the bulk of the raw material available for the study of UFOs would
have been clear.
But secrecy was maintained. T3»is opened the way for intensifi-
cation of the "aura of mystery" which was already impairing public
confidence in the Department of Defense. Official secretiveness also
fostered systematic sensationalized exploitation of the idea that a
government conspiracy existed to conceal the truth.
There are those who still cling to thi: idea of a government
conspiracy to conceal a portentous "truth" from the American people.
Soon after our study was announced a woman wrote me as follows:
me RUPmCW^J«?«!1^« rr * ■*•'••

Table 3
UFO Cases Classified by (htegories by Project Blue Book, 1953 - 1959.
-•

Category: 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

I
ä Astronomical 175 137 135 222 341 221 144
Aircraft 73 80 124 148 210 104 63
Balloon 78 69 102 93 114 50 31
Insufficient data 79 102 95 132 191 111 65
Other 83 58 65 61 120 93 75
Satellite 0 0 0 0 6 13 0
Unidentified 42 46 24 14 14 10 12

Astronomical:

Meteors 70 92 79 88 179 168 100

Stars and planets 101 44 52 131 144 56 40
Other 4 1 4 3 18 7 4

Other:

Hoaxes, etc. 15 6 18 16 37 29 14
Missiles, rockets 2 1 1 3 2 6 14
Reflections 4 6 4 3 2 7 11
Flares, fireworks 1 4 8 6 8 3 5
Mirages, inversions 3 3 4 1 5 2 4
Searchlights 8 6 14 9 12 8 5
Clouds, contails 6 * 2 1 9 5 3
Chaff, birds 4 10 3 7 3 7 1
Physical specimens 1 6 5 3 5 10 3
Radar analysis 15 7 1 3 27 7, 8
Photo analysis 1 1 2 4 1 7 4
Satellite decay 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Miscellaneous 1 7 4 0 9 5 3

87:
 Table 3 (cont'd)
UFO Cases Classified by Categories by Project Blue Book, 1960 - 1965

Category: I960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965

Astronomical 235 203 136 85 123 246

Aircraft 66 77 68 73 71 210
Balloon 22 37 19 23 20 33
Insufficient data 105 115 94 59 99 66
Other 94 77 65 50 88 122
Satellite 21 69 77 82 143 152
Unidentified 14 13 15 14 19 16

Astronomical:

Meteors 187 119 95 57 61 101

Stars and planets 45 78 36 23 55 135
Other 3 6 5 5 7 9

Other:

Hoaxes, etc. 13 17 11 16 34 34
Missiles, rackets 12 13 9 13 7 10
Reflections 9 3 3 0 2 7
Flares, fireworks 7 4 3 3 7 4
Mirages, inversions 5 6 3 0 2 5
Searchlights 6 1 3 2 6 9
Clouds, contails 4 5 4 5 0 1
Chaff, birds 7 5 7 4 5 12
Physical specimens 7 4 15 3 3 3
Radar analysis 6 9 0 1 2 6
Photo analysis 6 3 2 3 6 12
Satellite decay 0 3 3 4 3 8
Miscellaneous 3 4 2 4 6 13

873
$#*&■■•■'

Since your committee is using moneys appropriated

by the people, it is your duty to level with the citi-
zens of this country and tell the truth. Don't bend
facts tc suit the Silent Group. People are intelligent.
Have faith in the adaptability of our citizens to take
the truth. The public didn't collapse under the facts
of A bombs, H bombs and the L bombs. It took our space
program in stride. It adopted the use of "miracle"
drugs. We, as citizens, can manage to live with the
truth about saucers. DO NOT knuckle under to the
censorship boys. If you want a place in history that
is honorable — report the truth to the public about
UFOs, because millions of us already know and believe.
I have seen "flying saucers". I have heard a man
talk who has been to Mars and he can prove it, I'm
sure. Of course the planets and stars are inhabited.
Our government is acting like the small child who
was punished for an act which endangered the lives
of his brothers and sisters. (Xnr government should
be big enough to face facts as our citizens are able
to face the facts. JUST THLL THE TRUTH. It is the
easiest way and the only way.
Where secrecy is known tc exist one can never be absolutely sure
that he knows the complete truth. Hiere is an ironic recognition of
this fact \x\ Lt. Gen. Nathan Twining's letter of 23 September 1947
(See p.884) in which he acknowledges that consideration must be given to
"the possibility" that UFOs "are of domestic origin -- the product of
some high security project not known to AC/AS-2 or this Command."
We adopted the term "conspiracy hypothesis" for the view that
some agency of the Government either within the Air Force, the Central
Intelligence Agency, or elsewhere knows all about UFOs and is keeping
the knowledge secret. Without denying the possibility that this could

874
be true, we decided very early in the study, that we were not likely to
succeed in carrying out a form of Counter-espionage against our own
Government, in the hope of settling this question. We therefore decided
not to pay special attention to it, but instead to keep alert to any
indications that might lead to any evidence that not all of the essf* al
facts known to the Government were being given to us.
Although we found no such evidence, it must be conceded that t.h« .
may be a supersecret government UFO laboratory hidden away somewhere jf
whose existence we are not aware. But I doubt it. I do not believe
it, but, of course, I can not prove its non-existence!
About half way through this study, a young woman on the editorial
staff of a national magazine telephoned from New York to Boulder. She
wanted my comment on a report that had come to her editor that the
Colorado study was merely pretending to be a study of UFOs, that this
was a cover story. What we were really doing, she was told, was to
carry on a "Top Secret" study for the Defense Department's "Martian
Invasion Defense Program (MIDP)," that is, a war plan for a response
by our defense forces in the event of an invasion of Earth by the
Martians. She wanted to know whether this was true!
I could only tell her, "If it were true, I think it would certainly
be Top Secret; then I would not be at liberty to tell you about it.
This being the case, if I tell you that it is not true, you do not
have the slightest idea as to whether I am telling the truth or not."
Her problem was like that of the man who thought his wife was
unfaithful. He set all kinds of clever traps to catch her, but he
never got any evidence. From this he concluded that she was deucedly
clever about her infidelity.
In 1953 the general level of suspicion and mistrust was pervasive.
The new administration was re-opening old security cases. The whole
system of security investigations was being elaborated. This was the
peak year in the career of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. This was
the year that charges were made against the late J. Robert Oppenheimer,
culminating in AEC denial of his clearance in the spring of 1954.

875
 In this atmosphere all kinds of dark suspicions could and did
take root and grow -- including the belief -- and the commercial ex-
ploitation of the pretended belief -- that the government knew much
about UFOs that it was concealing, or that the Government was woefully
ignorant of the real truth.
In 1956 the National Investigations Committee for Aerial Phenomena
i
f was founded by Donald E. Keyhoe, a retired Marine Corps major. As its
j

director he now claims that NICAP has some 12,000 members. Although
organized for the purpose of studying UFO cases on an amateur basis,
a large part of its effort has gone into promulgation of attacks on
the government's handling of the UFO matter. In October 1953, Keyhoe's
second book appeared, Flyinc, Saucers from Outer Space and soon was
found on best-seller lists. Of it, E. J. Ruppelt commented, "To say
that the book is factual depends entirely upon how one uses the word.
The details of the specific UFO sightings that he credits to the Air
Force are factual, but in his interpretations of the incidents he blasts
way out into the wild blue yonder," (Ruppelt, 1956).
Here is how Keyhoe links the conspiracy hypothesis with the BTH:
Three years ago this proposal would have amazed
me. In 1949, after months of investigation, I wrote
an article for True magazine, stating that the saucers
were probably interplanetary machines. Within 24
hours the Air Force was swamped with demands for the
truth. To end the uproar the Pentagon announced that
the saucer project was closed. The saucers, the Air
Force insisted, were hoaxes, hallucinations, or mis-
takes.
Later, in a book called The Flying Saucers ore
Real I repeated my belief that the Air Force was
keeping the answer secret until the country could be
prepared. Several times officers at the Pentagon
tried to convince me I'd made a bad mistake. But

876
 when I asked them to prove it by showing me the secret
sighting reports, I ran into a stone wall
(Keyhoe, 1953).
Another sensational book of this period was Harold T. Wilkins*
Fbjing Saucers on the Atiaak (Wilkins, 1954). It is characterized
by its publishers as "A book of facts that is more astounding ;ind
incredible than science fiction and which is an introduction to evouts
that may dwarf our civilization. Has the invasion of F.arth by beings
from another world already begun? The most startling revelations yet
i.iade about mysterious visitors from outer space." Wilkins too pro-
fessed to believe that the government was concealing these "astounding
and incredible" facts from the people.
The late newscaster, Frank Edwards, found the Air Force's secrecy
baffling and difficult to deal with. In Flying Saucers—Serious
Business (Edwards, 1966) he recalled:
Through the Washington grapevine, various friends
in the news business had told me that the Pentagon
was very unhappy because I continued to broadcast
reports of UFO sightings. By late 1953 the news
services had virtually ceased to carry such reports;
if they were carried at all it was on a strictly local
or regional basis. The major le^k -- and just about
the only major leak in the censorship of UFO's—was
my radio program.
Developments of this kind leave no doubt in my mind that a serious
mistake was made in early 1953 in not declassifying th?, entire subject
and making a full presentation of what was known, at recommended in the
report of the Robertson panel.
Another rujor recommendation of the Robertson panel favored the
launching of an educational program to inform the public about DFOs.
If any attention was given to this proposal the effort was so slight
that there was no discernible effect. But in any event such a program
could hardly have been expected to Ire clTective while till1 ";nir.i of

877
f: •ftfmr-a .- -.

■ystery" continued because of continued secrecy surrounding much of

Project Blue Book's activities.
Much of the attack on the Robertson panel report centers on the
fact that the report declared that a broad educational program should
have two major aims, "training and 'debunking'". Training would he
broadly concerned with educating pilots, radar operators, control
tower operators and others in the understanding and recognition of
peculiar phenomena in the sky. The panel concluded that, "this train-
ing should result in a marked reduction in reports caused by mis identi-
fication and resultant confusion."
The word debunking means to take the bunk out of a subject.
Correctly used, one cannot debunk a subject unless thare is some bunk
in it. Over the years, however, the word has acquired a different
coloration. It now sometimes means presenting a misleading or dishonest
account of a subject for some ulterior purpose. The critics of the
Robertson panel insist that this latter meaning is what the group had
in mind. That the earlier definition of debunking was what the panel
meant is evident from the following statement explaining how the
"debunking" would be carried out:
The "debunking" aim would result in reduction
in public interest in "flying saucers" which today
evokes a itrong psychological reaction. This edu-
cation could be accomplished by mass media such as
television, motion pictures and popular articles.
Basis of such education would be actual case his-
tories which had been puzzling at first but later
explained. As in the case of conjuring tricks,
there is much less stimulation if the "secret" is
known. Such a program should tend to reduce the
current gullibility of the public and consequently
their susceptibility to clever hostile propaganda.
So far as we can determine, no official steps were ever taken to
put into effect the training and "debunking" recommendations of the

87b
Robertson panel. A private effort was not to be expected, since such
a program would not be commercially attractive and would conflict with
books that were beginning to make money by exploiting popular confusion
about the ITU and alleged government conspiracies.
In 1953, Donald II. Menzel, then director of the Harvard College
Observatory published an excellent book (Menzel, 1953). Tt emphasizes
the optical mirage aspects of the subject (Section VI, Chapter 3), and
is generally regarded as "debunking" and "negative." Menzel's book
never achieved a large enough market to be issued as a paperback and
is now out of print.
By contrast, a book, by D. Leslie and George Adamski entitled.
Flying Saucers Have Landed was published in 1953 (Leslie and Adamski,
1953). Best known for its full account of Adamski's alleged interview
with a man from Venus on the California desert on 20 November 1952, it
enjoyed widespread popularity in hardcover and paperback editions.
It is difficult to know how much of the UFO literature is intended
to be taken seriously. For example. Coral Lorenzen's first UFO book
was first published under the title, The Great Flying Saucer Hoax, but
in the paperback edition it became, Flying Saucers: the Startling
Evidence of the Invasion from Juter Space, subtitled "An exposure of
the establishment's flying saucer cover-up." (Lorenzen, 1962,1966).
The paperback edition contains an introduction by Prof. R. Leo
Sprinkle of the department of psychology of the University of Wyoming.
In this introduction. Prof. Sprinkle writes:
Coral Lorenzen has been willing ... to describe
her fears about potential dangers of the UFO phenomena;
to challenge sharply the statements of those military
and political leaders who claim that citizens have
not seen "flying saucers;" and to differ courageously
from those who take a "head in the sand" approach . . .
She realizes that censorship is probably controlled
at the highest levels of governmental administration . . .
It may be that the earth is the object of a sur-
vey by spacecraft whose occupants intend no harm to

87P
 ^iffff^a^pm,^*-.». «f..;

the United States. However, regardless of the intent

of UFO occupants, it behooves us to learn as much as
f
possible about their persons, powers and purposes.
Mrs. Lorenzen realizes that her present conclusions
may not all be verified, but she is also aware that
it may be too late for mankind to react to a poten-
tial threat to world security. It is to her credit
that she has avoided feelings of panic on one hand
and feelings of hopelessness on the other. She has
demonstrated a courageous approach: the continuation
of the process of gathering, analyzing, and evaluat-
ing of information, and the encouragement of the
efforts of others to come to grips with the emotional
and political and scientific aspects of the UFO
phenomena.
Her book is largely taken up with vivid accounts of UFO incidents
that are alleged to be factual and to support the idea of ETA, of
actual visits to Earth of extra-terrestrial intelligences. A sample
of the kind of material presented is the following condensation of
at; incident in Brazil which is said to have occurred on 14 October
1957 (p. 64 et seq.).
On that evening Antonio Villas-Boas was plowing a field with a
tractor when an UFO shaped like an elongated egg landed about 15 yd.
away from him. The tractor engine stopped and Villas-Boas got out
of the tractor and tried to run away when he "was caught up short by
something grasping his an. He turned to shake off his pursuer and
came face-to-face with a small 'man* wearing strange cloches, who
came only to his shoulder." He knocked the little felloe down and
several more came to the aid of the first one. They "lifted him off
the ground and dragged him toward the ship," which had a ladder
reaching to the ground.
There follows a description of the interior of the ship and of
the way in which the unearthly visitors talked wixh each other which

880
"reminded Antonio of the noises dogs make, like howls, varying in pitch
and intensity." He was forced to undress and to submit to various |
medical procedures, but then: i
"After what seemed like an eternity to Villas-Boas the door opened
again and in walked a small but well built and completely nude woman."
There follows a description of her voluptuous, distinctly womanly
figure.
"The woman's purpose was immediately evident. She held her-
self close to Villas-Boas, rubbing her head against his face. She
did not attempt to communicate in any way except with occasional grunts
and howling noises, like the 'men' had uttered. A very normal sex
act took place and after more pettings she responded again . . . The
howling nois'-i she made during the togetherness had nearly spoiled
the whole act for they reminded him of an animal."
Villas-Boas' clothing was then returned to him and he was shown
to the UFO's door. "The man pointed to the door . . . then to the sky,
motioned Antonio to step back, then went inside and the door closed.
At this, the saucer-shaped thing on top began to spin at great speed,
the lights got brighter and the machine lifted straight up . , ."
Meanwhile, back at the tractor, Villas-Boas consulted his watch
and concluded that he had been aboard for over four hours.
Mrs. Lorenzen comments:
The above is condensed from a 23-page report
which was submitted to APRO by Dr. Olivu Fontes,
professor of medicine at the Brazilian National
School of Medicine ... My own first reaction
was almost one of scoffing until I began to add
up some important factors:
If an alien race bent on contact and possible
colonization were to reconnoiter this planet, one
of their prime tasks would be to learn if the two
races could breed. To do this they would need a
human subject. Either sex would be all right.

881
 but it would be much more efficient to pick a male
by some means. If a human female subject were used,
i the chances of no conception, or conception followed
*
by miscarriage, would be great due to the consider-
i
able nervous strain of removing that female subject
g
I from her familiar surroundings to a completely
foreign location and alien companions, and then
literally subjecting her to forcible rape. It should
«
be quite well known, especially to an advanced cul-
ture, that the psychological makeup of women, especially
where sex is concerned, is considerably more delicate
than that of her male counterpart. The ideal situation,
then, would be for the experimenters to pick their
own female subject whose ovulation period would be
known beforehand and proceed exactly as the strange
UFO occupants apparently did with Villas-Boas.
She says that it was not possible at that time to have Villas-Boas
examined by a psychiatrist and that Villas-Boas has subsequently
married and "docs not care to dwell on the subject because of his wife's
feelings in the matter. Preliminary examination by Dr. Fontes, however
seems to assure us that Villas-Boas is stable, not a liar, and certainly
not knowledgeable about certain information which he would have to have
in order to concoct such a logical tale."
Mrs. Lorenzen's final comment is: "It is unnerving to me that,
along with the thousands of sightings of flying, landed and occupied
unconventional aerial objects, an incident such as the above could
take place and not be objectively scientifically and logically analyzed
because of motional prediopoaition!" But in her account there is no
indication of any corroboration; the story stands or falls entirely
on the veracity of Villas-Boas.
Her book is a compilation of reported incidents of which the
preceding is fairly typical. What is of particular interest for a
iV/V';'V";'i* study of UFOs is that in many instances the investigations,

882
like that of the Villas-Boas case in Brazil, are carried out by a person
having an advanced degree and an academic position. The next one in
the book describes the case of some men who were bow-hunting on 4
September 1%3 near Truckee, Calif. One of them became separated from
the others and was chased up a tree by some "robots" also called "entities,"
who belched oi't puffs of smoke which would cause the man to lose conscious-
ness. She writes:
He said he felt that the "robots" were guided
by some kind of intelligence, for at times they
would get "upwind" of him to belch their sleep-
inducing "smoke."
After a harrowing night the man escaped and "dragged himself toward
camp, finally collapsing on the ground from exhaustion."
In this case the APRO investigator who supplied the details to
Mrs. Lorenzen was Dr. James A. Harder, associate professor of civil
engineering at the University of California in Berkeley. Dr. Harder
received his bachelor's degree from the California Institute of
Technology, and his doctorate at Berkeley, served as a design engineer
for the Soil Conservation Service, and served in the Navy during World
War II. He was one of those who took part in £ symposium on UFOs
before the House Science and Astronautics Committee, sitting under the
chairmanship of Congressman J. Edward Roush of Indiana (29 July 1968).
In this congressional testimony. Dr. Harder said:
. . . there have been strong feelings aroused
about UFOs, particularly about the extra-terrestrial
hypothesis for their origin. This is entirely
understandable, in view of man's hi oric record of
considering himself the central figure in the natural
scene; the extra-terrestrial hypothesis tends inevi-
tably to undermine the collective ego of the human
race. These feelings have no place in the scienti-
fic assessment of facts, but I confess that they have
at times affected me . . .

f )...•>

iL
 i-4WR',*|»r*T*-

Indecd, there are flying saucer cultists who

are as enthusiastic as they are naive about UFOs —
* who see in them some messianic symbols—they have
:' a counterpart in those individuals who exhibit a
f
morbid preoccupation with death. Most of the
^ rest of us don't like to think or hear about it.
f This, it seems to me, accurately reflects many of
our attitudes toward the reality of UFOs—natural,
i
and somewhat healthy, but not scientific.
In the second Lorenzen book, a considerably more detailed account
of the Truckee, Calif, incident than the first one is given including
this comment:
At present the preliminary interviews by a
qualified psychiatrist have been made preparatory
to either sodium amytol or hypnotic trance question-
ing. We feel that Mr. S. [the man who was up the
tree] may have information buried at a subconscious
level which may shed considerably more light on the
whole incident. We are reasonably certain that
the whole incident took place and was a true physical
experience, and therefore the trance questioning will
not be done to attempt to discredit him in any way.

4. Regulations Governing UFO Reports.

Initially Project Blue Book operated under instructions set forth
in Air Force Letter 200-5, issued 29 April 1952. This provided that
telegraphic reports on UFOs were to be sent promptly both to Blue Hook
at Wright-Patterson and to the Pentagon, and followed by a more elaborate
letter reporting the details. Experience showed that this procedure was
unnecessary when applied to all UFO reports, so a simpler procedure was
authorized in Air Force Regulation 200-2, classed under "Intelligence Activities"
and continued in force with minor changes until it was superceded by AFR
St> I ' on h' St-ptomhiT lJ>tib and Al K SO-1 "A on S November lOoo. The neu
regulation classes the activity muler "Research and Hevelopmeut" (Appendix '*).
Ihis regulation establishes the UI-'O Program to
investigate and analyze UFO's over the United States.

884
 Such investigation and analysis are directly related
to Air Force responsibility for the defense of the
United States. The UFO program provides for the
prompt reporting and rapid reporting needed for
successful "identification", which is the second
of four phases of air defense — detection, identi-
fication, interception and destruction. All commanders
will comply strictly with this regulation.
Critics of the Air Force have made much of paragraph 2c of AFR 200-2,
t
entitled "Reduction of Percentage of UFO •Unidentifieds'" which says:
Air Force activities must reduce the per-
centage of unidentifieds to the minimum. Analysis
thus far has explained all but a few of the sightings
reported. These unexplained sightings are carried
statistically as unidentifieds. If more immediate,
detailed, objective data on the unknowns had been
available, probably these, too could have been
explained. However, because of the human factors
involved, and the fact that analyses of UFO sightings
depend primarily on the personal impressions and
interpretations of the observers rather than on
accurate scientific data or facts obtained under
controlled conditions, the elimination of all
unidentifieds is improbable.
Critics of the Air Force have tried to read into this paragraph
an exhortation that investigation is to result in common-place
identifications at all costs, not excluding that of stretching the
truth. But reasonable people will read this paragraph as a straight-
forward instruction to Air Force personnel to take the job of
investigation seriously, without making shortcuts, in an effort to
arrive at an accurate understanding of as many UFO reports as
possible. Honestly read, there is nothing in the wording which
rules out ETH, that is, the possibility of identifying an UFO as a
visitor from outer space is not excluded by the instructions ^ivcn.

8S5
*$#:■ rvptr-ri- ■

Critics have also attacked AFR 200-2 and the similar provisions in
AFR 80-17 for the fact of its centralization of public relations in
the Secretary of the Air Force Office of Information. The relevant
section of AFR 80-17 states:
B-4. Response to Public Interest. The Secretary
of the Air Force, Office of Information (SAF-OI) main-
tains contact with the public and the news media on
all aspects of the UFO program and related activities.
Private individuals or organizations desiring Air
Force interviews, briefings, lectures, or private
discussions on UFOs will be instructed to direct their
requests to SAF-OI. Air Force members not officially
connected with UFO investigations will refrain from
any action or comment on UIÜ reports which may mis-
lead or cause the public to construe these opinions
as official Air Force findings.
Critics have charged that this provision imposes censorship on
UFO reports. But reasonable people will see in such a provision an
arrangement designed to minimize the circulation of wild stories and
premature reports before an investigation is completed. At the
beginning of our study, we found certain elements of the news media
extremely willing to give us their cooperation. One Denver news-
paperman was willing to stand ready at all times to take us to various
places in his private plane. In return he wanted us to give him a
full account of what we were doing as we did it, before we had a
chance to check and evaluate our field data. Of course, we could
not accede to such an arrangement.
AFR 80-17 contains one exception, but one which is frustrating to
newspapermen who arc trying to build up a spot news story: It is
Section 5c Exceptions:
In response to local inquiries regarding UFOs
reported in the vicinity of an Air Force base, the
base commander may release information to the news

880
 media or public after the sighting has been positively
identified. If the stimulus for the sighting is
difficult to identify at the base level, the conunander
may state that the sighting is under investigation and
conclusions will be released by SAF-OI after the
investigation is completed. The commander may also
state that the Air Force will review and analyze the
results of the investigation. Any further inquiries
will be directed to SAF-OI.
These provisions reflect the traditional conflict between authorities
who are responsible for carrying out a careful investigation without
premature and irresponsible publicity,and the representatives of the
news media who wish to have a live story while the news is still hot.
At such a time nothing can be more frustrating to a reporter than to
be told that one has to wait for the completion of an investigation.
It is also tru2 that these rules could actually be used to keep the
public from learning promptly about a real visitor from outer space
if one should appear, but in practice the Air Force has not sought to
"control the news" in this way, and the restraint required by the
regulation has usually resulted in the release of more accurate infor-
mation than was available before the promulgation of AFR 200-2.
Another regulation which includes UFOs in its scope and which has
frequently been used as a basis for criticizing the Air Force'
handling of UFO reports is Joint Army Navy Air Publication-146.
For example, Frank Edwards (Edwards, 1967) commented that Air Force
personnel are reminded of severe penalties for "making public state-
ments without appr .ax!"
JANAP-146 is not a classified document. It has been issued with
various revisions over the years. The copy we have is JANAP-146 (E),
the revision that is dated 31 March 1966. Its title is "Canadian -
United States Communications Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence
Sightings." It is issued in the United States by the Joint Chiefs of
Staffs. In its Letter of Promulgation it says that it "contains military

887
■Jffl, .f^f ■ «».^

information and is for official use only," but it also explicitly

says, "Copies and Extracts may be made from this publication when such
are to be used in the preparation of other official publications." On
that basis a discussion of some of its contents is presented here.
Section 102a defines its scope in these words: "This publication
is limited to the reporting of information of vital importanoc to the
security of the United States of America and Canada and their forces,
which in the opinion of the observer, requires very urgent defensive
and/or investigative action by the U. S. and/or Canadian armed Forces."
Reports made from airborne or land-based sources are called
CIRVIS reports; those from waterborne sources, MhRINT reports. The
relevant section on security for CIRVIS reports is as follows:
208. Military and Civilian. Transmission of
CIRVIS reports are subject to the U. S. Communications
Act of 1954, as amended, and the Canadian Radio Act of
1938, as amended. Any person who violates the provi-
sions of these acts may be liable to prosecution thereunder.
These reports contain information affecting the national
defense of the United States and Canada. Any person who
makes an unauthorized transmission or disclosure of such
a report may be liable to prosecution under Title 18 of
the US Code, Chapter 37, or the Canadian Official Secrets
Act of 1939, as amended. This should not be construed
as requiring classification of CIRVIS messages. The
purpose is to emphasire the necessity for the handling
of such information within official channels only.
JANAP-146 lists the categories of sightings vhich are to be
reported as CIRVIS reports as follows:
(a) Hostile or unidentified single aircraft
or formations of aircraft which appear to be directed
against the United States or Canada or their forces.
(b) Missiles.
(cj Unidentified flying objects.

888
 (d) Hostile or unidentified submarines.
(e) Hostile or unidentified group or groups of
military surface vessels.
(f) Individual surface vessels, submarines, or
aircraft of unconventional design, or engaged
in suspicious activity or observed in a loca-
tion or in a course which may be interpreted
as constituting a threat to the United States,
Canada or their forces.
(g) Any unexplained or unusual activity which may
Indicate a possible attack against or through
Canada or the United States, including the
presence of any unidentified or other suspi-
cious ground parties in the Polar Region or
other remote or sparsely populated areas.
The presence of item (c) in the list can be interpreted to signify
that the presence of UFOs in the. . pace over and near the United
States and Canada is officially regarded as information of vital importance
to the security of the United States and Canada, but such an implication
is totally misleading. The essential thing about an UFO is that the
observer does not know what it is. For this reason alone it may have
defense significance. Since in military matters especially it is better
to be safe than sorry, it is quite appropriate that observers be expli-
citly notified of their obligation to report UFOs, that is, all
puzzling things, rather than take a chance on their not being significant.
Provision is made in JANAP-146 for the prompt transmission of
cancellation messages. If something has been seen, but is later identi-
fied by the sighter as having no defense significance, it is important
that the defense headquarters be notified at once.
Air, sea and land surveillance activities are conducted continuously
to guard against sudden hostile activities. JANAP-146 provides for
the transmission of reports on suspicious circumstances to proper authorities
for analysis and appropriate defense action. It would be most unwise

889
 **r ^- ...

that the military response to such circumstances be publicized, nor

for that matter should the circumstances themselves be a matter of
public knowledge.

-
I S. Orthoteny, the "Straight Line Mystery."
|. The mid-1950s also produced an attempt to find statistical
regularities or a "pattern" in UFO sightings. Aime Michel (1958), a
French journalist who has studied and written about UFOs, believed that
he had found a pronounced statistical tendency for the places where
UFOs are reported within a short time interval such as 24 hours to
lie on a straight line, or more correctly, on a great circle on the
earth's surface.
To describe this supposed tendency he coined the word "orthoteny"
in 1954, deriving it from the Greek adjective "orthoteneis," which
means stretched in a straight line.
He first noticed what seemed to him a tendency for the locations
to lie on a straight line with regard to five sightings reported in
Europe on 15 October 1954. These lay on a line 700 mi. long stretching
from Southend, England to Po di Gnocca, Italy.
Another early orthotenic line which has been much discussed in
the UFO literature is the BAYVIC line which stretches from Bayonne to
Vichy in France. Six UFO sightings were reported on 24 September 1944
in the location of the ends and along the line.
When Michel first started to look for patterns he plotted on his
maps only those reports which he had described as "good" in the sense
of being clearly reported. Later he decided to plot all reports,
including the "poor" ones, and found the straight line patterns in
some instances.
A peculiarity of the supposed orthotenous relation is that the
appearance of the UFOs in these various reports along a line may look
quite different, that is, theie is no implication that the sequence
represents a series of sightings of the same object. Moreover the times

890
 I
of seeing the UFOs do not occur in the order of displacement along
the line, as they would if the same object were seen at different
places along a simple trajectory.
Continuing his work he found other cases of straight line arrange-
ments for UFO reports in France during various days in 1954. At this
time there were an unusually large number of such reports, or a French
"flap." But not all reports fell on straight lines. To these which
clearly did not he gave the name "Vergilian saucers" because of a
verse in Vergil's Aeneid, describing a scene of confusion after a
great storm at sea: "A few were seen swimming here and there in the
vast abyss."
Without understanding why the locations cf UFO reports should lie
on straight lines, this result, if statistically significant, would
indicate some kind of mutual relationship of the places where UFOs
are seen. From this it could be argued that the UFOs are not indepe-
dent, and therefore there is some kind of pattern to their "maneuvers."
The question of statistical significance of such lines comes
down to this: Could such straight line arrangements occur purely
by chance in about the same number of instances as actually observed?
In considering this question it must be remembered that the location
of a report is not a mathematical point, because the location is
never known with great precision. Moreover the reports usually tell
the location of the observer, rather than that of the UFO. Tht direction
and distance of the UFO from the observer is always quite uncertain,
even the amount of the uncertainty being quite uncertain. Tbus two
"points" do not determine a line, but a corridor of finite width,
within which the other locations must lie in order to count as being
aligned. Hie mathematical problem is to calculate the chance of
finding various numbers of 3-point, 4-point . . . alignments if a
specified number of points are thrown down at random en a map.
Michel's orthoteny principle was criticized along these lines
by Menzel (1964), in a paper entitled, "Do Flying Saucers Move in

891
«i'-'J -rt, . s- -,..

Straight Lines?" This triggered off a spirited controversy which

included a number of papers in the Flying Saucer Review for 1964 and
1965 by various authors.
The most complete analysis of the question to be published to
date is that by Vallee and Vallee (1966). They summarize their work
in these words:
The results we have just presented will
probably be considered by some to be a total refu-
tation of the theory of alignments. We shall not
be so categorical, because our data have not yet
been independently checked by other groups of
scientists, and because we have been drastically
limited in the amount of computer time that we
could devote to this project outside official sup-
port. Besides no general conclusion as to the
non-existence of certain alignments can be drawn
from the present work. The analyses carried out
merely establish tnat, among the proposed align-
ments, the great majority, if not all, must be
attributed to pure chance.
The point is that while the straight-line
theory, as far as we can say, is not the key to
the mystery, a body of knowledge has been accumu-
lated and a lar^e edifice of techniques has been
built, and this development reaches far beyond
the negative conclusion on the straight-line
hypothesis.
As matters now stand, we must regard as not
valid the work on orthoteny and "the straight-line
mystery."

892
b. The O'Brien Report and events leading up to it.
In the years from 1953 to 1965, interest in UFOs or flying saucers
continued to fluctuate. APRO had been founded in 1952, and NICAP
was incorporated as a non-profit membership organization in 195t>. In
addition various local organizations flourished for a few years. News-
papers and magazines of large circulation seem not to have had a
consistent policy toward the subject. More and more, but not always,
they tended to make fun of flying saucer sightings. Not many of the
press stories achieved national distribution by the wire services and
many of those that did were handled as humorous features rather than
as serious science.
As Table i shows, the number of UFO reports reaching Project Blue
Book was well under a thousand for each of these years except for 1957
when the number was 1,006. Officers at Air Force bases and the small
staff of Project Blue Book continued to investigate these reports to
determine whether the things seen constituted a defense threat. In
no case was a threat to national security discovered, a result consistent
with that reached by the Robertson panel in 1953.
At the same time there continued to be published a considerable
number of popular books and magazine articles. Most of these continued
to insist that some UFOs really indicate the presence on Earth of
visitors from superior civilizations elsewhere in the Universe.
Some of the books contain some rather startling assertions for
which, however, no proof or corroboration is given. For example in
Spacearaft fromtieijond Three DvnensTons (Allen, 1959) opposite page 98
is a full-page photograph showing two men holding hands with a miniature
man about three feet tall, and carries the following caption, "A
'saucer crewman' very much like the moon man (or spirit) described by
Swedenborg in his writings about the inhabitants of different planets
of the solar system with whom, he stated, he had conversations. This
photograph is from Germany (note trench coats and North European types),
but the 'saucer crewman' is from a UFO that crashed near Mexico City;
the corpses were sent to Germany for study. Was he based on Luna?"
The author of this book is employed by a major aircraft company
in the Pacific North west. Ke got in touch with him, seeking more

893
 specific information about the alleged crash near Mexico City, and
about the circumstances of sending saucer crewman's corpses to Germany.
Allen offered to give us additional information but only at what to us
seemed to be an exorbitant price, considering that there was no
indication of the validity of any of this story.
II UFO enthusiasts are not one great happy family. They consist of
a number of antagonistic sects marked by strong differences in their
f- belief. Some of the schismatic tendencies seem to be related to per-
sonality clashes. One of the greatest points of difference between the
groups is their attitude toward "contactee" stories.
Some writers, of whom George Adamski was a pioneer, have published
detailed stories giving accounts of their converstions with visitors
from Venus and elsewhere. Some have published accounts of trips in
flying saucers, either involving high speed travel between points on
H;irth, or actual visits to other planets (Fry. 1966). Other writers
heap scorn on those who believe in such contactee stories.
There is a particularly wide spectrum of attitudes to be found among
UFO enthusiasts witn respect to the late George Adamski. A periodical
called UFO Contact is dedicated to his memory. The editor of UFO Contact
is Ronald Caswell, 309 Curbers Mead, Harlow, Essex, England. It is
published by IGAP, which is the acronym for "International Get Acquainted
Program" at Bavnevolden 27, Maaloev, SJ, Denmark. According to an
editorial announcement this organization was founded by Adamski in 1959.
Of the periodical the editors say:
His hope was that as many as possible would
discover the truth of the present age and turn to
face the time to come --to learn to accept, through
conviction, the fact that we are all citizens of
the Cosmos and children of the Cosmic Power whose
Laws run through the entire cosmos. These Laws we
can learr to comprehend through study and understanding
of the "Science of Life" brought to our attention
by the presence of friendly visitors from other worlds . . .

894
 We shall try to detect any and every move in the
direction of that truth which we have accepted, but
which is not yet officially accepted or recognized
in broader circles:
1. People from other worlds in our system are
visiting our planet.
2. People from other worlds are in contact with
certain political and scientific circles in East and
West.
3. People from all walks of life, official
and unofficial, all over the world, have been con-
tacted by people from other worlds; such contacts
have been kept secret so far.
4. The philosophy brought to the world by Mr.
George Adamski is considered an aid in helping to
understand the truth of our origin and our future
destiny.
The magazine will make uo attempt whatsoever to
fight anyone, in spite of any action which might be
launched against it. Only the truth, whatever its
guise, will be brought to bear, to allow each to
decide for himself what he can and will accept in
this wonderful world on his march forward to new
experiences.
In sharp contrast, is the comment about Adamski in the second of
the Frank Edwards* books (Edwards, 1967):
The first and foremost among them [the contactees]
was a fellow named George Adumski. He was a man of
meager scholastic attainments, but he made up for that
shortcoming by having an excellent imagination, a
pleasing personality and an apparently endless supply
of gall.

891

M.
■VdlKMIWirH^-tiny

George established the ground rules for the

contactees which they have dutifully followed. He
was the first — and he showed that there was con-
siderable loot to be made by peddling tales of talking
with space people. George instinctively realized that
everything had to be pretty nebulous; he knew that
details would be disastrous.
Prior to becoming associated with a hamburger
stand on the road to Mt. Palomar, George had worked
in a hamburger stand as grill cook. With this
scientific background he wrote, in his spare time,
a document which he called An Imaginary Trip to the
Moon, Venus and Mare. He voluntarily listed it with
the Library of Congress for copyright purposes as
a work of fiation.
That was in 1949.
His effort did not attract many customers but
it did attract the attention of a lady writer who
saw gold in them there space ships. She made a deal
with George to rewrite his epic; she was to furnish
the skilled writing and he was to furnish the photo-
graphs of the space ships.
This lady brought the finished manuscript to me
for appraisal and she brought with it a clutch of the
crudest UFO photographs I had seen in years. I de-
clined to have anything to do with the mess and she
left my office in a b-t of a huff.
In its revised form it told a yarn of how George
had ventured into the desert of southern California,
where he met a "scout ship" from which stepped a gor-
geous doll in golden coveralls. She spoke to him
with a bell-like voice in a language he did not under-
stand, so they had to resort to telepathy, or something

896
similar, to carry on their conversation. And then,
as she prepared tu leave him, she tapped out a mes-
sage in the sand with her little boot. George
realized that she wanted him to preserve this message
(it was terribly important) and, having a pocket full
of wet plaster of Paris (which he seemingly always
carried with him on desert trips), George quickly
made a plaster cast of the footprint with the mes-
sage, which he eventually reproduced for the educational
advancement of his readers, who were legion.
Of the numerous photographs which embellished
the book let it be said that some of them could not
have been taken as claimed. The others were crudely
"simulated," as the Air Force put it charitably.
But for me the payoff was the alleged photo-
graph of Adamski's "scout ship" in which he allegedly
took a trip to Venus and returned. The picture as
shown in his book was taken either on a day when
three suns were shining—or else it was a small
object taken with three floodlights for illumination.
After eight years of patient search I finally came
to the conclusion that his space ship was in reality
the top of a cannister-type vacuum cleaner, made in
1937. I doubt that many persons are traveling through
space in vacuum cleaner tops.
Adamski communicated with me frequently. When
he was questioned about the title of "professor"
which he used, he explained that it was just an
honorary title given to him by his "students," and
that he never used it himself. George was evidently
forgetful, for the letters he sent to me were always
signed "Professor George Adamski."
But this congenial con man sold a jillion books
to those who were eager to believe that somebody from

897
 l&t-ftr' ptf-mpx

space was crossing millions of miles of the trackless

void for the dubious privilege of conversing telepathically
* with former hamburger cooks. Adamski toured this country
r on the lecture circuit; then he branched out into Hurope,
where he even arranged a private confab with the Queen
| of The Netherlands, a maneuver which stirred up quite a
i bit of comment for the Queen, very little of which was
h
| favorable.
The bogus professor followed his first book with
another volume but it did not meet with the ready
acceptance which the public had granted his first
offering. For one thing, some of his "witnesses" to
his alleged meeting with the golden girl from a dis-
tant galaxy had changed their minds about both George
and his story. And perhaps more importantly, several
other contactees had rushed into print with yarns of
having ridden in space ships and of having conversed
with the operators thereof.
The remainder of Frank Edwards' Chapter 7 deals with other contactee
tories in a similar vein.
During this period the UFO literature became very large indeed. It
would require loo much space to deal with it in detail. An excellent
guide to this material is provided by a bibliography published by the
Library of Congress.
By the early 1960s the pattern for UFO books and magazine writing
had become quite clearly established: the text consisted of a stringing
together of many accounts of reported sightings with almost no critical
comment or attempts at finding the validity of the material reported,
mixed with a strong dash of criticism of the Air Force for not devoting
more attention to the subject and for allegedly suppressing the startling
truth about visitors from outer space.
On the evening of 3 September 1965 a number of sightings were
reported at Hxeter, N. H. which were made the basis of a brief article

898
in the Saturday Review for 2 October 1965, and later of a book. Incident
at Exeter by John G. Fuller (Fuller, 1966a). The following year Fuller
wrote another book. The Interrupted Journey (Fuller, 196öb) which dealt
with the case of Barney and Betty Hill, who claimed to have been taken
aboard a flying saucer while driving through N. 11. This story was told
in condensed form in Look magazine.
Probably the greatest furor in 1966 was generated by the Michigan
sightings early in March. These occurred near Dexter, Mich, on the
night of 20 March and near Hillsdale, Mich, on the next night.
These sightings received a great deal of newspaper publicity.
They were investigated for the Air Force by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who
suggested in a press conference the possibility that they might have
resulted from burning swamp gas. This possibility has been known for
years although it would be extremely difficult to obtain the kind of
definite evidence that would make chis possibility a certainty with
respect to this particular case.
The swamp gas possibility has become the butt of a great many jokes
and cartoons in the popular press. Although it is not established as
a certainty, it seems to be quite genuinely a possibility. Here is the
exact text of the Air Force press release that was issued as a result
r' ^uil; of these sightings:
The investigation of these two sightings
c
wa conducted by Dr. J Allen Hynek, scientific
consultant to Project Blue Book; personnel from
Selfridge Air Force Base, Mich.; and personnel
from Project Blue Book office at Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio.
In addition to these two specific cases, there
has been a flood of reports from this area both be-
fore and after March 20 and 21. The investigating
personnel have not had the time to investigate all
of these. It has been determined, however, that in
Hillsdale, over and above the sincere and honest

899
reporting by the young ladies at Hillsdale College,
certain young men have played pranks with flares.
It has also been determined that the photograph
released yesterday through press was taken on
March 17 just before sunrise near Milan, Mich., and
have nothing to do with the cases in question. The
photograph clearly shows trails made as a result of
a time exposure of the rising crescent moon and the
planet Venus.
The majority of observers in both the Dexter
and Hillsdale cases have reported only silent glowing
lights near the ground--red, yellow, and blue-green.
They have not described an object. The only two
observers uho did describe an object have stated
that they were no closer than 500 yards—better than
a quarter oi n mile away--a distance which does not
allow details to be determined.
Witnesses have described glowing lights--lights
that seem to move but never far from a definite place
or lights which suddenly disappeared and popped up
at another plac . The locale in both cases was a
swamp. In I'oth cases, the location of the glow was
pinpointed--in Dexter it was seen between two distant
groups of people and at Hillsdale it was seen in a
swampy depression between the gir.'s and the distant
trees. It was in both cases a very localized pheno-
mena. The swampy location is most significant.
A swamp is a place of rotting vegetation and
decomposition. Swamps are not a province of astrono-
mers. Yet, the famous Dutch astronomer, Minnaert, in
his book, "Light and Colour in the Open Air,"
describes lights that have been seen in swamps by the
astronomer, Bessel, and other excellent observers.

900
Tlie lights resemble tiny flames sometimes seen right
on the ground and sometimes rising and floating above
it. The flames go out in one place and suddenly
appear in another, giving the illusion of motion.
Hie colors are sometimes yellow, sometimes red, and
sometimes blue-green. No heat is felt, and the
lights do not burn or char the ground. They can
appear for hours at a stretch and sometimes for a
whole night. Generally, there is no smell and no
sound except for the popping sound of little explo-
sions such as when a gas burner ignites.
The rotting vegetation produces marsh gas which
can be trapped during the winter by ice. When the
spring thaw occurs, the gas may be released in some
quantity. The flame, Minnaert says, is a form of
chemical luminescence, and its low temperature is
one of its peculiar features. Exactly how it occurs
is not known and could well be the subject of further
investigation.
The glowing lights over the swamps near Dexter
and Hillsdale were observed for 2 or 3 hours, and
they were red, green, and yellow. They appeared
to move sideways and to rise a short distance. No
sound was heard except a popping sound.
It seems entirely likely that as the present
spring thaw came, the trapped gases, CH., H-S, and
PH_, resulting from decomposition of organic material,
were released. The chemistry book by Sienko and
Plane has this to say: "In air, Phosphine PH. usually
bursts into flame apparently because it is ignited
by a spontaneous oxidation of the impure VJ^A' ^ie
will-of-the-wisp, sometimes observed in marshes, may
be due to spontaneous ignition of impure PH. which

1)01
 might be formed by reduction of naturally occurring
phosphorus compound."
It has been pointed out to the investigating
personnel by other scientists in this area that in
swamps the formation of HS and CH from rotting
vegetation is common. These could be ignited by
the spontaneous burning of PH .
The association of the sightings with swamps
in this particular instance is more than coinci-
dence. No group of witnesses observed any craft
coming to or going away from the swamp, the glow
was localized and Deputy Fitzpatrick described the
glow from beyond a rise adjacent to the swamp as
visible through the trees. He stated that the
light brightened and dimmed such as stage lights do—
smoothly and slowly--and this description exactly
r
its ihe Hil'sdale sighting also. The brightening
and dimming could have been due to the release of
variable quantities of marsh gas.
The disappearance of the lights when people
got close with flashlights or carlights would
indicate that the glow seemed bright to dark-
adapted eyes. The night was dark and there was
no moon. The Hillsdale girls kept their rooms
dark in order to see the swamp lights.
It appears very likely that the combination of
the conditions of this particular winter (an
unusually mild one in that area) and the particular
weather conditions of that night--it was clear and
there was little wind at either location—were
such as to have produced this unusual and puzzling
display.
On 28 September 1965, Maj. Gen. E. B. LeBailly, who was then head
of the Office of Information of the Secretary of the Air Force, addressed

90:
a letter to the Military Director of the Air Force Scientific Advisory
Bo^id in which he said:
The Air Force has conducted Project Blue Book
since 1948. As of 30 June 1965, a total of 9,265
reports had been investigated by the Air Force. Of
these 9,265 reports, 663 cannot be explained.
Continuing, he wrote:
To date, the Air Force has found no evidence
that any of the UFC reports reflect a threat to our
national security. However, many of the reports that
cannot be explained have come from intelligent and
well qualified individuals whose integrity cannot
be doubted. In addition the reports received officially
by the Air Force include only a fraction of the
spectacular reports which are publicized by many
private UFO organizations.
Accordingly, it is requested that a working
scientific panel composed of both physical and social
scientists be organized to review Project Blue Book --
its resources, methods and findings -- and to advise
the Air Force as to any improvements that should be
made in the program to carry out the Air Force's
assigned responsibility.
As a result of this formal request, a group was set up under
the chairmanship of Dr. Brian O'Brien which was known as the "Ad Hoc
Committee to Review Project Blue Book." This group met on 3 February
1966 and produced a short report of its findings in March
1966.
The persons who served on this committee are as follows:
Dr. Brian O'Brien, now retired, received his Ph.D. in physics at
Yale in 1922. He served as director of the Institute of Optics at the
University of Rochester from 1946 to 1953, and as vice president and
Ji rector ol' research of the Americiin Optical Company from l%.vr.K,

!Kl3
after which he became a consulting physicist. He served as chairman
of the division of physical sciences of the National Research Council
from 1953-61, as president of the Optical Society of America in 1951-53,
and received the President's Medal for Merit in 1948.
Dr. Launor F. Carter, psychologist, received his Ph.D. from Princeton
in 1941. After holding various teaching and research positions he
became vice president and director of research of the Systems Development
Corporation of Santa Monica in 1955. He has been a member of the Air
Force Scientific Advisory Board since 1955.
Dr. Jesse Orlansky. psychologist, received his Ph.D. in 1940 from
Columbia University. He has been a member of the Institute for Defense
Analyses since 1960 specializing on problems of behavioral science
search for national security.
Dr. Richard Porter, electrical engineer received his Ph.D. at
Vale in 1937, after which he joined the staff of the General Electric
ujany, where he was manager of the guided missiles department from
50-55. He has been a member of the Space Science Board of the National
. ademy of Sciences since 1958 and chairman of its international relations
ommittee since 1959.
Dr. Carl Sagan, astronomer and space scientist, received his Ph.D.
the University of Chicago in 1960. Since 1962 he served as a staff
stropliysicist of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge
ass., until the summer of 1968 when he joined the faculty of astronomy
at Cornell university. He is a specialist in the study of planetary
atmospheres, production of organic molecules in astronomical environments,
origin of life, and problems of extra-terrestrial biology.
Dr. Willis H. Ware, electrical engineer, received his Ph.D. from
Princeton University in 1951. Since then he has been head of the
computing science division of the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica.
He is a specialist on problems related to the applications of computers
to military and information processing problems.
The report of this committee is brief. It is printed in full
below:

904
I. INTR0DUL1IUN
As requested in a memorandum from Major General
E. B. LeBailly, Secretary of the Air Force Office .>f
Information dated 28 September 1965 (Tab A), and SAB
Ad Hoc Committee met on 3 February 1966 to review
Project "Blue Book". The objectives of the Committee
are to review the resources and methods of investigation
prescribed by Project "Blue Book" and to advise the
Air Force of any improvements that can be made in the
program to enhance the Air Force's capability in
carrying out its responsibility.
In order to bring themselves up to date, the
members of the Committee initially reviewed the
findings of previous scientific panels charged with
looking into the UFO problem. Particular attention
was given to the report of the Robertson panel which
was rendered in January 1953. The Committee next
heard briefings from the AFSC Foreign Technology
Division, which is the cognizant Air Force agency
that collates information on UFO sightings and
monitors investigations of individual cases. Finally,
sightings with particular emphasis on those that have
not been identified.
II. DISCUSSION
Although about 6% (646) of all sightings (10,147)
in the years 1947 through 1965 are listed by the Air
Force as "Unidentified", it appears to the Committee
that most of the cases so listed are simply those in
which the information available does not provide an
adequate basis for analysis. In this connection it
is important also to note that no unidentified
objects other than those of an astronomical nature
have ever been observed during routine astronomical

905
\

studies, in spite of the large number of observing

hours which have been devoted to the sky. AS examples
of this the Palomar Observatory Sky Atlas contains
some 5000 plates made with large instruments with
wide field of view; the Harvard Meteor Project of
1954-1958 provided some 3300 hours of observation;
the Smithsonian Visual Prairie Network provided
2500 observing hours. Not a single unidentified
object has been reported as appearing on any of
these plates or been sighted visually in all these
observations.
The Committee concluded that in the 19 years
since the first UFO was sighted there has been no
evidence that unidentified flying objects are a
threat to our national security. Having arrived
at this conclusion the Committee then turned its
attention to considering how the Air Force should
handle the scientific aspects of the UFO problem.
Unavoidably these are also related to Air Force
public relacions, a subject on which the Committee
is not expert. Thus the recommendations which
follow are made simply from the scientific point
of view.
III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the opinion of the Committee that the
present Air Force program dealing with UFO sightings
has been well organized, although the resources
assigned to it (only one officer, a sergeant, and
secretary) have been quite limited. In 19 years
and more than 10,000 sightings recorded and classi-
fied, there appears to be no verified und fully
satisfactory evidence of any case that is clearly
outside the framework of presently known science

906
and technology. Nevertheless, there is always the
possibility that analysis of new sightings may pro-
vide some additions to scientific knowledge of value
to the Air Force. Moreover, some of the case records» at
which the Committee looked, that were listed as "identified"
were sightings where the evidence collected was too
meager or too indefinite to permit positive listing
in the identified category. Because of this the
Committee recommends that the present program be
strengthened to provide opportunity for scientific
investigation of selected sightings in more detail
and depth than has been possible to date.
To accomplish this it is recommended that:
A. Contracts be negotiated with u few selected
universities to provide scientific teams to investi-
gate promptly and in depth certain selected sightings
of UFO's. Each team should include at least one
psychologist, preferably one interested in clinical
psychology, and at least one physical scientist,
preferably an astronon.er or geophysicist familiar
with atmospheric physics. The universities should
be chosen to provide good geographical distribution,
and should be within convenient distance of a base
of the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC).
B. At each AFSC base an officer skilled in
investigation (but not necessarily with scientific
training) should be assigned to work with the
corresponding university team for that geographical
section. The local representative of the Air Force
Office of Special Investigations (OSI) night be a
logical choice for tais.
C. One university or one not-for-profit orpani-
zation should be selected to coordinate the work of
the teams mentioned under A above, and also to make

907
 certain of very close communication and coordination
with the office of Project Blue Book.
It is thought that perhaps 100 sightings a year
might be subjected to this close study, and that
possibly an average of 10 man days might be required
per sighting so studied. The information provided
I by such a program might bring to light new facts of
I scientific value, and would almost certainly provide
| a far better basis than we have today for decision on
f
J. a long term UFO program.
The scientific reports on these selected sightings,
supplementing the present program of the Project Blue
Book office, should strengthen the public position of
the Air Force on UFO's. It is, therefore, recommended
that ;
A. These reports bo printed in full and be
available on request.
B. Suitable abstracts or condensed versions be
printed and included in, or as supplements to, the
published reports of Project Blue Book.
C. Tbe form of report (.as typified by "Project
Blue Book" dated 1 February 1966) be expanded, and
anything which might suggest that information is
being withheld (such as the wording on page 5 of the
above cited reference) be deleted. The form of this
report can be of great importance in securing public
understanding and should be given detailed study by
an appropriate Air Force office.
D. The reports "Project Blue Book" should be
given wide unsolicited circulation among prominent
members of the Congress and other public persons as
a further aid to public understanding of the scientific
approach being taken by the Mr Force in attacking
the UFO problem.

«W8

1
 Soon after it was received by the Secretary of the Air Force, the report
was referred to the Air Force Office of Scientific Research for action.
On 5 April 1966, the House Armed Services Committee held a one-day
hearing on the UFO problem under the chairmanship of the Hon. H. Mendel
Rivers of S. C. The transcript of the hearing is printed on pp. 5991-
6075 of the ''Hearings by Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives, Eighty-ninth Congress, Second Session."
During this hearing, Air Force Secretary Harold Brown made the
first public announcement of the O'Brien Committee report. Secretary
Brown commented: "Recommendations by the Board are presently under
study and are expected to lead to even stronger emphasis on the scientific
aspects of investigating the sightings that warrant extensive analysis."
He further said :
Although the past 18 years of investigat-
ing unidentified flying objects have not identified
any threat to our national security, or evidence
that the unidentified objects represent develop-
ments or principles beyond present-day scientific
knowledge, or any evidence of extra-terrestrial vehicles,
the Air Force will continue to investigate such
phenomena with an open mind and with the finest
technical equipment available.
Later in his testimony he commented further on his own views
about the O'Brien committee recommendation in these words:
I believe I may act favorably on it, but I want
to explore further the nature of such a panel, and
the ground rules, before I go ahead with it. I
don't want to have a group of people come in for just
one day and make a shallow investigation. They have
to be prepared to look into a situation thoroughly
if they are to do any good.
Concluding his testimony he said, after pointing out that 951> of
the reports are being explained:

909
 This docs not imply that a large part of the
remaining 5%, the unexplained ones, are not also of
this character, but we simply have not been able to
confirm this because we don't have enough information
about these sightings. It may also be that there are
phenomena, the details of which we don't understand,
which account for some of the sightings we have not
identified. In certain instances, I think a further
scientific explanation is a possibility. Therefore
we will continue to develop this approach.
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, UFO consultant to the Air Force since 1948,
was also a principal witness. In his opening statement he said:
During this entire period of nearly twenty
years I have attempted to remain as openminded on
this subject as circumstances permitted, this despite
the fact that the whole subject seemed utterly
ridiculous and many of us firmly believed that, Ir'.ke
some fad or craze, it would subside in a matter of
months. Yet in the last five years, more reports
were submitted to the Air Force than in the first
five years.
Despite the seemlüg > ',anity of the subject,
I felt that I would be derejict Li my scientific
responsibility to the Air Force if I did not point
out that the whole UFO phenomenon night have aspects
to it worthy of scientific attention . , . Specifically,
it is my opinion that the body of data accumulated
since 1948 through the Air Force investigations
deserves close scrutiny by a civilian panel of physi-
cal and social scientists, and that this panel should
be asked to examine the UFO problem critically for
the express purpose of determining whether a major
problem really exists.

•no
 In the discussion which followed, the Hon. William H. Bates,
Congressman from Mass. returned to the question of visitors from
outer space asking,
But Secretary Brown, you indicated no one of
scientific know lege in your organization has con-
cluded these phenomena come fron: extra-terrestrial
sources?
To which Secretary Brown replied,
That is correct. We know of no phenomena or
vehicles, intelligently guided, which have come
from extra-terrestrial sources. I exclude meteors,
which do come from extra-terrestrial sources.
Asked the same question. Dr. Hynek replied:
Ihis is also my conclusion. I know of no compe-
tent scientist today who would argue the sightings
which do puzzle intelligent people. Puzzling cases
exist, but I know of no competent scientist who would
say that these objects come from outer space.
Asked by Congressman L. N. Nedzi of Mich, about the relation of
UFOs to extra-terrestrial visitors, Hynek said:
I have not seen any evidence to confirm this, nor
have I known any competent scientist who has, or
believes that any kind of extra-terrestrial intel-
ligence is involved. However, the possiblity should
be kept open as a possible hypothesis. I don't
believe we should ever close our minds to it.
Congressman Bates introduced into the record a letter received from
Raymond E. Fowler, chairman of the NICAP Massachusetts Subcommittee,
which with its numerous attachments occupies pp. 6019-6042 of the hear-
ing record. In audition to his NICAP affiliation. Fowler describes
himself as a "project administrative engineer in the Minuteman Program
Office for Sylvania Electric Products, Waltham, Mass."
Fowler wrote the committee in part as follows:

911
 I do want to put myself on record as supporting
the claims and views of NICAP and others which indi-
cate that congressional hearings on the matter of UFOs
are long overdue.
I feel that the American people are capable of
understanding the problems and implications that will
arise if the true facts about UFOs are made known
officially. The USAF public information program and
policy, as directed by the Pentagon, of underrating
the significance of UFOs and not releasing true,
pertinent facts about UFOs is not only a disservice
to the American people now but in the long run could
prove to have been a foolish policy to follow. After
years of study, I am certain that there is more than
ample high-quality observational evidence from highly
trained and reliable witnesses to indicate that there
are machinelike solid objects under intelligent control
operating in our atmosphere. I'he aerodynamic perform-
ance and characteristics of the true UFO rule out
manmade or natural phenomena. Such observational
evidence has been well supported in many instances by
reliable instruments such as cameras, radar, geigor-
counters, variometers, electrical interference,
physical indentations in soil and scorched areas at
landing sites, etc.
I am reasonably sure that if qualified civilian
scientists and investigators are able to come to this
conclusion, that the USAF, supported by the tremendous
facilities at its disposal, have come to the sawe
conclusion long ago. However, present official policy
deliberately attempted to discredit the validity of
UFOs and a wealth of data and facts are not being re-
leased to the public ... It is high time that the
real facts about UFOs are released. A public information

912
 program should be inaugurated that presents facts. I
am urging you to support a full congressional open
inquiry on the UFO problem.
Although Fowler's letter strongly implies that important infor-
mation is being withheld, it does not affirm a belief that UFOs are
extra-terrestrial visitors.

7. Initiation of the Colorado Project.

Responsibility for the implementation of the recommendation of the
O'Brien report was assigned to the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research (AFOSR) by the Secretary of the Air Force. In doing so, he
gave them latitude for further study of the specific details of the
recommendations and decision to depart from the exact formulation given
in that report. As a result of study within that of fie«, it wss decided
to concentrate the project in a single university rather than to make
contracts with a number of universities.
Recommendation B was incorporated into AFR 80-17 which replaced
AFR 200-2. This was made effective 19 September 1966.
The staff of the AFOSR studied the question of which University
to invite to take on the study, and also took counsel on this question
with a number of outside advisers. As a result of this inquiry in the
late spring and early summer of 1966, they decided to ask the University
of Colorado to accept a contract for the work, and in particular asked
me to take on the scientific direction of the project.
This request was made to me on 31 July 1966 by Dr. J. Thomas
Ratchford of the scientific staff of AFOSR, who was introduced by
Dr. W. W. Kellogg, associate director of the National Center for Atmospheric
Research and at that time a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory
Board.
This request was unwelcome for a vrriety of reasons. I was plan-
ning to write a new book on the theory of atomic spectra and in fact
had started on it. ITiis was to replace one written more than thirty
years earlier with Dr. G. H. Shortley (Condon and Shortley, 1935).

913
 ÄSWN w"W-i»w;-bc

Despite its age it has been the standard work in the field for all those
years but naturally is now quite out of date. I had at last arranged
things so that I could do this writing and regarded it as the most use-
I ful professional activity in which I could engage before retirement.
i Although I knew only a small fraction of what I now know, I was
aware that the UFO subject had had a long history of confused and am-
biguous observational material making a truly scientific study extremely
difficult if not impossible. This would make the subject unattractive
not only to myself but to scientific colleagues on whom one would have
to call for help. Moreover, all of them were engaged in scientific work
that was more to their liking, which they would be reluctant to set
aside.
I had some awareness of the passionate controversy that swirled
around the subject, contributing added difficulty to the task of making
a dispassionate study. This hazard proved to be much greater than was
appreciated at the oucset. Mad I known of the extent of the emotional
commitment of the UFO believers and the extremes of conduct to which
their faith can lead them, I certainly would never have undertaken the
study. But that is hindsight. It may nevertheless be of value to some
scientist who is asked to make some other UFO study in the future to
have a clear picture of the experiences of this sort which we had.
These objections were met by counter-arguments in the form of an
appeal to patriotic duty. A good deal of emphasis was placed on the
shortness of the task, then envisioned as requiring only fifteen months.
I objected to the selection of myself, mentioning the names of
various scientists of considerable distinction who had already taken
an active interest in UFOs. To this the reply was made that these
individuals were essentially disqualified for having already "taken
sides" on the UFO question.
After several hours' discussion along these lines, I agreed to
discuss the matter informally with a number of colleagues in the
Boulder scientific community and, in the event that enough interest, was
shown in such preliminary conversations, to arrange a meeting at which

914
representatives of AFOSR could present the story to a larger group and
answer their questions. From this would come an indication of the willing-
ness of some of them to take part in such a project if it were set up.
At this stage there was also the question of whether the University
should allow itself to be involved in so controversial an undertaking.
Several members of the faculty had grave misgivings on this score,
predicting that the University might be derided for doing so.
In preparation for the neeting with AFOSR staff which was set
for 10 August 19bb, Robert J. Low, then assistant dean of the graduate
school, wrote some of his thoughts in a memorandum dated 9 August 1966
which he sent to U. James Archer, then Jean of the graduate school, and
T, E. Manning, vice president for academic affairs.
The Low memorandum has acquired undue importance only because a
copy was later stolen from Low's personal files and given wide distri-
bution by persons desirous of discrediting this study. Portions of it
were printed in an article by John G. Fuller (Fuller, 19681 which
misconstrues it as indicating a conspiracy on the part of the University
administration to give the Air Force a report which would support its
policies instead of those being advocated by N1CAP.
Commenting on Fuller's article, Low wrote in July 19b8,
The suggestion that I was engaged, along with
Deans Archer and Manning, in a plot to produce a
negative result is the most outrageous, ridiculous
and absurd thing I ever hoard of. My concern in
writing the memo, was the University of Colorado
and its standing in the university world; it was
a matter of attitudes that the scientific community
would have toward the University if it undertook
the study. It had nothing to do with rry own personal
outlook on the UFO question.
Nor did it represent official policy of the University, since
it was, at most, a preliminary "thinking out loud" about the proposed
project by an individual having no authority to irake formal decisions

iur.
??' 'tWIVf; ir>.v-ij ..I.»*, ^f...

for the administration, the department of physics, or any other univer-

sity body. Indeed, one of the proposals Low makes in it runs exactly
contrary to the procedure actually followed by the project. Low
proposed "to stress investigation, not of physical phenomena, but
rather of the people who do the observing -- the psychology and sociology
of persons and groups who report seeing UFO's." It should be evident
to anyone perusing this final report, that the emphasis was placed where,
in my judgment, it belonged: on the investigation of physical phenomena,
rather than psychological or sociological matters. It should be equally
obvious that, had the University elected to adopt Low's suggestion, it
would have hardly chosen a physicist to direct such an investigation.
I will, for purposes of record, go a step further in this regard.
If nevertheless the University had asked me to direct this study along
psychological and sociological lines, I would have declined to undertake
the study, both on the ground that I am not qualified to direct an
investigation having such an emphasis, and because in fact the views
in the Low memorandum are at variance with my own. But the fact is that
I was not aware of the existence of the Low memorandum until 18 months
after it was written. This was long after the project had been set up
under my direction, and, since I knew nothing of the ideas Low had
expressed, they had no influence on my direction of the project.
The 10 August meeting lasted all day. At the end, it seemed that
there was enough faculty interest to go ahead with the task for AFOSR.
During September 1966, details of the proposed research contract were
worked out in conferences between Low and myself and the staff of AFOSR.
The contract was publicly announced on 7 October 1966, with work to
start as soon after 1 November as possible. Because of other commitPients,
I could devote only half-time to the work. After 1 February 1968, I
devoted full time to the project.
Th»' O'Brien report had stressed the importance of using psychologists
as well as physicists on the staff. Dr. Stuart Cook, chairman of the
department of psychology, accepted appointment as a principal investi-
gator on an advisory basis but could devote only a small fraction of
his time to the study because of other commitments. In a short time he

PK)
made arrangements for the project to have the part-time services of
three of his professors of psychology; Drs, David R. Saunders, William
B. Scott, and Michael Wertheimer. Saunders had worked on machine
statistics in relation to problems in educational psychology. Scott's
field was social psychology. He made some useful initial contri-
butions but soon found that his other duties did not permit him to
continue. Wertheimer is well known as a specialist in psychology of
perception. He worked with members of the field teams and has con-
tributed a chapter to this report (Section VI, Chapter 1).
The initial staff also included Dr. Franklin E. Roach as a
principal investigator. Roach is an astronomer who has specialized
in the study of air glow and other upper atmosphere optical phe-
nomena. He was at the time near retirement after a long career with
the National Bureau of Standards and the Environmental Science Ser-
vices Administration and so was able to devote full time to the
project. His experience was valuable as including a wide range of
working contacts with the astronomers of the world, and also as a
consultant with the NASA program which brought him into working re-
lations with the American astronauts.
Low was able to obtain a leave from his position as assistant
dean and assumed full-time appointment as project coordinator.
Besides administrative background, he brought to the project a wide
general knowledge of astronomy and meteorology derived from some
twenty years of work with Walter Orr Roberts on the staff of the High
Altitude Observatory of the University of Colorado, and later with
the National Center for Atmospheric Research during its formative
years.
Announcement of the project received a large amount of news-
paper attention and editorial comment. This was natural in view of
the long history of UFO controversy, even extending into Congress,
which had preceded the setting up of the study. Possibly the most
prescient of comments was an editorial in The Nation for 31 October
l%b, which declared, "If Dr. Condon and his associates come up with
anything less than the little green men from Mars, they will be
cruci ficd."

1)17
^Svr'Wjf+^ftoirmi*" ■: rvrf'.rm--'''

The project's investigative phase ended on 1 June 1968, and

the task of preparing a final report of the project's multifarious
activities began. The results of those labors are presented here.
It seems hardly likely, however, that we have said the last
word on this subject. Indeed, as this report is prepared the
Library of Congress has announced publication of UFOs, an an-
notated bibliography. Prepared for the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research (OAR), and scheduled for publication in 1969
by the U.S. Government Printing Office, the bibliography contains
more than 1,600'references to works on the subject of UFOs. It
will be offered for sale by the Superintendent of Documents.
Private organizations or government sponsored groups may
well undertake to do more work on UFO phenomena, either in the
name of science or under another rubric.
Meanwhile, the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects
was brought to a definitive close when, on 31 October 1968, this
final report on its researches was turned over to the Air Force for
review by the National Academy of Sciences and subsequent release
to the public. We thank those of the public who communicated to
us their experiences and opinions. However, as the study is now
at an end, it would be appreciated if no more UFO material is sent
to the University of Colorado.

918
 References

Adamski, George. Inaide the Space Shipe, New York: Abelard-Schuman,

1955.

Allen, W. Gordon. Spaoearaft from Beyond Three Dimeneione — a Neu

Vieta of the Entirety from which Emerges the VFOt New York:
Exposition Press, 1959.

Arnold, K. E. and R. Palmer. The Coming of the Sauaera: a Doamentary

Report on Sky Objects that Have Myatified the World, Boise:
K. A. Arnold. 1952.

Bloecher, Ted. Report on the UFO Wove of 19471 Copyright by Ted Bloecher,
1967 (no address).

Condon, E. U. and G. H. Short ley. The Theory of Atomic Spectra, New York
and London: Cambridge University Press, 1935.
Edwards, Frank, Flying Sauaera — Serioua Buaineaa, New York: Lyle
Stuart, 1966.

. Flying Soucera — Here and Now! New York: Lyle Stuart, 1967.

Fuller, John G. Incident at Exeter, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,

1966a.

. The Interrupted Journey, New York: Dial Press, 1966b.

. "Flying Saucer Fiasco," Look, 32: 58, (14 May 1968).

Goudsmit, S. A. Alaoa, New York: Henry Schuman, Inc., 1947.

Groves, L. R. tfcu It Can Be Told, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962.

Guieu, Jimmy. Lea Souocupea Volontea Viennent d'un outre monde, Paris:
Fleuve Noir, 1954. English edition: Flying Souoera Come
from Another World, London: Hutchinson, 1956.

Heard, Gerald. The Riddle of the Flying Souoeraf London: Carroll and
Nicholson, 1950.

House Committee on Armed Services, the transcript of the 5 April hearing

occupies pp. 5991-6075 of the printed record of this committee
for the second session of the Eighty-ninth Congress.

Keyhoe, Donald E. The Flying Souoera ore Real, London: Hutchinson, 1950.

Irving, David. The Virua Houae, London: William Kimber, 1967.

919
gPfW«.* -iTR» (^r,

Jones, R. V. "The Natural Philosophy of Flying Saucers," Physics

Bulletin 19t (1968), 225-230, (reproduced as Appendix V).

Keyhoe, Donald E. Flying Sauoera from Outer Space, New York: Henry
Holt, 1953.

Lear, John, "The Disputed CIA Document on UFOs," Saturday Review,

(5 September 1966), 45-50.

Leslie, Desmond and George Adamski. Flying Sauoera Have Landed,

London: Werner Laurie, 1953.

. Flying Sauoera Have Landed, New York: British Book Centre, 1953,

Lorenzen, Coral. The Great Flying Saucer Hoax: the UFO Faota and Their
Interpretation, New York: Williajn-Frederick Press, 1962. Paper-
back edition titleH: Flying Sauoera: the Startlina Ehndenae
of the Invaaiov From Outer Space, New York: New American
Library, 1966.

McDonald, James. "Are UFOs Extraterrestrial Surveillance Craft?" talk

given before the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Los Angeles, (26 March 1968).

Menzel, Donald H. Flying Sauoera, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1953.

. "Do Flying Saucers Move in Straight Lines?" Flying Saucer Review,

10. 2, (1964), 3.

Michel, Aime. The Ti'uth About Flying Sauoera, New York : Criterion Books,
Inc., 1956.

. Myaterieux Objeta Celeatea, Paris: Arthaud, 1958. Englihh

edition: Flying Jancera and the Straight-line Mystery,
New York: S. G. Phillips Co., 1958.

Ruppelt, Edward J. The Report on Unidentified Flying Obj'ecta, New York:

Doubleday and Co., 1956.

Scully, Frank. Behind the Flying Sauoera, New York: Holt, 1950.

Stanton, L. Jerome. Flying Sauotra — Hoax or Reality? New York: Belmont

Books, 1966.

Vallee, Jacques and Janine. Challenge to Science — The UFO Enigma,

Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1966.

Wilkins, Harold L. Flying Sauoera on the Attack, New York: Citadel Press,
1954.

920
 Chapter 3
Official UFO Study Programs in Foreign Countries
Harriet Hunter

Over the years since 1947, there have been many UFO reports
originating in countries other than the United States. In fact, although
America dates modern interest in the subject from the summer of 1947,
there were 997 UFO reports that reached the Swedish government fron
private citizens in that country during 194(). Paralleling the develop-
ments in America, there has been some open official interest on the
part of governments of other countries, as well as amateur organizations
devoted to the study of UFOs, and popular books published in other
countries and in other languages than English.
We made efforts to learn about the activities conducted officially
on the UFO subject by other governments, strictly from the viewpoint
of determinini', whether scientists in those countries had a program of
UFO study from a scientific point of view or whether they were recom-
mending to their governments that UFOs be studied for their scientific
interest.
There is always the possibility that other governments uxc carrying
on study programs that are classified. No effort was mad^ tc learn
anything that was not freely and openly available.
Canada
Dr. Craig visited Dr. Peter M. Millman in Jtcawa or? 17. ur.r' if68,
Dr. Millman's major responsibility is as HevJ of upper AtKwsphtte
Research of the National Research Council of t.K-^ia, but !is ;<; o «anji^ej
the study of UFOs in Canada. Until the spring of 1968, tha stui'v of
UFO reports had been handled by the Department of Na* xonal ; iVn.v Ui
Canada; it was transferred then to the National Research Ccuwil- usv
few field investigations are carried out; emphasis is mc. ly ;-»r ; c
maintenance of a central file of the reports that reach the ^o vf r<M'.
from the public.
According to Dr. Millman, the Defence Research Board of the Dtp t;
ment of National Defence in Canada formed a committee in April 19S2

921
giving it the name Project SeconJ Storey. It reviewed the situation with
respect to UFO reports to determine whether the govemmont should
undertake large-scale investigations of the reports. Dr. Millman, at
that time with the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory, was chairman of
the committee, which held regular meetings over a period of a year.
During this period, the Committee developed interview techniques and
filing procedures for sighting reports. It recommended that the situation
did not warrant a large-scale official investigation of unidentified aerial
phenomena.
Project Second Storey became inactive after 1953. Sighting report
files were maintained thereafter by the Department of National Defence.
Particularly puzzling events were investigated when it appeared that
data results of scientific value might be found. As of 1968, the file
(called the Non-Meteoritic Sighting File) is maintained in the Upper
Atmosphere Research Section of the Radio and Electrical Engineering
Division of the National Research Council in Ottawa. The file is open
to public inspection, but witness names are held in confidence, unless
they have given permission for their release. In 1967 there were 57
reports and 37 in the first five months of 1968,
Dr. Millman has studied the files covering reports over a period
of 20 years, concentrating his attention on the hard core of unexplained
cases. He fa\ors continuing compilation of reports on an international
basis using uniform reporting forms in all countries.
Project Magnet, established in December 1950 was headed by Mr. WiIbert
B. Smith of the Telecommunications Division of the Canadian Department
of Transport who was officially authorized by the Deputy Minister of
Transport for Air Services to make as detailed a study of the UFO phenomena
as could be accompli she-1 within the framework of existing Canadian
establishments. The report issued by Mr. Smith did not represent the
official opinion of the Department of Transport or the Second Storey
Committee, and in this respect is not c t of the official study of
UFOs in Canada.
England
fhe UFO problem is handled in England by a division of the Ministry
of Defence in London. Colorado project coordinator, Robert Low met with its

1)22
director on a visit to London in August 1967. Sighting reports
from the public are routed to the Ministry of Defence whose central
switchboard operators direct them to this office. The Royal Air Force
assigns one man to work with this office on UFO matters. In a letter to
this project dated 9 June 1967, it was said " our investigations
of reported UIO sijihtings are of a limited nature and are conducted on
a low priority basis. Moreover, the bulk of recent sinhtings have been
established as either earth satellite vehicles, space debris in orbit
or manifestations of meteorological or other natural phenomena."
Sweden
Official responsibility in Sweden for handling UFO matters has been
assigned to the Research Institute of National Defence, Avdelning 2,
Stockholm 80. Dr. Tage 0. Eriksson is in charge of this activity. He
was visited by Low during the summer of 1967, and the Colorado project
has had additional correspondence with him.
Dr. Eriksson receives sighting reports and maintains a file of them.
He hzs the responsibility of deciding whether a report warrants investi-
gation. He told Low that almost all reports up to 1963 were investigated
and were found to be caused by natural or man-made phenomena. Since
then reports are not being routinely investigated.
Asked about published reports that the Swedish Air Force had
investigated a case in which an UFO allegedly crashed in Spitzbergen in
1955, Dr. Eriksson replied: "1 can assure you that this is not the
case. Neither the Air Force nor the Research Institute of National
Defence has at any time taken part in an investigation of a crashed UFO
in Spitzbergen or elsewhere."
Soviet Union
News stories appeared in the American newspapers in early December 1967
stating that the U. S. S. R. was esrablishi .g a governmental project to
study UFOs {New York Timee 10 December 1967).
According to these reports, the study was already under way under
the direction of Prof. Feliks Zigel of the Moscow Aviation Institute and
a retired Major General, Porfiry A. Stolyarov, of the Soviet Air Force.

923
Condon wrote to Zijjel to explore the possibility of cooperation between
the reported Soviet and Colorado projects. Condon's letter was trans-
mitted to Prof. Zigel as an enclosure with a letter from Dr. Frederick
Seitz, President of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, to Academiciar
M. V. Keldysh, President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences for subsequent
transmittal to Zigel. The letter was mailed on 16 January 1958; as of
31 October 1968, no answer had been received. One attempt was made to
stimulate a reply be discussing the matter with a Soviet member of the
staff of the Outer Space Affairs Group at United Nations headquarters.
He said he would write informally to a member of the Russian space
research team to find out what is being done. Nothing further has been
heard from this source. The U. N. official was of the opinion that
no UFO study was beinj; conducted in the Soviet Union.
Low met with Mr. U. Bogachev, First Secretary of the Information
Department of the Soviet limbassy in Washington to express additional
interest in cooperation in the study of UFOs and was courteously
received; no further contacts were initiated in view of the lack of
a reply from Zigel.
Fravda for 29 February 1968 carried an article on UFOs signed by
E. Mustel, corresponding member of the A. N. U. S. S. R., D. Marynov,
president of the Ail-Union Astronomical und Cieodetic Society, and V.
Leshkovtsev, Secretary of the National Committee of Soviet Physicists.
The article ecphafizcs that study of American sightings in the past has
provided natural explanations foi most of them.
It concludes with these statements:
No one has in his possession any new facts that
would substantiate the reality of "flying saucers."
They are not seen by astronomers who attentively
study the skies day and night. They ire not encoun-
tered by scientists who study the state and conditions
of earth's atmosphere. They have not been observed
by the Air Defense Service of the country. This
therefore means that there are no grounds for reviving
the nonsensical long-buried rumors about secret trips
to our planet by Martians or Vennsi ans ....

924
 Because of the high incidence of reports on
"unidentified flying objects" on the pages of our
press and in television broadcasts, the "flying
saucer" question was discussed at th«» U. S. S. R.
Academy of Sciences. The Bureau of the Department
of General and Applied Physics of the Academy
heard a report by Academician I,. A. Artsimovich at
a recent meeting about current UFO propaganda. It
was characterized as "anti-scientific" and Artsimovich
noted that "these fantasies do not have a scientific
basis at all; the observed objects are of a well-
known nature."
Denmark
The project had no direct contact with the authorities in Denmark,
but in response to an inquiry. Prof. Donald H. Menzel of Harvard received
a letter dated 25 April 1968 from Captain K. G. Konradsen, writing for
the Minister of Defense which says:
Some years ago, the public showed considerable
interest in unidentified flying objects, and reports
on sightings which were presented either to the police
or to military authorities were at that time thoroughly
examined by the Danish Defence Research Board. The
findings were, most reports being incomplete, that
further investigation generally was impossible. In
those cases, in which it was possible to investigate
and reconstruct the observations, they turned out to
be sightings of aircraft or of atmospheric or astronomic
phenomena. In several case;, the reports were intention-
ally false.
Today, Danish civilian and military authorities
do not consider unidentified flying objects of any
special significance. No effort is made officially
to inform the public of possible reported sighting«-,.
Of course, the newspapers from time to time bring news

925
g mm

of "mysterious" and "supernatural" occurrences in

the air, but special circumstances are necessary to
£ bring about an official investigation . . .
Other Nations
I The cooperation of the Department of State was enlisted to seek
* information about UFO programs of the governments of other nations.
On 11 April 1968 the following airgram was sent to various American
embassies over the signature of Secretary of State Dean Rusk:
TTie University of Colorado, acting under
contract to the U. S. Air Force, is desirous of
being informed if host country Governments, or
Universities, or other organizations acting as
contractors thereto, have, or are conducting, any
studies on UFCs. The University of Colorado is not
interested in studies made by UFO hobby clubs or
UFO buffs. If serious study has or is being given
to this subject, the Department would appreciate
being advised by May 15 if mission knows of the
name of the agency conducting the work, and whether
it could be described as a substantial or only a
modest effort.
Replies infomicil us that in Australia the Director of Air Force
Intelligence maintains sighting files and is responsible for investi-
gations should they be deemed necessary. In New Zealand there is an
informal arrangement between the Air Force Meteorological Service and
the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to collect reports
for six months and then decide on the next step.
In Greece a report file is maintained by the National Meteor Service
of the Greek Ministry of National Defense.
Countries in which it is known that no governmental activity
concerned with UFOs is being carried on are: Argentina, Austria,
Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and
Venezuela.

926
 The project is indebted to Dr. Donald M. Menzel for much of the
information presented in this chapter regarding official activity --
or in most cases, inactivity -- in foreign countries.
United Nations
Since UFO reports are received from observers in all parts of
the world, it has been suggested that UFO studies might be undertaken
by the United Nations. Such suggestions have come from, among others.
Prof. James E. McDonald of the University of Arizona, who has discussed
the matter with the working staff of the U. N. Outer Space Affairs
Group.
Subsequent reports in the press that the U. N. was taking up the
matter of UFOs led to the issuance of a statement dated 29 June 1967
by C. V. Narashimhan, Chef de Cabinet. It follows:
It is not correct that the Secretary-General re-
quested Dr. McDonald to come to New York City to confer
with him. Dr. McDonald wrote to the Secretary-General
requesting an interview and the Secretary-General agreed
to see him on 7 June. Unfortunately, on that day the
Secretary-General was preoccupied with meetings of
the Security Council and Dr. McDonald only saw the Chief
of the Outer Space Affairs Group and his colleagues. It
is also not correct to say that the Secretary-General
personally believes in the existence of UFOs. I hope
this makes the position clear.
Replying to another inquiry on 5 July 1967, Marvin Robinson, scientific
secretary of the Outer Space Affairs Group, declared that "the United
Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space has never discussed
the subject of unidentified flying objects nor requested any study or
report on this subject."
Since confusion about possible United Nations interest in the UFO
question continued, Condon wrote on 6 March 1968 to Peter S. Thacher,
counsellor on Disarmament and Outer Space of the U. S. Mission to the U. N.,
and later visited him in New York. The confusion seems to have arisen
from the f.tct that there are two different I). N. entities: the Committee

927
ti*.-«J»'^^-'

on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and a subsidiary body called the Outer
Space Affairs Group. It was the latter body with which McDonald met.
In a letter dated 18 March 1968, Thacher writes:
As to Dr. James McDonald's presentation, it is
completely correct that he did not make any presentation
at any time to the UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space. The committee consists of 28 representatives
of states members of the General Assembly and is the
outgrowth of a committee which was originally created
*.n 1959. Having been thoroughly involved in the work
of the committee since its origin, I can assure you
that at no time has any representative on the committee
suggested serious consideration of UFOs, nor to my
knowledge has there been any corridor s-ggestion along
these lines of the sort that might take place before
any formal proposals were made ....
From informal conversation with members of the
Outer Space Affairs Group I understand that Professor
McDonald sought to convey a statement on the subject
of UFOs to the Secretary-General and was referred to
this group .... The letter from Professor McDonald
was not given any circulation and would not have come
to any attention outside of the secretariat if it
had not been through your letter and my subsequent
inquiry. Therefore, Professor McDonald can correctly
say that he has submitted a statement to the Outet
Space Affairs Group, but this action is of itself
not very meaningful ....
Thus, from the available evidence it would appear that there is
no active official interest in UFOs in the United Nations.

928
 Section VI
The Scientific Context

The contributions in this section are by specialists who are

eminent in their respective disciplines. They endeavor to supply as
completely as possible the background of scientific knowledge in
their fields as it is judged to be relevant to the study and under-
standing of UFO phenomena.

929
*'' ^'•"•A'VT-r-r'V^if-..' -y.-flft.

Chapter 1

Perceptual Problems

if Michael Wertheimer

Perception plays a role in the report of any unidentified

flying object. Someone perceives -- i. e., sees, hears, feels,
etc. -- something, and it is his conclusion concerning what it
was that he perceived that results in an UFO report.
This chapter is devoted to some well known principles of per-
ception, with special reference to how they apply to the processes
that result in UFO reports. Basic accounts of perception and fur-
ther details on the matters considered here can be found in such
standard texts as Bartley (1958), von Fieandt (1966), Dember (1960),
Beardslee and Wertheimer (1958), Gibson (1950), Forgus (1966), and
Boring (1942). Lively, brief introductions to general problems of
perception have been written by Hochberg (1964) and Leibowitz (1965).
Our discussion in this chapter is organized around the physical,
physiological, psychological, and social sequence of events that
eventuates in UFO reports. This sequence of events usually begins
uith some actual distal physical event (an energy change or source
some distance away from the observer), resulting in the transmission
of energy to the observer's sense organs. The energy that arrives
at the observer's sense organ, the proximal stimulus, is encoded
into neural events, producing sensations which are combined into
percepts and finally into cognition. By this process, the observer
becomes aware that there are some particular phenomena having parti-
cular characteristics taking place in some location at some particular
distance and direction from the observer.

930
 A report eventuates from this sequence only if the observer's
cognition is such as to produce in him the conviction that what he
has experienced should indeed be reported.
Since most of the observations reported in connection with UFO
phenomena are visual, we .»hall consider each of the foregoing steps
in terms, primarily, of the processes of visual perception.

1. The Distal Event

An actual, physical event usually precedes the report of an UFO.
Chapter 2 of Section VI discusses in detail some of the distal events
that could give rise to UFO reports. In section 4 below, reports
that arise despite the absence of any stimulus exterior to the ob-
server are considered. For the purpose of the present discussion,
however, we need emphasize only the fact that the discal events
that give rise to UFO reports always involve the transmission of
some form of energy. As we have pointed out earlier, that energy
is usually la the visible spectrum.

2. Transmission Processes
The energy is transiritted from the distal source and arrives
at a sense organ, where it produces a proximal stimulus in the form
of an energy change to which th< sense organ is attuned. But the
energy arriving at the sense organ is not an exact copy of the
energy that left the distal source. It is attenuated and distorted,
and often is an incomplete version of the orginal (Brunswik, 1956).
If, like most energy sources, the transmitted or reflected light obeys
the inverse square law, the energy arriving at the sense organ is far
weaker than at the source. Further, the characteristics of the medium
through which the energy is transmitted distort and disrupt the energy.
For example, mist, ground fog, smoke, rain, snow, fog, dust, tempera-
ture inversions and discontinuities, and other atmospheric phenomena

931
' . ffi»,-?iMpi)f? *.--.'■

can cause gross attenuation. They can also distort the energy by
selectively filtering out or modifying certain components.
\ Turbulence in the air and peciliar temperature inhomogene!ties
can produce major distortions in the transmitted energy before it
becomes a proximal stimulus (Minnaert, 1954). Intensity, "shape,"
j color, direction, and other attributes can all be grossly altered.
Atmospheric turbulence phenomena can, for example, cause distant
mountains seen across a heated desert to shimmei and to change their
shape eerily in an amoeba-like fashion. Other well known kinds of
mirages, 'Jiscu^sed in detail in Section VT, Chapter 4, are superior
and inferior mirages resulting from shan» temperature inhomogeneities
in the air.
Other modifications of transmitted energy occur when the energy
passes through glass, plastic, the exhaust of a jet, over a heated
surface, etc. before reaching the observer.
Frequently the transmitted energy is so modified by the charac-
teristics of the medium through which it hat been transmitted xhat
the proximal stimulus is far from an exact replica of the energy
that Ictt the distal energy source.

5 The Proximal Stimulus

Aside from the foregoing phenomena of attenuation and distor-
tion, the proximal stimulus itself may be quite impoverished. It
may be difficult to tell, from the proximal stimulus alone, what the
characteristics of the distal object actually are (Brunswik, 1956).
Ambiguity occurs, for example, in size and distance estimation. A
nearby, small object will cast the same image on the retina as will
a larger, more distant one. UFOs are frequently observed under con-
ditions providing no frame of reference from which distance and size
may be inferred. Without such a clear frame of reference, judgment
of size and distance is extremely difficult or impossible. Thus, an

932
unknown, vaguely defined object in the undiffercntiated sky can appear
to be of any size or at any distance, depending on the inferences made
by the observer. If he assumes the object is the size of an automobile,
he will infer its distance in terms of that size. But if he assumes
that it is the size of a teacup, he will infer that it is much closer
to him. Even if the object is within a few yards of the observer,
distance and size judgments can be grossly inaccurate for lack of a
frame of reference, because the retinal image alone does not typically
fand especially in tlie case of UFOs) supply enough information to the
observer to permit determining whether it has been cast by a huge,
very distant object, by a medium-sized one at a moderate distance, or
a small one close by.
A typical example of this ambiguity is found in the reports of
witnesses to the re-entry of fragments of the Soviet satellite, Zond-4,
on 3 March 1968 at about 9:45 p.m. EST. Three witnesses reported
seeing a single object traveling at "tremendous speech" at an altitude
of "not more than 2,000 to 5,000 feet." The witness quoted is the
chief executive of a large U. S. city. Another group of witnesses
to the same event reported that "it was at about tree-top level and
was seen very, very clearly and was just a few y.rds away." They
estimated that it was 175-200 ft. long. A private pilot saw more than
one object moving at "very high speed" and estimated the altitude at
30,000 ft. An airline pilot and his crew reported the objects as
"heading in a NNE direction at h'gh rate of speed & above 60,000 feet
altitude." The observers were actually looking at several pieces of
satellite debris entering the atmosphere at an altitude of about 100
mi. and at a speed of about 18,000 mph (Sullivan, 1968).
Estimates of speed are just as ambiguous as estimates of size and
distance, as the foregoing demonstrates. The retinal image, and the
successive changes in it, can be the same for a small, near object
moving slowly as for a xarpe, distant object moving rapidly. Apparent

933
speed depends upon relative displacement within a framework, rather
than upon absolute displacement across the retina (Brown, 1*)S1).
The characteristics of motion are also inherently ambiguous,
especially if the moving object is unfamiliar. A proximal stimulus
that is actually rising could be produced by an object rising and
receding from the observer or one rising and approaching him. Its
actual path could be perfectly horizontal, if it is above eye level
and is approaching the observer. It could even be an ohject whose
actual path is descending if the path is one that will eventually
pass over the observer's head. Still other distal stimulus move-
ments could produce the same proximal stimulus.
i.langes in the size of the proximal stimulus are also ambiguous.
They could be due to approach or recession of the object, or to changes
in its size while remaining stationary. An object whose proximal
stimulus is gradually growing can actually be receding from the observer,
if the retinal image is growing faster than it would shrink because
of recession alone.
Nor does the shape of the proximal stimulus unequivocally repre-
sent the shape of the distal object. Many different distal objects
could cast the same shaped retinal image simply because at a given
orientation they present the same cross-section. Conversely, except
in the case of a sphere, a given distal object can produce many
different shapes of proximal stimulation. Consider a flat disk. In
different orientations to the observer, it could look like a vertical
line, a horizontal line, a slanted line, a cigar-shaped object in
various positions, a circie, or many forms of ellipses.

4. Neural Hncoding: Sensation

It is clear from the preceding that what is physically available
to the observer, the proximal stimulus, is by no means an exact,
information-filled, unambiguous replica of the originating event, the

934
distal energy source. The distortions we have considered so far are
purely physical; precise instruments would register them in a way that
is comparable to the way in which human sense organs register them.
With our discussion of sensation, we enter the skin of the observer,
and must consider physiological and psychological events that occur
inside him.
When the proximal stimulus reaches the cells of a receptor that
is sensitive to the energy contained in the stimulus, the cells trans-
form the light, sound, heat, etc. into impulses carried along nerve
fibers. The impulses travel from cell to cell into the center of the
brain, the thalamus, and thence to the outer layer of the brain, the
cerebral cortex. A sensation depends upon the messages arriving at
higher sensory center in the brain in combination with other events
simultaneously occurring in these centers.
What actually goes on in the sensory areas of the cortex depends
on many things. Thus whether a dim light is actually seen is a function
of how dark-adapted or light-adatped the eye is. If one comes into
a dark movie theater from a bright, sunlit street, at first he can
barely, if at all, make out the seats and the other people, but after
some time in the dark, things that were previously invisible to him
become visible. Conversely, if the eye has been in the dark tor some
time a moderately intense light will appear so bright as to be blind-
ing, and it may be impossible to tell what the light source is, even
though it would be readily recognizable to the light-adapted eye.
Clearly the sensation produced by a particular proximal visual stimu-
lus varies greatly with the state of adaptation of the eye.
Second, the observer's state of alertness can affect how and even
whether he will sense a given stimulus. If he is drowsy, fatigued
tired, intoxicated, dizzy, ill, or drugged, he will be a less sensitive,
less accurate, more error-prone instrument for detecting stimuli.
Spontaneous discharges in the sensory centers of the brain may be

935
interpreted by hin as distal events, even though there may be no
corresponding proximal stimulus. In addition to these physical condi-
tions, states of extreme tension or anxiety can also produce not only
reduced alertness but an enhanced tendency to mijinterpret or distort
sensations.
Third, concomitant sensory events can modify sensations. A loud
noise, absorption in a book, concentration on a TV show, etc. can
make one less likely to notice something else. In fact, one stimulus
may actually inhibit the neural events produced by another. In a now-
classic experiment, investigators recorded the bursts of neural activ-
ity in the auditory nerve of a cat whose ear was stimulated by clicks;
when a caged rat was placed before the cat, impulses in the auditory
nerve stopped, even though the clicks still continued at the same rate
and intensity (Hernandez-Peon, 1958).
Fourth, various sensory anomalies can modify sensation.
A sizable proportion of the population is color blind to some
degree; many persons are nearsighted, or farsighted, resulting in
fuzzy contours, while astigmatism results in various shape aberrations.
Then there are the phosphenes, or entoptic phenomena: visual sensa-
tions produced by pressure on the eyeball, or from such ether conditions
us spontaneous neural discharges within the eye. One can obtain
brilliant, brightly-hued floating shapes intentionally by cosing one's
eyes and applying moderate continuous pressure to the eyelids with
one's fingers - fascinating swirling abstract designs will result,
with ever-changing brilliant colors.
Fifth, there are several kinds of afterimages, or images that
persist after the stimulus originally producing them has ceased. In
a positive afterimage the sensations are the same as those in the
inducing stimulus, while in a negative afterimage they are reversed.
If. in darkness, a bright light is flashed in the eye the afterimage
of the Mght can be seen floating eerily about, moving as the observer's

936 |
*
eyes move, for as long as a minute or more. The image can hover, dart
here and there, and change apparent size, depending upon where one
happens to cast it. The color typically changes as the image gradually
fade«. The color can range through the whole spectrum, and typically
alternates between the color of the original light and its complement.
Negative afterimages are more common than positive ones, and are
produced by staring for a time at a particular place in the visual
field. The characteristics of the negative afterimage ar^ opposite
to those of the inducing stimulus. Tnus where the original stimulus
was whi:e, the afterimage is black; where it was black it. the stimulus
the image is white; where the stimulus was red the image is green;
where the stimulus was blue the image is orange-yellow; and so on.
Negative afterimages fluctuate like positive ones, fading in and out.
The longer the inducing stimulus was stared at and the greater the
contrast in the inducing stimulus, the longer the afterimage persists.
The apparent size of afterimages, both positive and negative, depends
upon the distance to the surface upon which they are projected; the
farther away the surface, the larger the image appears to be.

S. Perception
Perception is the process of identifying the distal object. The
observer interprets the neural inputs as due to some object, assigning
it particular characteristics, such as distance, direction, shape,
color, etc. The amount of interpretation that the observer must employ
to arrive at the final percept depends in part upon the clerity, the lack
of ambiguity of the input. Thus the letters on this printed page
are reasonably clear and unambiguous; there is an ample frame of refer-
ence, and the distal stimulus is clearly structured: the observer can
obtain a fairly accurate percept of what the distal stimuli actually
are. But if the perceptual framework is impoverished, as is true of
most conditions under which UFOs are reported, then the perceiver must
engage in much more ...iterpretation before he arrives at a percept.

937
Äi*j# ^6K»'*-'*5-v> ■.

Typically, perception results in a clear, categorical conclusion

about characteristics of perceived objects, even if the input is logi-
cally, geoaetrically or optically insufficient to specify these
characteristics unambiguously. For objects in the sky, again, especially
unfamiliar objects, shape, size, distance, direction, speed are all
basically indeterminate in the proximal stimulus, and yet the processes
of perception work in such a way as to give each a particular value
in any given case.
Apparent shape depends upon the orientation of the object to the
observer. Size, distance and speed depend upon each other in a com-
plex way: an observer's automatic assumptions concerning one of them
determine to a large extent how he will perceive the others. Apparent
direction of motion depends upon a reference frame; thus clouds, for
example, will typicallly appear to be moving at right angles to a
reference line such as the roof line of a house or the part ot a
window frame one concentrates on while looking through the window at
the moving clouds.
Apparent motion can be induced in an actually stationary object
in a number of ways. The moon may appear to be moving while the clouds
partly covering it seem to stay stationary. The landscape may seem to
move in a direction opposite to that to which the eye was previously
exposed, as when one sits in a train which has just stopped, or looks
at the hillside next to a waterfall after staring at the waterfall a
while. Normally a single object in a completely unstructured field
will soon appear to move, even though it is actually stationary. This
phenomenon, autokinesis, is frequently studied by experimental psychol-
ogists who ask subjects to report on the appearance of a pinpoint of
light in a completely dark room. A light going out typically seems to
shrink as it does so. A light that goes on as another is going off
can, under proper time and space conditions, be made to look as though
the light that went off had moved to the place where the light went on.

938
 The angular elevation, or apparent location above the horizon, of
objects is generally not estimated very accurately at all. The differ-
ence from 0° or from 90° of angles near the horizon or near the zenith
tends to be substantially overestimate«'. Anything that is more than
45° or even 30° above the horizon is often reported as overhead.
Colors are sometimes perceived by interpretation only. The dark-
adapted eye is insensitive to color, yet the grass still is perceived
as green, a banana as yellow. There are also phenomena of color
contrast or color induction: a rmall piece of gray paper on a strong
green background takes on a reddish tinge; on a strong blue background
it will take on a yellowish tinge. The same piece of gray paper looks
appreciably brighter on a black background than on a white one.
In general, for just about all perceivable characteristics, per-
ception typically works in such a way that the percept, as the perceiver
is aware of it, is considerably clearer, less ambiguous, and less vague
than the actual physical proximal stimulus warrants.

6. Cognition
One's judgment, conviction or belief about the actual identity
and meaning of something, that is, one's cognition of it, are very
much affected by mental set, expectation and suggestion. Every ob-
server is ready to perceive reality in a certain way. The observer's
sets and expectations arise from his experiences, opinions, and beliefs,
including those derived from suggestion. The observer who looks for
faces in cloud patterns or leaf patterns can find them easily. Setting
oneself to see the letter "e" on this page makes the e's more salient,
more noticeable. You probably were unaware just now of the pressure
of the shoe on your left foot until it was mentioned in this sentence.
What one notices, pays attention to, responds to, and how one inter-
prets it, what it means to one, are deeply affected by one's attitudes,
past experiences, opinion», and beliefs (Bruner, 1947; Dember, 1960; etc.)

939
 ■ v» ■ »n

Hie influence on cognition of all these internal factors is especially

strong in impoverished stimulus situations such as those under which
UFO reports typically are generated. The observer's personality, his
rigidity, absolutism, skill in scientific thinking, interest and belief
in UFOs, readiness and ability to consider alternative interpretations
of what is perceived, etc. substantially affect the observer's con-
clusions, typically without his being aware of this influence.

7. The Report
Whether the observer makes a report, and, if so, to whom and in
what form, varies with the individual and with the situation. A
frightened observer, or one who is oriented toward authority, is more
likely to make a report than one who is unconcerned, or who does
not know to whom to make a formal report. Once the observer has
decided to make a report, the way in which he is questioned can sub-
stantially affect its content. The amount of detail and even the
details themselves, can be much affected by the manner and form of
questioning by the recipient of the report. Open questions (e. R.,
"Tell me what you saw.") result in less distorted answers then do
closed questions • (c. g., "Did you see it for longer or shorter than ten
seconds," or, "You don't mean to tell me that it actually hovered,
do you?"); interviewer bias can greatly influence the respondent's
behavior (Rosenthal, 1966). Testimony is known to be quite unreliable
especially under the pressure of leading, direct questions, a hyper-
critical or incredulous interrogator, or one who insists upon details
about which the witness' memory is fuzzy. Memory of the percept like
cognition, is subject to the distorting effects of motivation, personality,
set, suggestion, etc.

JL An Hvaluation
UFO reports are the product of a long chain of events, from distal
stimulus through to the final reporting; at every link in this chain

■
940

1
there are sources of distortion. Details of specific reports, arc, by
the very nature of the processes of human sensation, perception,
cognition and reporting, likely to be untrustworthy. Urns any report,
even those of observers generally regarded as credible, must he viewed
cautiously. No report is an entirely objective, unbiased, and complete
account of an objective distal event. Every UFO report contains the
human element; to an unknown but substantial extent it is subject to
the distorting effects of energy transmission through an imperfect
medium, of the lack of perfect correlation between distal object and
proximal stimulus, and of the ambiguities, interpretations, and subjectivity
of sensation, perception and cognition.

941
yy"*"-».1!» -«M ■

References

Bartley, S.H. Prinoiplea of Perception. New York: Harper, 1S58.

Beardslee, D. and M. Nertheimer, (Eds.)- Readings in Peraeption.
Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958.
Boring, E.G. Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental
Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1942.
Brown, J.F. "The visual perception ot velocity", Psyahol. Forsch,
14 (1931), pp. 199-232.
Bruner, J.S. and C.C. Goodman. "Value and need as organizing factors
in perception", J. Abnom. Soc. Psychol, 42 (1947), pp.33-44,
Brunswik, E. Perception and the Representative Design of Experiments.
Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press, 195b.
Derober, W.N. Th* Psijcholojy of Perception. New York: Holt, 1960.
von Fieandt, K. Th ' World of Perception. New York: Dorsey, 1966.
Forgus, R.H. Perception: The Basic Irocesf, in Cognitive Development.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 196'
Gibson, J J. T?ie Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin, 1950.
Hernandez-Peon, R., H. Scherrer, and M. Jouvet. "Modification of
electrical activity in cochlear nucleus during 'attention'
in unanesthetized cats". Science, 123 (1956), pp. 331-332.
Hochberg, J. Perception, tngl-«wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.
Leibowitz, H.H. Visual Perception. Nev York: Macmillan, 1965
Minnaert, M. TJxe Hature of Light arid Colour in ine Open Air. New York:
Dover, 1954.
Rosenthal, R. Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 156b.
Sullivan, Walter. "Rocket Re-entry Termed UFOV Uenver-Post-Nnw /ork
Times, 2 July 1968.

942
 r\n.
•« Cl»'
Dc;i^:2:iTcor.:^ 3ATA.RäD ''~ "
»«Tar.-» tffHItttom ml Ml», ft*«*» •> ^»rf »nj !nrf>it«j «...- '.«««ai» —»t ^ wrrg»J mfttn tft» o»»r>H r~T»« t» rtfltlf*)

UNCLASSIFIED
University of Colorado 2k. ««»M*

wGuUer, Colorado
> •«•»•• ••»».*

SClc-VTirlC STIDY OF UNlULNTIFlLJ rUlXG OuItCTS, Voluae II

Scigstific Fin«l

cdkars J« Condon
• *C.»OMT SATK »•. roTftk to- er »««K*
Jaruar>' 1909 JÜLL
M. C»»T«»C- OM •«•NT MC M. •m«IM*TeiP»MK»eNT NUMCBIIISI

F44C:>OTTC-00JS'

575C ,V '
•». OTMEN mimomr MOIS» (ANT •«*•» •t aar »• •••!#••«
01102?
AFOSR 69-0326111
•: SAfTa-a.T 9N «TATCMKMT
Th^i iocczeai has been «pprovad for public and sale: its distributtoa !s c^limitsd. The copyright nondao oo the
izsiäe cne of «ich of the HUM voluaes of fte zepott does not pcohiblt the callailtod distributloc. thsreof by teasco of the
pBHfctei ia coattac^ F44620-97-C~0035 by aad between the U. S. Govensect ud the copyright boldai. I i
U. >»eMtOM>M«MlklT*MV ACTIVITV

Air Fore» Office of Scientific Research (SRI )

TECH, OTHER 1400 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington. Virginia 22209

Tiüs,report contains the results of a scientific inquiry into the phenoaena of

Uniüentified.Z/Iying Objects. Tnis volune (Voltaie II of 3 volt»e&) contains:
(1) Case studies'During the Jrera of the Contract, (2) Photographic €»se Studies, and
Ci) itistorioaX'.Aspects of UFO Phenoaena.

DD .'^•„1473
SmürSiv CUBuhcaUMT