DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

42D AIR BASE WING (AETC) MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE ALABAMA

Major Becky M. Beers Commander, 42d Communications Squadron 170 WSelfridge Street Maxwell-Gunter AFB AL 36112-6610 Mr. Dustin J. Darcy Los Angeles, CA Dear Mr. Darcy

2 K nrT
2012

We have processed your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated September 20, 2012, for a thesis from 1971 written by Air Command and Staff College student Major Jerry D. Stroh. In your email you indicated that you would accept all releasable information. We processed your request under both the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. We reviewed 88 pages. All of the releasable information responsive to your request is enclosed; however all third party information was removed. There is no charge for processing this request since assessable fees are less than $25.00. Sincerely

CKY M. BEERS, Major, USAF Attachment Thesis (May 1971)

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE

RESEARCH STUDY
Air University Library Maxwell Air Force Base
A S-l

This study represents the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Air Command and Staff College, Air University, or the Department of the Air Force. This document is the property of the United States Government and is not to be reproduced in whole or in part without permission of the Commandant, Air Command and Staff College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE

THE UFO DEBATE IS STILL ALIVE 37 / '! _ Jerry D. Stroh,, Major, USAF FH

A RESEARCH STUDY SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY May 1971

AIR UNIVERSITY MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA

A Research Paper Submitted To the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration

ABSTRACT After wrestling with the UFO enigma for over twentyyears, the Air Force, unable to reach any definite conclusions, discontinued investigation. bate is still alive. But the UFO de-

This paper examines Air Force

involvement in the UFO question from 19^7 to 1969, events leading to current USAF position, and the need for reopening investigations. Although the UFO controversy

continues, the author concludes that there would be no value in further USAF participation unless dramatic new evidence is uncovered. Recommended action includes

scientific study of phenomena discovered in connection with UFO sightings and release of Air Force UFO findings to the public.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Objective Organization Limitations Assumptions Sources of Data II. PAST USAP POSITION ON UPOS Plying Discs Project Sign Project Grudge Grudge is Back Summary III. PROJECT BLUE BOOK The Blue Book is Opened The Washington Flap The Robertson Panel Blue Book Continues Summa ry IV. THE AIR FORCE ASKS FOR HELP. . . . The Ad Hoc Committee Congressional Hearing The Condon-University of Colorado Study Blue Book Closes Summary ....

111

Chapter V. THE GREAT DEBATE Troubles In Colorado The Crunch Comes The Symposium The Debate Summary VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Recommendations FOOTNOTES BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 50

61

68

lv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One of the most difficult and controversial problems confronting the United States Air Force (USAF) in recent years has been the Unidentified Flying Object (UFO). The

Air Foroe is responsible for national security, and in fulfilling this responsibility, it must control or monitor the airspace over the United States. It is logical, then,

that the Air Force was selected to study UFO sightings. In studying and analyzing UFO sightings, the Air Force has received considerable criticism from the civilian populous. Part of the criticism is based on the secrecy surrounding investigation and study of UFOs, and the Air Force reluctance to release information concerning the phenomena. The lack of factual Information distributed

to the public often resulted in wild speculation as to why the Air Force was withholding the facts. Another

criticism is based on the vacillation of the official Air Force position on the UFO question. In the past,

this position has moved along a spectrum which included 1

interplanetary spaceships and extraterrestrial origin at one extreme, to refusal to acknowledge the existence of UPOs at the other. During times of "non-existence", the

Air Force attempted to debunk all UFO sittings and to discredit all observers. In trying to explain all UFO

sightings, some explanations were so implausible that the Air Force lost much credibility and reduced its image in the public eye. Sightings of strange, mysterious objects in the sky date back to Biblical times and have continued to the present. As man's knowledge increased, and scientific

methods were applied, many of these objects were identified. Meteors, stars, atmospheric plasma, and ball light-

ning have all been sources of concern for the viewer, but were later identified as natural phenomena. Many other

sightings have been explained as mlsidentiflcation of man-made objects such as aircraft, space vehicles, or balloons, sighted under unusual lighting conditions. Even with the amazing advances made by science and the increasing ability to identify UFOs, a residual of sightings has remained unexplained. This residual of unexplained aerial phenomena has been the subject of a great deal of controversy among noted scientists and Is the subject to be treated in this research study.

Objective To gain Insight Into the debate, this study will analyze USAP participation In the study of UFOs. The

past must be considered If we are to understand the present USAF position concerning UFOs. The objective

of this research study is to look at the past USAF position, understand the present USAF position, and evaluate the validity of the current USAF policy concerning UFOs. There is some reason to believe that USAF policy on the UFO issue should be reexamined, in view of the circumstances which led to the current USAF position. Organization To analyze the USAF position, Chapter II will deal with early USAF studies, findings, and positions under Project Sign and Project Grudge. Project Blue Book will

be discussed and analyzed in Chapter III of this study. The Condon-University of Colorado Study Is of special significance because it led to the present USAF position on UFOs. This study will be discussed in Chapter IV.

Chapter V will reveal some of the internal and external problems encountered by the Colorado Study. Recommenda-

tions and conclusions suggested by evaluation of research documents will be included in Chapter VI.

Limitations Research conducted within the constraint of a given time frame must, necessarily, have certain limitations. The scope of this study will be limited to the past twenty-odd years that the USAP has participated in the study of UFOs. Emphasis will be placed on the more re-

cent past with particular emphasis on the present USAP position concerning UFOs and the arguments advanced by critics of this position. Assumptions To validate a research study of this nature, certain assumptions must be made. The first assumption is that

no "hard facts" or physical proof will be uncovered which would either prove or disprove the origin or existenoe of Unidentified Flying Objects. Such a discovery would Secondly, that

obviously negate the necessity for it.

the United States Air Force will not ohange its present position concerning Unidentified Flying Objects. If a

new study were initiated by the USAF, there would be no reason for conducting this study. Sources of Data The limited time available for conducting research, coupled with geographical restrictions Imposed on the researcher, will limit the sources of data used in this 4

study.

The research study will be limited to data avail-

able in the Air University Library and the U. S. Air Force Historical Archives, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, and other facilities in the Montgomery, Alabama, area. It

is anticipated that these sources will be sufficient to adequately document this research study.

CHAPTER II PAST USAF POSITION ON UFOS Flying Discs The United States Army Air Force became vitally inteiv ested In Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) on 2k June 1947. On this day, Kenneth Arnold, a Boise, Idaho, busi-

nessman, took off from Chehalls, Washington, in his private airplane for a flight to Yakima, Washington. While

enroute, he was Informed that a Marine C-46 was lost In the Mount Rainier area, and he decided to spend a short time searching for it. At approximately 1500 hours,

bright flashes of light off his left wing attracted his attention. Closer examination revealed 9 bright, disc-

shaped objects moving from north to south across the nose of his aircraft. He estimated that the objects were be-

tween 45 and 50 feet in length, and they were flying a reversed echelon formation. Arnold was an experienced

mountain pilot, intimately familiar with the Cascade Mountains. Upon landing, he sketched the objects* flight

path and estimated that they were 20 to 25 miles from his position when he sighted them. 6 By timing their flight

past known landmarks, he calculated their speed to be nearly 1700 miles per hour. Arnold described the flight

of these objeots as similar to a "saucer skipping across water". Members of the press then coined the phrase

"Plying Saucers", and this name has been widely used since that time.* The first sighting by a military pilot was recorded at 1515 hours on 28 June 19^7. An Army pilot flying an

F-51 near Lake Mead, Nevada, spotted five or six circular objects off his right wing. That same night, four Air

Force officers, two pilots and two Intelligence officers, spotted a bright light maneuvering in the sky near Mont2 gomery, Alabama. The week of ^ July 19^7 produced numerous sightings. The Portland, Oregon, area was particularly active with a large number of citizens reporting strange objects in the sky throughout the day. Policemen, harbor patrolmen,

housewives, and others reported objects whioh all looked essentially the same. Descriptions ranged from "chrome Performance

hubcaps" to "a new dime flipping around".

of the objects was described in terms of fantastio speed and the incredible ability to make sharp turns at ex3 tremely high speed. Similar objects were sighted near Muroc Field, California, on 8 July 19^7. At the time, Muroc, which

is now called Edwards Air Force Base, was the super secret testing facility for new Army and Navy aircraft.^ Project Sign Army Air Force officials began studying the reports of sightings Immediately. The Air Technical Intelligence

Center, which was part of the Air Materiel Command (AMC) at Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio, was given the task of evaluating reports to form an opinion concerning the "flying discs". By the end of July, tight security

measures were in effect and the "brass" in Washington wanted an answer. Apparently, the American public wanted an answer too. In July, the Wright Field Public Relations Officer was quoted by International News Service as saying, "So far, we haven't found anything to confirm that saucers exist. We don't think they are guided missiles. As

things are now, they appear to be either a phenomenon or a figment of somebody's imagination."^ Lieutenant General Nathan F. Twining, AMC Commander, wrote a letter to the Army Air Forces Commander on 23 September 19^7. The subject of this letter was "AMC The opinion ex-

Opinion Concerning 'Flying Discs'."

pressed by General Twining was that the phenomenon was something real, not visionary or fictitious; the objects 8

were about the size of a man-made aircraft and were shaped like a disc; the objects were metallic and made no sound; and the performance characteristics seemed to indicate that the objects were controlled manually, automatically, or remotely.? General Twining recommended

that a project be established to perform a detailed study of flying discs, and that pertinent data would be furnished to other military, government, and scientific agencies for their review, comments, and recommendations. On 30 December 19^7 General Twining1 s recommendations were instituted in response to a letter from Major General L. C. Craigie, Director of Research and Development Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Materiel. was given the code name "SIGN". stricted" and assigned a The project

It was classified "Re-

2A p r i o r i t y . ^

Project Sign was veiled in secrecy from its inception. Opinions varied widely among military officials; some felt that all sightings could be explained as natural phenomena or hoaxes. Others expressed their concern

over the new phenomena and tended toward a hypothesis that the flying discs, or UFOs, were foreign aircraft or interplanetary spaceships. Intelligence sources

finally ruled out foreign aircraft on the basis that the Russians lacked sufficient technology to produce

such an advanced vehicle. interplanetary spaceships.

The remaining hypothesis was After a year of study, ATIC

personnel prepared an Estimate of Situation in July 19^8. This correspondence was classified "Top Secret*1, purported to prove that UFOs were interplanetary spaceships, and was forwarded through channels to the Air Force Chief of Staff.10 When the Estimate of Situation reached General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Air Force Chief of Staff, he refused to accept it on the basis that it lacked positive proof. A

group of ATIC personnel went to Washington hoping to reinforce their position, but were unable to change General Vandenberg*s mind. According to Captain Edward J. Huppelt,

former head of Project Blue Book, the rejected report was declassified and destroyed except that: "A few copies,

one of which I saw, were kept as mementos of the golden days of UFOs."11 Project Sign personnel at ATIC continued their investigation, and on 15 October 19^8, the first radar sighting was reported. The crew of a World War II vin-

tage F-61, Black Widow fighter-Interceptor, detected an unidentified target on their radar equipment. The air-

craft was on a routine patrol over Japan and made six attempts to intercept the UFO. When the Black Widow got

within 12,000 feet of the object, it would accelerate to 10

approximately 1200 miles per hour and easily outdistance the F-61. The crew did get close enough, on one of the

passes, to make a visual sighting and described the object as being 20 to JO feet long and shaped like a rifle
12

bullet. Public interest in UFOs during the early phases was relatively small. Some hoaxes were perpetrated, such as On the basis of hoaxes and

the Maury Island Mystery.1-^

lack of credible information, the public assumed that anyone who saw a UFO was unbalanced, a prankster, a publicity seeker, or a liar. This attitude is graphically

pointed out in the Headers' Guide to Periodical Literature, May 19^-7-19^9. If one looks under Flying Saucers, lk Some of

it says, "See Illusions and hallucinations."

the people did not adopt this attitude or accept the lack of information so passively. As early as July 19^7

Louis E. Starr, VFW National Commander in Chief, wired Washington and demanded a full and immediate explanation. When he got no answer, he announced: "Too little is be-

ing told to the people of this country."1-' The general Air Force attitude toward UFOs changed after the Air Force Chief of Staff rejected the Estimate of Situation advanced by personnel of Project Sign. The

final report of Project Sign was prepared and classified "Secret" in February 19^9. The official name was

11

Technical Report TR-2274-IA of the Technical Intelligence Division, Air Materiel Command, Wright-Patters on AFB, Ohio. Appendices to the report Included discussions of

interplanetary spaceships and general extraterrestlal hypotheses. Despite these discussions, recommendations

of the Report suggested that future activity on the project should be reduced to a minimum level necessary to record and evaluate data on future reports. It fur-

ther recommended that if, and when, enough cases were solved to Indicate that no threat existed to national security, the special project status should be dropped. Finally, the Report encouraged reporting agencies to obtain more factual evidence on sightings. Examples given

were photographs, physical evidence, and more definite data concerning size and shape of the objects.1^ Project Grudge Project Sign was terminated on 11 February 19^9 when the name of the project was changed to "Grudge". the change in name came a change in personnel. With Apparently

the new name accurately described the attitude of the new personnel and the Air Force in general. the change as he was able to perceive it: But it doesn't take a great deal of study of the old UFO files to see that standard intelligence procedures were no longer being used by Project Grudge. Everything was being 12 Ruppelt describes

evaluated on the premise that UFOs couldn't exist. No matter what you see or hear, don't believe it.1? Air Force attempts to explain all sightings as natural phenomena and hoaxes met with a great deal of public resistance. Magazine articles began to appear; writers

were finding it profitable to explore the UFO phenomena. Since Project Grudge was classified "Secret", very little information was released to the public. More and more

people were seeing UFOs, and less and less information was being given to explain the sightings. The public

began to think that the Air Force was withholding information because of the grave importance of the subject, when in reality, it was mostly because of the lack of suitable explanations. It was decided that if the right author was selected and given sufficient information, he could assist the Air Force in changing public opinion concerning the existence of UFOs. At the same time, the Air Force image, which Mr. Sidney

was a little tarnished, could be improved.

Shalett, a writer for the Saturday Evening Post, was given Pentagon clearance to visit ATIC. This was a rare Fur-

privilege not accorded other writers at the time.

ther, Harry Haberer, an Air Force public relations man, was assigned to assist Mr. Shalett in the collection of information for his article. 13 All this was done in the

hope that when the facts were presented to the public, the Air Force position that UFOs didn't exist would be accepted by the public, and UFOs would fade from the
1 ft

limelight. Shalett began his two part article by indicating that most UFO reports could be explained as misidentification of natural phenomena or hoaxes. He cited examples

of top Air Force generals who were temporarily fooled by windshield reflections, starlight on clouds, and misidentificatlon of other aircraft seen under strange lighting
c o n d i t i o n s .
1

g e seemed to imply by these examples that

anyone who is anyone in the Air Force, does not believe in UFOs. Shalett made a good point by quoting Doctor

Irving Langmuir, distinguished scientist, Nobel Prize winner, and member of the Air Force Advisory Board, "If a man tells me that two and two equal fiveor that he has seen a flying saucerI don't feel I have to prove he is wrong. I feel the burden is on him to prove that

he is right."20 Toward the end of his article, Shalett said that the Air Force was interested in UFOs and gave instructions how to make reports more useful. He suggested taking

photographs, recording the exact time, and estimating the size, shape and speed of the object. He included

the address of the Air Technical Intelligence Division, Ik

but cautioned observers to obtain an affidavit from their clergyman, doctor, or banker. He ended the article by

saying, "If you've really seen something and can prove it you may scare the wits out of the United States Air Force, but it will be grateful to you."21 The Air Force followed Shalett*s article with a news release discrediting UFOs. Shalett*s article apparently

planted a seed of doubt in the public mind, and the news release only added to the already growing confusion, because UFO reports continued. Project Grudge was officially

terminated on 27 December 19^9 and only one report classified "Secret" was issued. This was Technical Report No. The project had

102-AC J+9/15-100, dated August 19^9. investigated

cases of which 77 per cent were ex-

plained as mlsidentification of natural phenomena or hoaxes. known". The remaining 23 per oent were considered "unThe report further stated that no evidence had

been discovered to imply that the objects were of foreign development; therefore, did not constitute any threat to national security. The report recommended that investi-

gation and study of UFOs be reduced in scope, and that current directives be revised to provide for submission of only those reports that clearly Indicated realistic 22 technical applications. Project Grudge was discontinued as a special project, 15

and investigations were handled as a part of regular intelligence activity. Sightings increased and books conPublic opinion was Curtis Fuller,

cerning UFOs began to appear in 1950. split.

Even scientists began taking sides.

in his article written for Flying Magazine in July 1950, quotes some of the more respected scientists of the time; Doctor Frank K. Edmondson, Director of Goethe Link Observatory, Indiana University, said, "I have never seen a flying saucer, but after you discount all these explainable reports, there is a residue left that I cannot explain.H
J

Other scientists violently disagreed, as indi-

cated by Doctor Harlow Shapely, Director of Harvard Observatory, "No evidence that flying saucers are other than natural neurotic phenomena has been received at oh. Harvard Observatory." Doctor James Arnold, Member of the Manhattan Project and a ohemlstry professor at the University of Chicago, H . . . there is no evidence. People can see a lot of thingssome real and some caused 2<S by the power of suggestion."
J

Perhaps public opinion

was best summed up by Doctor Erwin Angers, an emminent psychiatrist, who said, "Pilots who are trained observers, are not going to be fooled 26 very often. something to the stories." There may be

16

Grudge Is Back On 10 September 1951 * a student radar operator was giving a demonstration to VIPs when he picked up a target which was traveling too fast for the automatic feature of the radar to measure. New Jersey. This occurred at Port Monmouth,

About the same time, an Air Force T-33 re-

ported a dull, silver, disclike object near Point Pleasant, New Jersey. Radar sightings continued for two days. ATIC

received a telephone call from Major General C. P. Cabell, Director of Air Force Intelligence, wanting the particulars on this case. When he found that little effort was

being expended on UFO reports, General Cabell ordered Project Grudge reinstated.2? The new Project Grudge was

officially established on 27 October 1951 headed by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt. attitude began to change. At this point, Air Force Personnel of the project were

instructed to Investigate all UFO reports and identify those they could, but not to speculate on reports which they could not explain. These reports would be marked

"unknown" and studied in more detail at a later date. Arrangements were made for the cooperation of the Air Defense Command and civilian scientists who would assist Project Grudge personnel in the investigation of UFO
28

cases.

By Iferch 1952, Project Grudge became a separate

organization with the formal title of "Aerial Phenomena 17

Group".

"Grudge" no longer applied to the attitude of

the Air Poroe or the group, so the name was changed to Project Blue Book.2^ Summary The United States Air Force initially became interested in flying saucers in June 19^7. In a short five

years, the official Air Force position had changed almost full cycle. Officials in the very early days of UFOs be-

lieved that sightings represented solid objects that were intelligently controlled. An ATIC Estimate of Situation

favored the extraterrestial hypothesis that UFOs were interplanetary spaceships. With the rejection of this

hypothesis, due to lack of proof, the position changed abruptly to discredit all reports of UFOs as illusions, misidentiflcation of known objects, hallucinations, and hoaxes. The Air Force attempted to explain all UFO

sightings so it would not have any "unknowns" left on the books. The public was confused during this period and began doubting the credibility of the Air Force. Many people

felt that information was being withheld because of the great importance of discoveries made by the Air Force. Secrecy shrouded Air Force projects and led to wild public speculation concerning UFO reports. 18 The truth was

that no positive proof was available In any of the sightings to accept or reject a hypothesis concerning UFOs. With the reactivation of Project Grudge, the Air Force attitude toward UFOs changed. The name was changed

to Project Blue Book, and the methods of Investigation changed. Investigations were to be made honestly and The policy was to classify as "unknown'*

without bias.

all reports which could not be explained by the investigators as natural phenomena or hoaxes.

19

CHAPTER III PROJECT BLUE BOOK The Blue Book Is Opened The USAP Investigation of UFOs was renamed Project Blue Book in March 1952. The name was derived from

booklets used for recording answers on college examinations. It was felt that questions on college exams were Questions to be answered

often difficult and confusing.

by the Project were at least as difficult and confusing as those on college exams so the name was especially ap1

proprlate.

The name Blue Book was to remain with the

Project until Air Force investigations ceased in 1969. Blue Book was b o m in the year of the "Big Flap". The term "Big Flap" was used by Ruppelt to describe the problems encountered with the Increased number of UFO sightings reported to ATIC. reported in 1952. Over 1500 sightings were

UFO sightings seem to occur in cycles,

with the largest number of reports received in the years 1952, 1957 and 1966. thousand reports. in any given year. Each of these years had over a

Reports also vary from month to month Although attempts have been made to 20

correlate the number of reports with such events as press releases, the proximity of Mars to the Earth, and others,
?

no convincing association between events has been made. With an increase in the number of reports came an increase in public interest. Many newspaper and maga-

zine articles were written which undoubtedly had some effect on public interest. Many of the early articles

were so sensational, and appeared in magazines noted for their sensational appeal, that much of the public remained neutral or even negative toward UFOs. But when a respected

author, Robert Ginna, teamed up with a respected magazine, Life, the effect was entirely different. The dam started

to break when the April 7, 1952 issue of Life carried the story, "Have We Visitors From
Space?"^

Mr. Ginna pointed out that the U.S. public had wondered about flying saucers for four years, but talk of such things was met with fear or disbelief. He then said

that the Air Force had sharply amended its past policy and had made known to Life reporters that the Air Force maintained constant intelligence investigations of saucers and tried to identify them as soon as possible. Attempts

to improve data were being made by aircraft Interception, radar tracking, photographic means, and the Air Force was hoping to recover an unidentified object. He further

stated that all operational military units, scientists, 21

pilots, and weather observers were making reports to ATIC, and that citizens were invited to report sightings to the nearest Air Force Base. Mr. Ginna quoted an Air Force

spokesman as saying, "There is no reason as yet to believe that any of the aerial phenomena commonly described as flying saucers are caused by a foreign power or constitute a clear and present danger to the U. S. or to its u, citizens." If that portion of the article was not too welcome by ATIC and Air Force personnel, who were busy trying to keep the lid on, the remainder of the article was a bombshell. In one section entitled, "What they are not

and what they might be," Mr. Ginna started by saying that they were not psychological phenomena and said: Although the Air Force cheerily wrote off unexplained Incidents with this pat theory, the explanation does not hold up. There is no evidence, beyond textbook speculation, for such a supposition, and there is the direct evidence already cited against it. To doubt the observers in the foregoing cases is to doubt the ability of every human being able to know a hawk from a handsaw. He went on to say that they were not products of U. S. research because President Truman had publicly denied this possibility. Our own intelligence personnel had Ac-

admitted that they were not a Russian development.

cording to Gordon Dean of the Atomic Energy Commission, they were not distortion of the atmosphere resulting from 22

atomic activity.

Last, but not least, he said that they

were not all skyhook balloons.'' The last part of the article was probably the clincher as far as the public was concerned. In this part, Ginna

quoted Dr. Walther Riedel, Chief Designer of the Peenernunde Rocket Center for the Germans during World War II, and who in 1952, was working on a secret U.S. project. Dr. Riedel said, "I am completely convinced that they have an out-of-world-basis." Although Dr. Riedel had

never seen a saucer, he based his opinion on such things as skin temperatures, high acceleration rates, and performance of maneuvers that only a piloted craft can do, but that exceed the "G" tolerance and other physical limitations of the human body. Mr. Ginna also presented an

explanation of the disc shape by Dr. Maurice A. Blot, an aerodynamicist, mathematician, and physicist. Dr. Biot,

in his discussion, said that the disc shape would wobble and be unstable In the atmosphere, but would be the ideal shape for flight in space.^ President Truman's statement, to which Ginna referred, was made in response to a magazine article in May which") alleged that the U.S. was developing a new secret weapon in the shape of a saucer. The statement was made at the

Summer Whitehouse in Key West, Florida, through his press secretary. The press secretary said, "Gentlemen, the 23

32 President has asked me to tell you that he knows nothing of any flying saucers being developed by this or any other oountry. We know nothing to support these rumors." Im-

mediately there was a flood of theories based on the reasoning "if they aren't ours or theirs, they must come from outer s p a c e . P e o p l e even started giving some oredence to Prank Scully's book, Behind the Flying Saucers, which was written two years earlier and quoted an anonymous scientist who allegedly had been eyewitness to a grounded saucer. Scully gave minute details of the saucer, its A 1952

crew, and the theory that it came from Venus.

magazine article made the observation that, "To date, no o one has disproved any part of it." The magazine failed

to note, however, that to date, no one has proven any part of it either. News of UFO sightings from all over the world began to appear in print. Reports from USAF pilots in Korea Project Blue Book

were of special Interest to ATIC.^

was flooded with reports, and the small staff was only able to investigate the most Important ones, classify them and set them aside for further study later. By

far, the most significant sightings of the year came from the nation's capitol. These sightings were par-

ticularly important because it was the first time that UFOs had been tracked on radar, with simultaneous visual

confirmation from the ground and the air.

President

Truman wanted a full explanation of the situation.10 Captain Ruppelt, as head of Blue Book, was called to Washington to brief Major General John A. Samford, Director of Intelligence for Headquarters USAP. General

Samford then called a press conference on 29 July 1952. The General explained the Air Force system of investigation and the fact that most sightings were explained, but he went on to say: However there have remained a percentage of this total /of all UFO reports received by the Air Force7, about 20 percent of the reports, that Have come from credible observers of relatively incredible things. We keep on being concerned about them.11 The Washington Flap Life magazine published a complete account of the Washington sightings on 4 August 1952. on two consecutive week-ends. Sightings occurred

It all began when a Civil

Aeronautics Administration (CAA) air traffic controller spotted unidentified blips on his radar scope. In check-

ing with Washington National Airport, he found that the tower operators could see lights In the area of the radar sighting. Andrews AFB radar had blips confirming the CAA

sighting, and a controller went outside to visually confirm the UFO sighting. The CAA controller, Mr. Barnes,

called the Air Defense Command (ADC) and requested 25

fighters to check out the UFOs.

When the F-9^s arrived

two hours later, the blips had disappeared from the scopes. In the meantime, Mr. Barnes had requested that airline pilots divert slightly to confirm the position of the UFOs. Several pilots saw white lights in the same loca-

tion indicated by radar. The following week-end, Mr. Barnes again spotted UFOs on radar, again requested fighters, this time through the Pentagon Command Post, as well as ADC. next has been bitterly disputed. What happened

The CAA radar operators

firmly stated that the F-9^ pilots reported contact with the lights, and tried to close on them by using full power. When the pilots were interviewed by reporters

from Life, however, the pilots denied any such contact. So the debate had begun. The writers for Life started

the public thinking when they closed the article by saying: The attitude of the Air Force during July incidents was puzzling. When the first appearance of the blips was reported in Washington newspapers, no mention was made of Jet interceptors. In fact, the Air Force stated that none was up. But when confronted with the facts by Time-Life Washington Correspondent Clay Blair Jr., who gathered the material for this article, the Air Force finally admitted that it had indeed sent fighters up. No reason has been given for this contradiction. The Air Force might have been embarrassed by the delay In supplying planes. Or it might possibly have known more about the blips than it had admitted. There Is another puzzle: 26

experienced airline pilots could see lights where the radar reported them. Air Force pilots said they could not. 12 At this point, the credibility of the Air Force and its Investigation of UFOs was severely doubted. The

seriousness of this doubt was expressed by a small group of airline pilots whom Captain Ruppelt Interviewed informally In Chicago in early 1953. The pilots indicated

that three of the seven present had seen UFOs, and many of their friends had seen them. These sightings had

never been reported to the Air Force because of the ridicule they faced when the Air Force explained all sightings as natural phenomena, hallucinations, and hoaxes. One

pilot voiced the attitude of the group when he said, "If I saw a flying saucer flying wing-tip formation with me and could see little green men wavingeven if my whole load of passengers saw i t I wouldn't report it to the 1? Air Force." J The Robertson Panel By early 1953 the beleaguered Air Force and Project Blue Book still lacked sufficient evidence on which to base a conclusion concerning the origin of UFOs. There

were differences of opinion among intelligence officers and among scientific consultants who were assisting in the evaluation of UFO cases. 27 Some were convinced that

UFOs were interplanetary spaceships; others felt that although good circumstantial evidence existed, It was only that; proof necessary to confirm an extraterrestrial hypothesis was lacking. With the tremendous increase in sightings and lack of positive explanations, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in conjunction with the Air Force, decided to convene a panel of experts to review the UFO problem and the work of Blue Book. The panel membership read like the

"Who's Who of Science"and convened on 13 January 1953. According to Huppelt, the panel chairman, Dr. H. P. Bobertson, was instructed to render one of three judgments : 1. All UFO reports are explainable as known objects or natural phenomena; therefore the investigation should be permanently discontinued. The UFO reports do not contain enough data upon which to base a final conclusion. Project Blue Book should be continued in hopes of obtaining better data. .. . The UFOs are interplanetary spacecraft. ^

2.

3.

The Robertson Panel analyzed the best documented cases of Blue Book and many other facets of the UFO problem. The conclusions rendered by the panel were

that UFOs did not constitute a direct physical threat to national security and that continued emphasis on reporting could constitute a hazard to the normal functioning of the government by clogging channels of 28

communications.

The panel recommended that UFOs be

stripped of their special status and the aura of mystery that they had unfortunately acquired, and that a training program be instituted to educate the public so that true Indications of hostile action could be recognized. It

was recommended that the work of Blue Book be continued. The minutes of the Robertson Panel were classified "Secret" and were not declassified until I966. The min-

utes were "sanitized" by the CIA prior to public release, and this action has caused a great deal of speculation since much of the report does not agree with Ruppelt1s version published in his 1956 book. John Lear points out

how such incidents add to confusion and public mistrust when he said, "The CIA, not the Air Force, as the censor, is susceptible to interpretation as a sign that whatever data is missing has clandestine implicationsprecisely the claim that UFO fans have been making for years. Blue Book Continues The Air Force did not receive the explanation or conclusions it had hoped for from the Robertson Panel. So

Project Blue Book continued, UFO reports continued, and criticism continued to increase. Criticism came from

all sides, but one of the most avid critics was Major Donald E. Keyhoe, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired. 29 In every

magazine article and book he wrote, he accused the Air Force of withholding information from the public and knowing the real origin of the flying saucers. Nearly

every book published by all authors included a chapter devoted to the Air Force, the inefficient way in which UFO studies were handled, and the fact that the Air Force was withholding information from the public. Ruppelt described the Air Force attitude toward press releases during the early 1950s when he said: Very little information pertaining to UFO's was withheld from the press - if the press knew of specific sightings. Our policy on releasing information was to answer only direct questions from the press. If the press didn't know about a given UFO Incident, they naturally couldn't ask questions about it. Consequently such stories were never released. In other Instances, when the particulars of a UFO sighting were released, they were only the bare facts about what was reported. Any additional information that might have been developed during later investigations and analysis was not released But UFOs were being sighted all over the world now. Europe's Big Flap started in 1953. ATIC had started to

release some information to the public as recommended by the Robertson Panel. News of a special project at ATIC

was found in an Aviation Week article, "A statistical analysis of about 3000 'flying saucer' reports received between I947 and I952 is now being conducted by Air Technical Center at Wright-Patters on AFB, Dayton, Ohio, in an 30

1R effort to refute the myth."

study were released in 1955*

Results of this special

Information had been reduced

to IBM cards and run through a computer. conclusion was:

The official

On the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.19 Shortly after the report was released, Dr. Leon Davidson wrote a critique of the report. His critique charged 20 the Air Force with withholding information and criticized the report for not discussing the possibility that saucers might be extraterrestrial objects or devices.21 Many civilian organizations were formed in the 1950s by people who were interested in UFOs. The two national

organizations which are the best known, are the oldest, and have the largest memberships, are the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO), created in 195 2 , and the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Hienomena (NICAP), founded in I 9 5 6 . 2 2 These organizations have

been critical of Air Force secrecy and have formed their own investigation teams. Guidance for investigation and reporting of UFO sightings was outlined in Air Force Regulation 200-2. This regulation, entitled "Unidentified Flying Objects 31

(UFO)", was first published in 1953 and continued with minor changes until it was superseded by AFB 80-17 in 1966. Three paragraphs of this regulation have drawn

extreme criticism from UFO writers and UFO organizations. Paragraph 2c in earlier versions, and paragraph 3c of later versions of the regulation, was entitled "Seduction

of Percentage of UFO 'Unldentifieds*" and said, in part: Air Force activities must reduce the percentage of unidentifieds to a minimum. Analysis thus far has explained all but a few sightings reported. These unexplained sightings are carried statistically as unidentifieds. I f more immediate, detailed, objective data on the unknowns had been available, probably these, too could have been explained. 23 The other paragraphs dealt with dissemination of information. Paragraph 8 stated that public release of UFO in-

formation would be conducted by the Office of Information Services, of the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. Paragraph 9 granted an exception to the above procedure: If the UFO was positively identified, the local commander 2U could release this information to the press. So the Air Force policy in the late 1950s and 1960s was basically one of trying to identify all UFO sightings. From this standpoint, Blue Book had reverted back to the policies of Grudge. There was one important difference,

however, periodic news releases were available to the public. The fact that the percentage of unknowns was 32

constantly decreasing was emphasized in all of these press releases. Further emphasis was placed on sightings

that had been positively Identified The public was not convinced. Automobile bumper

stickers and window decals appeared which mirrored public opinion. These decals read: "Flying Saucers Are Real With the start of a new

The Air Force Doesn f t E x i s t . "

Flap in 1965 came a new wave of public criticism, so the Air Force again sought assistance from the scientific community. Formation of an ad hoc committee and results

of scientific assistance will be discussed in Chapter IV. Summary Project Blue Book was born in 195 2 during the "Big Flap" and continued as the USAF investigating agency for UFOs until investigations ceased in 19&9. The Project

attempted to answer the very difficult questions posed by UFO sightings, and was given impetus by government interest in the Washington D.C. sightings of 1952. Opinions of intelligence officers, scientists, and Air Force officials varied greatly; some favored acceptance of an extraterrestrial hypothesis to explain the origin of UFOs. Lack of sufficient proof, especially physical

proof, led to a rejection of this hypothesis. The number of UFO sightings increased dramatically 33

during this period, and with the Increased sightings came increased press coverage, magazine articles, and books. Increased literature stimulated public Interest, and pressure was applied for an Air Force answer to the enigma. The lack of suitable explanations and CIA involve-

ment in the UFO question led to the request for assistance from the scientific community in 1953. Results of the Robertson Panel were classified "Secret"

and were not as conclusive as the Air Force had hoped. Conclusions reaffirmed the Air Force philosophy that UFOs did not constitute an immediate physical threat to national security, but further study was recommended by the panel. So Blue Book continued; secrecy continued; public

confusion and criticism continued. As public interest increased, civilian UFO organizations were formed and conducted their own investigations of UFO sightings. These investigations often uncovered

discrepancies between what the Air Force released and what had actually happened. The Air Force drew criticism

from all quarters regarding handling of UFO cases, and charges of withholding information were common. this criticism was valid; some of it was not. The Air Force continued to investigate, gather data, and classify i t , but tried to explain all sightings as it had earlier under Project Grudge. This policy led to Some of

even greater criticism and loss of faith and credibility by the public. The Air Force became the brunt of many

Jokes, and with the start of a new "Flap" in I965, again sought assistance from the scientific community. The

Air Force wanted another evaluation of Blue Book, hoped to settle the issue of UFOs once and for a l l , and tried to get the press and public off its back. This desire

for an answer led to the formation of the O'Brien Panel of 1965.

35

CHAPTEB IV THE AIR FORCE ASKS FOR HELP The Ad Hoc Committee The number of UFO sightings started to increase dramatically in 1965. With this Increase, came a large

number of sightings by highly reputable people such as in the Exeter, New Hampshire, sightings on the night of 3 September 1965* Some of the explanations given by the

Air Force were ill-conceived, poorly thought out, and as in the Exeter case, eventually had to be retracted. The

public began to put pressure on the Air Force directly, and indirectly through Congress, for a suitable explanation. The avid believers and Air Force critics accused

Blue Book of trying to cover up the facts, and of withholding important Information. Major General E. B.

LeBailly, who was then the Director of Information for the Secretary of the Air Force, became extremely concerned over events which were leading to poor public relations. On 28 September I 9 6 5 , he addressed a memorandum to the Military Director, Scientific Advisory Board on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). In his memo,

36

General LeBailly explained Air Force interest in UFOs and Project Blue Book's responsibility for UFO investigations. He then went on to say: To date, the Air Force has found no evidence that any of the UFO reports reflect a threat to our national security. However many of the reports that cannot be explained have come from intelligent and technically 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 Bookits resources, methods, and findingsand to advise the Air Force as to any improvements that should be made in the program in order to carry out the Air Force's assigned responsibility. 1 As a result of General LeBailly*s request, the USAF Scientific Advisory Board convened an ad hoc committee, with Dr. Brian O'Brien as chairman, to review Project Blue Book on 3 February I966. The O'Brien Panel reviewed

the previous scientific panel's findings, as well as the resources and methods of investigation used by Project Blue Book. The committee's conclusions were that the

project had been well organized although resources assigned to it had been quite limited. The committee agreed with

Blue Book's findings regarding the fact that no case presented evidence clearly outside the framework of presently 37

known science and technology.

But because a new sighting

could present such evidence, and because some cases listed as "identified" had insufficient information to support positive identification, the committee recommended that the present program be strengthened to permit study of selected sightings in greater detail. To accomplish this, the committee recommended that the Air Force negotiate contracts with universities strategically located across the country and in close proximity to Air Force Systems Command bases. The universities

selected would provide teams of scientists to investigate sightings of the highest quality. The university teams

would work in conjunction with an Air Force officer skilled in Investigation. The Office of Special Investi-

gations (OSI) was suggested by the committee for this task because of experience in Investigation. One uni-

versity would then coordinate the work of all university teams and evaluate the findings of perhaps 100 cases per year. Results would then be made public through periodic

reports which would help to bolster the sagging Air Force image. Congressional Hearing While Air Force officials were evaluating results of the O'Brien Panel, UFO sightings continued to increase. 38

Activity was particularly brisk in Michigan, with sightings at Dexter on 20 March I966, Hillsdale on 21 March 1966, and Ann Arbor on 25 March 1966. Investigation of

the Dexter and Hillsdale sightings was conducted by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, scientific consultant to Project Blue Book. When he suggested the sightings might have been

caused by burning marsh gas, the Air Force became the recipient of much criticism and the brunt of many jokes.3 In the forward to his book about UFOs, Hobert Loftin wrote, "The debunking of UFOs has resulted in a loss of prestige for the Air Force. They have used swamp gas as

a solution to so many UFO sightings that in some circles they are referred to as the 'Hot Air* Force.

Air Force information personnel were doing badly in their attempt to explain all UFO sightings. Many of the

people who were reporting current sightings were well educated and much respected citizens such as policemen, scientists, and college students. In late March, long

articles appeared in newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Evening Star, and others. These articles criticized the Air Force for

explanations which seemed to degrade or ridicule witnesses Since many of the sightings occurred in Michigan, Congressman Gerald R. Ford received numerous letters from his constituents and became concerned about the newspaper 39

articles regarding sightings in his state.

His concern

led him to write a letter to Hepresentative L. Mendel Hi vers, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. In

his letter, Hepresentative Ford outlined his displeasure regarding the handling of the UFO problem. paragraphs read: In the firm belief that the American public deserves a better explanation than that thus far given by the Air Force, I strongly recommend that there be a committee investigation of the UFO phenomena. I think we owe it to the people to establish credibility regarding UFO's and to produce the greatest possible enlightenment on this subject. A Congressional hearing was held on 5 April I966 with the Secretary of the Air Force, Harold Brown; Air Force Chief of Staff, General McConnell; Blue Book Project Officer, Major Quintanilla; and Air Force Scientific Consultant, Dr. J . Allen Hynek representing the Air Force. In a prepared statement Secretary Brown reviewed the operation of Project Blue Books Although the past 18 years of investigating unidentified flying objects have not Identified any threats to our national security, or evidence that the unidentified objeots represent developments or principles beyond present-day scientific knowledge, or any evidence of extraterrestrial vehicles, the Air Force will continue to investigate such phenomena with an open mind and with the finest technical equipment available.? Details of the Exeter case were examined. 40 In this The last two

case a young man was confronted, at close range, by a UFO. The sighting took place in the country near Exeter, The frightened young man flagged down a

New Hampshire.

car, got a ride to town, then returned to the spot with a policeman. The UFO was not immediately visible, but as

the police officer and the youth walked Into a nearby field, the UFO appeared and was seen by both of them at close range. The policeman drew his pistol, then thinkRather, both the

ing better of the idea, did not shoot.

youth and the policeman ran to the patrol car and radioed headquarters. Another police officer arrived on the

scene, and he too saw the UFO for several minutes before it departed the area. The Air Force initially released information stating that the sighting was probably mlsidentification of a star. When the patrolmen objected to this explanation,

it was changed to Air Force aircraft engaged in a high altitude training exercise, but all aircraft had landed prior to the sighting. In their zeal to explain the

sighting quickly, Pentagon personnel had ridiculed the witnesses. The police officers were very displeased

with the manner in which the Air Force had made them look incompetent and exchanged several letters with Blue Book personnel. After checking with Air Force investi-

gators from Pease AFB, and Blue Book personnel, Lt Col

John P. Spaulding sent a letter to the police officers explaining that the sighting was now listed as unidentified, and that the Air Force regretted any inconvenience Q they had been caused. Dr. J . Allen Hynek is Director of the Dearborn Observatory, and of the Lindheimer Astronomical Research Center, and Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University. He has also been an Air Force In his prepared state-

scientific consultant since 1948.

ment to the hearing, Dr. Hynek emphasized the fact that, "Despite the seeming inanity of the subject, I felt that I would be derelict in my scientific responsibility to the Air Force i f I did not point out that the whole UFO phenomenon might have aspects to it worthy of scientific attention." He went on to reiterate his previous sug-

gestion that selected UFO cases be studied by a civilian scientific group.9 Following a questioning period, the hearing was adjourned. The same day, Secretary of the Air Force, Harold

Brown, Issued a memo to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General McConnell, requesting him to implement the recommendations of the ad hoc committee of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board by commissioning an Independent study.

42

The Condon-University of Colorado Study The Air Force proceeded very cautiously In organizing the new UFO study. Air Force officials, criticized for

years in their handling of the UFO problem, wanted the results of this study to be accepted by the scientific community and the general public. With these things in

mind, the Air Force selected Dr. Edward U. Condon and the University of Colorado to do the study. Dr. Condon, highly

respected in the field of astrophysics, was also noted for his independence. This latter trait was especially wel-

come, because the Air Force wanted to Insure an objective study and to avoid any criticism of a "whitewash" when the final report was issued. Although not required by

the Air Force, Dr. Condon requested that the National Academy of Science review the scientific methodology employed in the study prior to releasing results to the Air Force and the p u b l i c . 1 0 The contract was signed on 6 October 1966, with the study to begin on 1 November I966. Air Force Regulation This

200-2 was superseded by Air Force Regulation 8O-I7. was significant because it removed UFO study from the

intelligence field and placed it under research and development, and also because it instructed UFO investigators to send copies of all UFO reports to the University of Colorado. UFO believers, and skeptics alike, welcomed 43

the independent study.

Public attitude was best expressed

in the Haverhill, New Hampshire Gazette editorial on 19 October I966, "We share with a great number of Americans the hope this study will give us some of the answers to a perplexing situation which has had too many unanswered questions for too long a time. 1 , 1 1 With the outstanding credentials of a man like Condon, the UPO problem gained immediate respectability. Solence

Magazine now published a letter from Dr. Hynek which it had previously rejected. In his letter. Dr. Hynek out-

lined common misconceptions regarding UFOs and emphasized the need for scientific study of the phenomenon. pointed outs I have begun to feel that there is a tendency in 20th-century science to forget that there will be a 21st-century science, and indeed a 30th-century science, from which vantage points our knowledge of the universe may appear quite d i f f e r e n t . 1 2 Not all writers were optimistic. Salem, Oregon Statesman cautioned s An editorial in the "The investigation As with the He

begins with the best possible credentials.

Warren Report, however, even the best of credentials do 1? not assure acceptance of conclusions."
J

An article In

Nation Magazine declared, " I f Dr. Condon and his associates come up with anything less than little green men from Mars, they will be crucified." 1 ^ As we shall see

in Chapter V, some of the predictions made by these pessimists ultimately came true. Dr. Condon, professing to be an "agnostic" as far as the UFO problem was concerned, began the project with an open mind but he said, "The one thing I don't expect to prove is that UFOs don't exist because it is impossible to prove a negative
p r o p o s i t i o n .
1 , 1

^ g

caution was fur"The

ther demonstrated when he warned the Air Force:

study will not neoessarlly contribute to the nation's 1A peace of mind." The study got off to a good start with briefings from people who had long been associated with the UFO problem. Dr. Hynek, long time U5AF consultant to Blue Book; Major Donald E. Keyhoe (Marine Corps Retired), head of NICAP; Major Hector Quintanilla, Director of Blue Book; and Dr. Mary Romig, Rand Corporation; all gave the Colorado Project personnel the benefit of their knowledge and experience in studying UFOs. To supplement USAF Inputs and to

insure quick reporting of UFO sightings, NICAP and APRO agreed to cooperate in making their information available to the study. An early warning network was established reporting.^

to insure nationwide

No stones were left unturned in an effort to make the study as complete as possible. The project consisted of

37 scientists and their assistants who conducted

Investigations, analyzed reports, tabulated and formed Independent study groups.

statistics,

Contracts were let

with other universities for specific studies, and assistance was given by the National Center for Atmospheric Ref search, Environmental Science Services Administration, and many other scientists and scientific institutions. A

total of 59 cases were investigated and the investigative portion of the study ended on 1 June I968. On 31 October

1968, the final report was submitted to the Air Force and the National Academy of Sciences for subsequent release to the p u b l i c . 1 8 In his conclusions and recommendations, Dr. Condon
- -K S .:

>Y.

c.

wrote: Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby. 1 9 He continued by saying that not all scientists would agree

: vv * > ,

with these findings, as well they should not, necessarily. He said that UFO research proposals by qualified scientists should be considered along with other scientific proposals. But regarding what the federal government

should do with UFO reports from the public, he said, "We are inclined to think that nothing should be done with 46

them in the expectation that they are going to contribute to the advance of s c i e n c e . " 2 0 Condon stated that the Air

Force had long since decided that UFOs pose no threat to national security and suggested that the defense function could be performed by normal Intelligence activities without a special unit such as Project Blue Book. 2 1 Blue Book Closes The National Academy of Sciences Panel unanimously accepted the report of the Colorado Study and endorsed, not only the working methods, but also the conclusions. 2 2 In accepting the Condon Report, Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans announced that Project Blue Book had operated since 1948 and had looked into 12,618 sightings. He said, "No unidentified flying object - UFO - has given any indication of a threat to national security." and "There is no evidence that any of the objects sighted came from outer s p a c e . H e then explained, "The program

cannot be justified either on the ground of national 24 security or in the Interest of science." So the Blue

Book was closed on 17 December 1969; Air Force Regulation 80-17, "Reporting of Unidentified Flying Objects was rescinded on 25 March 1970. out of the UFO business. 47 (UFO)"

The U.S. Air Force was

Summary With the Increased UFO sightings of 1965, came ini S creased criticism of Air Force handling of the problem. Increased public pressure led the Director of Information for the Secretary of the Air Force, Major General E. B. LeBailly, to request help from the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. An ad hoc committee led by Dr. Brian

O'Brien recommended that an outside study be performed by scientists at universities across the country. Public opinion and pressure also caused Representative M Gerald Ford to call for a Congressional Investigation of the UFO problem and Air Force participation in the Investigation of the problem. s j ? Recommendations of the O'Brien

Panel were accepted, and the Condon-University of Colorado Study contract was signed on 6 October 1966. Work on the

UFO problem began on 1 November 1966; the Air Force was pleased, and the public was anxious to finally get the straight word on UFOs. The final report of the Colorado Study was completed on 31 October 1968 and was sent to the National Academy of Sciences, where it received unanimous endorsement of the Academy Panel. Condon's conclusions and recommendaCon-

tions were released to the Air Force and the public.

don concluded that no further study was justified on the basis that it might contribute anything to scientific 48

knowledge.

He anticipated non-acceptance of his conclu-

sions by some scientists and was certainly correct in his assumption, as we shall see in Chapter V. The Air Force accepted the findings of the Colorado Study and closed Blue Book on 1? December 1969. The Air

Force had extracted itself from a very controversial problem; or had it? Many eminent scientists and much of

the public had grave reservations concerning the validity of the Condon-University of Colorado Study, and these reservations were to cause "The Great Debate."

49

CHAPTER V THE GREAT DEBATE Troubles In Colorado Internal problems faced by the Colorado Study Group were almost as mysterious and difficult as the UFO problem it sought to solve. Troubles began even before the On 9 October, Just three

ink had dried on the contract.

days after the contract was signed, Robert Low, Project Coordinator, was quoted in a Denver Post article. Low

was said to have admitted that the Project was nearly T n aacceptable, in that the investigation of UFOs didn't meet the normal University of Colorado research criteria. Low

indicated that the project was acceptable only under the category of public service, and Insinuated that the University could not refuse the insistence of the Air Force. Dr. Condon was upset by the article, and in a letter to the editor of the Denver Post, emphasized the importance of the Project and outlined the specific service being performed by undertaking the study of UFOs. 1 This action

smoothed things over, and the study got off to a good start. Dr. Condon is a rather outspoken Individual, 50

however, and it wasn't long before he made his views known regarding UPOs. In an interview with Look reporter, War-

ren Rogers, Condon said: I won't believe in outer-space saucers until I see one, touch one, get inside one, haul it into a laboratory and get some competent people to go over it with me. I would like to capture one. After a l l , that would be the discovery of the centurythe discovery of many centuriesof the millennia, I suppose. 2

One of the most damaging speeches made by Dr. Condon occurred on 25 January 1967. On this date, he was the

S i a \J) a' ' v n 4: J4

CO

guest speaker at a meeting of the Corning Section of the American Chemical Society and the Corning Glass Works w Chapter of Sigma X I , a research fraternity. The 26 Janu-

i i J o f M jv i b! P - i*

ary issue of the Elmira, New York Star Gazette, carried 'ai this story of the event: MOST OP UFO SI (SITINGS EXPLAINABLE-SCIENTIST ADVISES CORNING AUDIENCE Corning - Unidentified flying objects "are not the business of the Air Force," the man directing a government-sponsored study of the phenomena, Dr. Edward U. Condon, said here Wednesday night. In an hour-long rundown on the government's interest in the field and the recollection of some baffling and spectacular claims by UFO "observers," Dr. Condon left no doubt as to his personal sentiments on the matter: "It is my inclination right now to recommend that the government get out of this business. My attitude right now is that there's nothing to i t . " 51

I i i

With a smile he added, "but I'm not supposed to reach a conclusion for another y e a r . The remainder of the article described Dr. Condon's explanation of the operation of the Project and highlighted the investigation of a few Interesting cases. Jk 1 Several members of NICAP were in the audience and were incensed by Dr. Condon's speech. Keyhoe, who had

been suspicious of the Colorado Study from its inception, was furious. Dr. Condon wrote Keyhoe a letter explaining

that he had been quoted out of context and would not let this happen again. m V r w Dr. Condon made it known that the

Project would make no further statements until the final report was issued. But the damage had been done; some

of the members of the Project, NICAP, and others began to h doubt Dr. Condon's objectivity. Conditions began to worsen in September I967. Dr.

David R. Saunders, a staff member, attempted to approach Dr. Condon to discuss methods for improvement of the Project's public image. Saunders felt the public strongly

suspected that the Project would submit a negative report, despite the fact that no decision had yet been made regarding the final report. wV V: V Dr. Condon told Saunders he

didn't understand his concern, but they could discuss it further at a later date. Before the two met again, Dr.

" V:

Condon gave an after-dinner talk about UFOs to his former 52

colleagues at the National Bureau of Standards in Washington. Saunders stated, "According to the reports that

came from members of that audience, and by his own later admission, Condon concentrated almost the entire talk on three of the crackpot cases with which he had been involved. When Keyhoe heard about i t , he provisionally Although attempts

withdrew NICAP support to the Project.

were made by Saunders, and others, to patch things up with Keyhoe, Dr. Condon discounted the value of NICAP*s contributions to the Project in a commentary which appeared

in the Rooky Mountain News.

Saunders said that the en-

tire staff was perturbed by Dr. Condon's attitude and considered resigning enmasse i f the story was released nationally. Since it wasn't, the staff had a meeting,

with neither Condon nor Low present, and decided to make the study objective despite the opinions and attitudes of their leaders.' The Crunch Comes The real "crunch" came in I968. Dr. James E. McDonald,

Senior Physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Hiysics, University of Arizona, had personally studied UPOs for some time. He was extremely interested in the Colorado

Study and had provided information and assistance to members of the project. Of all the better known scientists, 53

Dr. McDonald is probably the most outspoken in his support of an extraterrestrial hypothesis. On several occasions

he had expressed doubts to Dr. Condon and Mr. Low, concerning the objectivity of the study. On 19 January I968,

Low telephoned McDonald to request UFO information and the two got into a heated discussion concerning administration of the Project. Low hung up on McDonald. McDon-

ald then wrote a seven page, single spaced letter to Low criticizing the Project. One portion of the letter re-

ferred to a memo, written by Low on 9 August I966, describing how Low envisioned handling the Project.^ On 12 December 19&7, Saunders, Levine, Hynek, and McDonald had attended an informal meeting in Denver to discuss the formation of a new organization of professional members which would continue the study of UFOs regardless of the outcome of the Colorado Study. After Hynek had

left, Saunders and Levine showed McDonald the memo they had found in open Project f i l e s . 9 The memo, entitled

"Some Thoughts on the UFO Project," was addressed to University officials and signed by Low. McDonald was

shocked when he read the memo which said in part: The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study, but to the scientific community would present the image of a group of non-believers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer. One way to do

this is to stress investigation, not the physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the observing - the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFOs. I f the emphasis were put here, rather than on the examination of the question of the physical reality of the saucer, I think the scientific community would quickly get the message. 10 Dr. Condon was apparently unaware of the existence of the memo. He was furious and fired Saunders and Levine

when he learned they had leaked the information to McDonald. "In a press release to a Colorado student newspaper

on 8 February, Condon said the two were discharged for incompetence*, but many observers think he really meant
11

insubordination*." Mary Lou Armstrong, the Project Secretary, had at one time been Dr. Condon's personal secretary. On 22 Feb-

ruary, she spoke to Dr. Condon concerning Low's handling of the Project and outlined specific areas in which he displayed a lack of interest and bias toward the UFO problem. Mrs. Armstrong resigned from the Project on 2^

February 1 9 6 8 . 1 2 James Wadsworth, a Research Assistant, was arrested on 1 March for illegal possession of narcotics and was 13 asked to resign.
v

By far the most disruptive event took place when Look Magazine published an article written by John G. 55

Puller entitled, "Flying Saucer Fiasco - The extraordinary story of the half-million dollar 'trick' to make Americans believe the Condon Committee was conducting an objective investigation." The article appeared in the 14 May I968

issue and was written with the assistance of Saunders, Levine, McDonald, and Mrs. Armstrong. Upon seeing the

article, Congressman J . Edward Roush asked the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to Investigate the Colorado Study.124, When the GAO refused on the grounds that the

Study had not Issued its report, Congressman Roush arranged for a Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects to be held before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. The Symposium The Symposium was held on 29 July I968. Since the

final report of the Colorado Study had not been issued, it was agreed that no comments regarding the adequacy of that Study would be made. Prepared statements were read scientists.

and papers were submitted by six distinguished

Six other distinguished scientists submitted papers, but did not personally appear before the Committee. 1 5 Results of the Symposium were well summarized In a book by John G. Fuller which was published in I 9 6 9 , and was entitled Aliens in the Skies: 56

But what are the conclusions to be drawn from the House UFO hearings, and why are they important? They are important first because the testimony at these hearings is at direct odds with the Condon study . . . . Beyond that, eleven out of the twelve sober and articulate scientists have, in these hearings stated clearly that the UFO problem not only is unsolved, but urgently needs to be solved for a variety of reasons. The Debate So the debate is still alive! Dr. David R. Saunders,

who held an important staff position on the Colorado Study until he was fired, wrote a book in I969 entitled, UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong. In i t , he

carefully outlined his perception of bias held from the beginning by Dr. Condon, Project Director, and Robert Low, Project Coordinator. Many of the scientific magazines In a

praised Dr. Condon and the work of his Project.

Popular Science article, A. P. Armagnac asks the Question, "Condon Report on UFO'sShould You Believe It?" 17 then emphatically answers "Yes!" in the text. '

Dr. Hynek said, "Physical scientists who know Edward U. Condon through his work in nuclear physics and quantum mechanics will find the hand of the master strangely missing in Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying O b j e c t s . " 1 8

In a later comment in the same article, Dr. Hynek says, 57

".

. . . h i s work with this problem is analagous to that

of Mozart producing an uninspired pot boiler, unworthy of 19 his talents."

z

Dr. Hynek indicated that too much of the

report was devoted to hoaxes and easily solved misidentification of natural phenomena cases. He said that the

report left a residual of unknowns just like previous Air Force studies. Virtually every contributor to the ProjDr.

ect had some cases they were unable to explain.

Hynek pointed out specific cases which deserved more study, then summed up the work of the Colorado Study: While it was perhaps laudable to ask an untried and therefore presumably, unbiased group to take a fresh look at the UFO problem, this procedure was akin to asking a group of culinary novices to take a fresh look at cooking and then open a restaurant. Without seasoned advice there would be many burned pots, many burned fingers, many dissatisfied customers.20 So the Condon Report is i n , the Air Force is out of the UFO business, and the debate continues. Summary The great debate began when the Colorado Study experienced internal problems. Shortly after the Study got

underway, it suffered a setback from a statement in the press attributed to Robert Low, the Project Coordinator. Subsequently, Dr. Condon gave several speeches in which he voiced personal opinions concerning UFOs, and appeared 58

to be preoccupied with the more humorous or crackpot cases. The Project's image was damaged when members of

NICAP and the general public interpreted these speeches to mean that Dr. Condon had little objective interest in the UPO problem. The greatest damage to the Project occurred when a memo written by Low was leaked to Dr. McDonald and NICAP. The memo had been written before the study began, and described how Low visualized the operation of the Study. He had used the word "trick" in connection with the public and the appearance of an objective study. Portions

of the memo were published in a Look Magazine article which caused a furor. NICAP withdrew the support of its

membership, Saunders and Levine were fired for leaking the memo, and the Project was attacked by Dr. McDonald and Congressman Roush. Mrs. Armstrong, the Project Secretary,

quit after bitterly attacking Low's administration of the Project. Jim Wadsworth, a Research Assistant, was forced So the

to resign when he was arrested on drug charges. Colorado Study had its problems.

The great debate gained impetus when Congressman Roush held a Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, and continued after the final report of the Colorado Study was published. 59

With Air Force acceptance of the Colorado Study findings, it has withdrawn from the debate. But the

great debate is still very much alive and living in scientific community.

60

CHAPTER VT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The UFO enigma is undoubtedly one of the most difficult problems ever faced by mankind. Much of the diffi-

culty is caused by the emotional beliefs and the diverse attitudes held by believers and non-believers. Perhaps If

much of the problem hinges on the question of proof. a UFO is tracked by ground and airborne radar, spotted visually from the ground and the a i r , is this proof of extraterrestrial origin of the object?

Believers would Non-

say yes, and challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

believers would insist that it is not for them to prove that something does not exist. Rather, the burden of

proof rests with the individual who claims something does exist. Nothing short of physical proof of extraterresOne must

trial origin will convince the non-believer.

acknowledge, however, that individuals with unimpeachable credentials have made sightings, and that a small residual of these sightings remain unexplained. It is not within

the purview of this paper or its author to determine the 61

origin of UFOs represented in this residue.

Eminent

scientists have attempted to settle the UFO issue with inconclusive results, so it is prudent to return to the subject of Air Force participation in the UFO problem. The Air Force participated, as the primary government agency, for nearly 23 years in UFO investigations and evaluation. Air Force interest and performance were

inconsistent, resulting in some unfortunate mistakes. Retention of UFO activities in the intelligence area, while insisting that no UFO has shown any indication of threat to national security, was certainly a mistake. Excess security precautions led to public suspicion and speculation. Attempts to identify all sightings led to

many implausible explanations, degrading or ridiculing of witnesses, and in the end, resulted in a serious public relations problem. The public image of the Air Force

was damaged; some people even became hostile and accused the Air Force of withholding information which should have been made public. But this is hindsight. From a given point in time,

it is always easy to look back, and with 100 percent accuracy, see undesirable courses that have been followed. Sometimes it is profitable to look back, however, to insure that the same mistakes are not repeated. Perhaps

the single best decision made regarding UFOs was to turn

62

investigation over to civilian scientists. With all of its internal problems, the Condon-University of Colorado Study still accomplished some of the results desired by the Air Force. First of a l l , it took

the Air Force off the firing line where Its image was being shot down in flames. Secondly, it relocated the

debate of an extremely emotional and scientifically complex problem Into the scientific community where it belongs. And thirdly, it partially quieted the press. Only

three magazine articles on UFOs were listed in the 1970 Headers' Guide. Although the Colorado Study has been

criticized, there was no evidence of concentration on psychological or sociological aspects in the Study's final report. I f , as some critics contend, bias was Pre-

present, this is not apparent in the report either.

sumably, the final report was generally accepted by the public, just as it was by the Air Force. The Blue Book was closed and the Air Force investigation of UFOs terminated on 17 December I969. Project

Blue Book files were sent to the U.S. Air Force Historical Archives in February of 1970. Over the years, the Air

Force had denied withholding information, so it seemed only prudent for the author to verify this. Admission

to the Archives required a security clearance, and access to Blue Book files was granted by Dr. I-feurer on a "need

to know" basis.

This seemed strange, so the author re-

quested and was granted, an interview with Dr. Maurer. During the interview, Dr. ffeurer explained that a security clearance was necessary to enter the Archives for any purpose due to the large amount of classified material. Although Blue Book files have all been declassified, the "need to know" stems from the fact that individual case files contain names of people who have made UFO reports and were guaranteed anonymity. He also mentioned that

civilians who want to use the files for research could be granted access by requesting clearance and authorization from the Information Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. Individuals granted clearance must abide by

Archive Regulations which require deletion of names when writing about UFO oases. To illustrate the extent of Air Force disengagement from the UFO problem, Dr. Maurer produced a copy of a message he had just received for his information and insertion into the UFO files. This message, ALMAJCOM

171623Z Dec 69, had previously been sent to all continental U.S. Information Officers. Part I I I gave instruc-

tions on how to answer queries from people who thought they had seen a UFO. The instructions suggested that

action be left to the discretion of the Individual, and no specific recommendations should be made. 64 I f the

sighting seemed to have a scientific connotation, the individual should be referred to a member of the local scientific community. I f he had felt endangered, he I f the object

should be referred to the local police.

was in the sky, he could check with the base to see I f the object had been identified. The original hypothesis on which this research study was based stated, "that more study of the UFO phenomena should be conducted by the U.S. Air Force." This hypothe-

sis must be rejected on the basis of past Air Force experience shown in the research study. The Air Force has,

to its own satisfaction, shown that UFOs pose no threat to national security. And, by the acceptance of the find-

ings of the Condon-University of Colorado Study, the Air Force has concluded that concentrated study of the UFO phenomena probably would not contribute to scientific knowledge. Based on research conducted for this study,

the author agrees that intensive study of the UFO phenomena cannot be justified at this time. Recommendatlons The Air Force should unobtrusively monitor the UFC phenomena as reported In the press and by civilian UFO organizations. Monitoring should continue until the

residual of unexplained sightings are identified by 65

science, or a spectacular event occurs which would necessitate reevaluatlon of the present Air Force position concerning UFOs. Monitoring could be accomplished as a gathering

by-product of existing, routine intelligence

activities and/or by the Air Force information program. Consideration should be given to making Blue Book files more readily available to c i v i l i a n s . Names in

individual cases could be deleted, and a limited number of case f i l e copies could be ma.de available in selected l i b r a r i e s , strategically located across the country. Force involvement in the UFO debate has subsided sufficiently to make this recommendation feasible. Although Air

copies would be expensive, considering the number of documents, a very useful purpose could be served in convincing the public that the Air Force had never withheld information. The intensive study of UFOs would probably not add to scientific knowledge. Past study of UFOs has shown areas For

in which scientific knowledge could be increased.

instance, during the Condon-Colorado Study, a comprehensive study was conducted by Stanford University. This

study was concerned with propagation of radar waves and consolidated valuable information concerning anomalous radar returns, determining that temperature inversions were often the cause. Although this study did not solve

66

all UFO sightings, i t gave possible solutions for a few. In studying the UFO problem and trying to determine the answer, more was learned about atmospheric plasms, ball lightning, and corona discharge. I f s c i e n t i f i c emphasis

were put on this side of the problem, perhaps the UFO enigma would be solved as a by-product. Government aid through

and interest in these areas should be increased

projects administered by the Air Force, NASA, or grants to civilian universities. The author feels that these three recommendations could lead to eventual solution of the UFO problem. It

is further recommended, however, that short of the discovery of startling new scientific proof concerning the UFO problem, that the Air Force should stay out of the UFO debate.

6?

FOOTNOTES Chapter II

1. Edward J . Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (New York: doubleday, i 9 3 6 ) , p. 3 2 . 2. 3. Ibid., Ibid., p. p. 35. 36.

Sidney S h a l e t t , "What You Can Believe About Flying S a u c e r s , " The Saturday Evening P o s t , V o l . 221 (April 3 0 , 1 9 ^ 9 ) . pp. 20-21. 5. 6. Ruppelt, Ibid., p. op. 41. clt., p. 39.

7. Edward Uhler Condon, Final Report of the Scient i f i c Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (New York; fiutton, 1 9 6 9 ) , PP. ^ 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. Ibid., Ibid.B p. pp. 895.

896-897.
op. c l t . , 67. 68. 41-45. p. 62.

Ruppelt, Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., p. p.

pp.

14. Readers' Guide to Periodical L i t e r a t u r e May 1947-April 19^9 (New York: the H. W. Wilson domrany, 1 9 ^ 9 ) . P. 72. 15. " F l y i n g Saucers; the Somethings," Time, 50 (July 1 4 , 1 9 4 7 ) , P . 1 8 . 16. Condon, op. clt., pp. 506-507. Vol.

68

17. 18.

Ruppelt, Ibid.t p.

op. 89.

cit.,

p.

87.

19. Sidney S h a l e t t , "What You Can Believe About Flyi n g S a u c e r s , " The Saturday Evening P o s t , V o l . 221 (May 7 . 1 9 ^ 9 ) , P. 36. 20. 21. 22. Ibid., Ibid. Condon, op. cit., pp. 507-509. or Fiction?" p. 186.

23. Curtis P u l l e r , " F l y i n g S a u c e r s F a c t Flying, V o l . by (July 1 9 5 0 ) , p. 5 9 . 2k, 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. Huppelt, Ibid., Ibid., op. cit., pp. 127-130. p. p. 60. 61.

pp. p.

154-160. 176. Chapter III p. pp. 176. 513-51^.

1. 2.

Ruppelt,

op.

cit., cit.,

Condon, op.

3. Robert Ginna and H . B. Darrach, "Have We V i s i t o r s From Space?" L i f e , V o l . 32 (April 7 , 1 9 5 2 ) , p. 8 0 . Ibid. 5. 6. Ibid., Ibid., p. p. 94. 96. R(yth or Men5^.

7. Lawrence E l l i o t t , " F l y i n g Saucers: ace?" Coronet, V o l . 33 (November 1 9 5 2 ) , p. 8. Ibid., p. 52.

69

9. 1952), 10.

"Korean S a u c e r s , " Newsweek, Vol. p. Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 222.

39 (Kerch

3,

11. I b i d . , p. 3 4 . 12. "Washington Blips 'Somethings' Over the Capitol Are Traced on R a d a r , " L i f e , V o l . 33 (August 4 , 1 9 5 2 ) , pp. 39-^0. 13. 14. 15. Ruppelt, Ibid., p. op. cit., p. 111.

275. cit., p. 9I8.

Condon, op.

16. John L e a r , "The Disputed CIA Document on U F C s , " Saturday Review, V o l . 49 (September 3 , 1 9 6 6 ) , p. 4 5 . 17. Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 27. Aviation

18. "ATIC Begins Study of Saucer R e p o r t s , " Week, V o l . 59 (October 1 9 , 1 9 5 3 ) t P- 1 8 .

19. Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 (Analysis of Reports of Unidentified Aerial O b j e c t s ) , WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio: M r Technical I n t e l l i g e n c e Center, 1955, P. 9k. 20. Leon Davidson, Flying Saucers New York: 1 9 5 6 ) , P . D4. 21. Ibid., p. D9. (White Plains,

22. Jacques and Janine V a l l e e , Challenge To Science (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1 9 6 6 ) , p . 2 2 5 . 23. Air Force Regulation 200-2, Unidentified Flying Objects ( U F O ) , (Washington: Department of the A i r Force, 1 9 5 3 ) , paragraph 3 c , p. 2 . 24. Ibid., paragraphs 8 and 9 , p . 4.

25. Lawrence J . Tacker, Flying Saucers and the U . S . Air Force ( P r i n c e t o n , New J e r s e y : D. Nostrand Company I n c . , I 9 6 0 ) , pp. 136-161.

70

Chapter I V 1. 2. Condon, op. c l t . , Ibid., pp. pp. 816-817.

811-815.

3. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Unidentified Flying Objects, Hearing 89th Congress, second session, 1 9 6 6 , p. 5993. Hereafter cited as Congress, 1 9 6 6 . 4. York: 5. 6. 7. Robert L o f t i n , Identified David McKay C o . , 1 9 6 ) , p. Congress, 1 9 6 6 , Ibid., Ibid., pp. p. op. Flying Saucers v. 6047-6049. (New

c l t . , pp.

6046-6047. 5992.

8. John G. F u l l e r , Incident At Exeter (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 196b), pp. 24tf-249. 9. Congress, 1 9 6 6 , op. c l t . , pp. 6006-6008.

10. David R. Saunders and R. Roger Harklns, UFOs? Yes 1 (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1 9 6 9 ) , n . 11. Ibid., p. 31. Study,"

12. J . Allen Hynek, "UFOs Merit S c i e n t i f i c Science, V o l . 154 (October 2 1 , 1966), p. 329. 13. 203 Saunders, op. c l t . , p. 31.

14. "Can Dr. (October 3 1 ,

1966),

Condon See Through I t ? " Natl on, Vol. p. 436. 31

15. Warren Rogers, "Flying S a u c e r s , " Look, V o l . (March 2 1 , 1967), p . 7 6 . 16. 17. 18. 19. Ibid., p. 80. p. 24.

Condon, op. c l t . , Ibid., Ibid., p. p. 551. 1.

71

20. 21. 22. 23. V o l . 67

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

p. p. p.

4. 5. vi11. News,

"New Turn For Flying S a u c e r s , " U. 5 . (December 2 9 , 1969)1 P. 7 .

24. "Closing The Blue Book; Air Force to Call Off UFO Investigations Due to Condon Report," Time, Vol. 94 (December 2 9 , 1 9 6 9 ) . P. 2 8 . Chapter V 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. vol. Saunders, op. c i t . , Rogers, op. c i t . , Saunders, Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., p. PP. p. pp. pp. p. p. 47.

78. p. 117.

op. c i t . , 119. 140-141. 142. 144-145. 244-252.

9. John G. F u l l e r , "Flying Saucer F i a s c o , " 32 (fey 1 4 , 1 9 6 8 ) , p . 6 2 . 10. Saunders, op. cit., p. 243.

Look,

11. P h i l l i p M. Boffey, "UFO Project: Trouble on the Ground," Science, V o l . 161 (July 2 6 , 1 9 6 8 ) , p. 3^0. 12. 13. 14. Saunders, Ibid., Boffey, P. op. c i t . , 200. cit., p. 341. p. 199.

op.

15. Congress, House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Symposium on Unidentified Flying: Objects, Hearing, 90th Congress, second s e s s i o n , 1 9 6 8 , P . H I 72

16. John G. P u l l e r , Aliens I n the Skies G. P. Putnam's S o n s , 1969), pp. 16-17.

(New York:

17. A. P . Armagnac, "Condon Report on UFO's - Should You Believe I t ? " Popular S c i e n c e , V o l . 194 (April I969), pp. 72-76. 18. J . Allen Hynek, "The Condon Report and U F O s , " B u l l e t i n of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , V o l . 25 (April 1969), P. 3 9 . 19. 20. Ibid. Ibid., p. 42.

73

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Condon, Edward Uhler. Final Report of the S c i e n t i f i c Study of Unidentified Flying O b j e c t s . N e w York: Dutton, 1 9 6 9 . David, J a y . Flying Saucers Have Arrived. World Publishing Company, 1 9 7 0 . Davidson, Leon. Flying Saucers. New York:

White P l a i n s , New York Serious B u s i n e s s . ~ ~ New York: G. New P.

Edwards, Frank. Flying Saucers, York: Lyle S t u a r t , 1 9 6 6 .

F u l l e r , John G. Aliens In The S k i e s . Putnam's Sons, 1 9 6 9 . . Sons, Incident At Exeter. 1966.

New Y o r k :

G. P .

Putnam's

Keyhoe, Donald Edward. Flying Saucers New York: Henry Holt and Company, . Flying Saucers: Putnam's Sons, i 9 6 0 . Top S e c r e t .

From Outer Space. 1953. New York: New York: Random G. P.

. The Flying Saucer Conspiracy. Henry Holt and Company, 1 9 5 5 . ICLass, P h i l l i p J . House, I 9 6 8 . UFOs - I d e n t i f i e d .

New York:

L o f t i n , Robert. I d e n t i f i e d Flying Saucers. David McKay Company, 1 9 6 8 .

New York:

Readers' Guide to Periodical L i t e r a t u r e , May 19^7 - April 19^9. New York: The H. w. Wilson Company, 1^-9. Ruppelt, Edward J . The Report on Unidentified jects . Garden C i t y , New York: Doubleday, Flying Ob1956.

74

Saunders, David Robertson. UFOs? Publishing Company, 1 9 6 8 .

Yes 1

New York:

World

Sanderson, Ivan Terence. Uninvited V i s i t o r s . Cowles Education Corporation, 1 9 6 7 . S c u l l y , Frank. Behind The Flying Saucers. Henry Holt and Company, 1 9 5 0 .

New York:

New York:

Tacker, Lawrence J . Flying Saucers and the U . S . A i r Force. P r i n c e t o n , New J e r s e y : D . Van Nos t ra n d , i960 V a l l e e , Jacques. Anatomy of a Phenomenon. Henry Regnery Company, 1 9 6 5 . Chicago:

V a l l e e , Jacques and J a n i n e . Challenge to Science - The UFO Enl gma . Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1966 . A r t i c l e s and Periodicals

" A i r Force Conclusion; Spacemen D o n ' t Fly S a u c e r s , " Senior S c h o l a s t i c , V o l . 95 (January 1 2 , 1 9 7 0 ) , 2 . Armagnac, A. P. "Condon Report on U F O ' s , Should You Bel i e v e I t ? " Popular S c i e n c e , V o l . 194 ( A p r i l 1 9 6 9 ) . 72-76. "Astral A d v e n t u r e r s , " 28-29. "Astral A l i e n s , " 1953), L i f e , Vol. 37 (November 1 , 17 (December 1954), 1,

(letter)

Look, V o l .

"ATIC Begins Study of Saucer Reports," 59 (October 1 9 , 1 9 5 3 ) , 1 8 . Beauchamp, T. "Happening at H o o g d a l , " (November 1 4 , i 9 6 7 ) , 42-43.

Aviation Week, Vol Look, V o l . 31 Ground,"

3 o f f e y , P h i l l i p K. "UFO P r o j e c t ; Trouble on the S c i e n c e , V o l . 161 (July 2 6 , I 9 6 8 ) , 339-3^2.

. "UFO Study: Condon Group Finds No Evidence oF^Tisits From Outer S p a c e , " S c i e n c e , V o l . 163 (January 1 7 , 1 9 6 9 ) . 260-262.

75

Burke-Gaffney, M. W. " U F O ' s and Leprechauns," ( l e t t e r ) S c i e n c e , V o l . 154 (December 2 3 , 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 5 0 2 . "Can D r . Condon See Through I t ? " N a t i o n , Vo] . (October 3 1 , 1 9 6 6 ) , 4 3 6 . 203

" C l o s i n g the Blue Book; Air Force to Call Off UFO Investigations Due to Condon Report," Time, V o l . 94 (December 2 6 , 1 9 6 9 ) , 2 8 . "Colorado to Study U F O s , " Aviation Week. V o l . 17, 1 9 6 6 ) , 32. 85 (October

Condon, Edward U. " S c i e n t i f i c Study of UFOs; University of Colorado R e p o r t , " (excerpts) Saturday Review, V o l . 52 (February 1 , 1969), 53-53T . "UFOs, I Have Loved and L o s t , " B u l l e t i n of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , V o l . 25 (April 1 9 6 9 ) , 6-8. "Condon Study Rebuts UFO; C r i t i c s O f f e r Own V e r s i o n , " Physics Today, V o l . 22 (March I969), 67+. Eberhart, Jonathan. " F l y i n g Spacewatchers," News, V o l . 92 (August 1 9 , 1967), 1 7 9 . Science

"Edward Condon; A P h y s i c i s t Never Afraid of a F i g h t , " Physios Today, V o l . 22 (March I969), 66-67. E l l i o t t , Lawrence. " F l y i n g Saucers: Coronet, V o l . 3 3 (November 1 9 5 2 ) , Fyth or Menace?" 47-54. Life, Vol. 23

" F l y i n g Disks 3reak Out Over the U . S . , " (July 2 1 , 1 9 ^ 7 ) , 14-16. " F l y i n g Saucers A g a i n , " Newsweek, V o l . 1950), 29. " F l y i n g Saucers: (January 2 0 ,

35 (April

17, 66

I969), 6.

Not Reel But -" U.

3 . News, V o l .

" F l y i n g Saucers; Spots Before T h e i r E y e s , " V o l . 3 0 (July 1 4 , 1 9 4 7 ) , 1 9 .

Newsweek, 50 (July Vol.

" F l y i n g Saucers; The Somethings," Time, V o l . 14, 19^7), 18. "Form Saucer I n v e s t i g a t i o n Group," 41 (February 1 9 5 7 ) , 3 9 .

Science D i g e s t ,

76

"Fresh Look At Flying S a u c e r s , " Time, V o l . 1 9 6 7 ) , 32-33.

90

(August

4,

Fuller, Curtis. " F l y i n g Saucers - Fact or F i c t i o n ? " F l y i n g , V o l . 47 (July 1 9 5 0 ) , 16-17+. F u l l e r , John G. "A Communication Concerning UFOs; With Reply by J . L e a r , " Saturday Review, V o l . 50 (February 4 , 1 9 6 7 ) , 70-73. . " F l y i n g Saucer F i a s c o , " Look, V o l . T T T 1 9 6 8 ) , 58 + . 32 (May

Ginna, Robert and H . B. Darrach, J r . "Have We V i s i t o r s From Space?" L i f e , V o l . 32 (April 7 , 1 9 5 2 ) , 80-82+.' Greenberg, D. S . "Condon To Head UFO S t u d y , " V o l . 154 (October 1 4 , I966), 2 4 4 . Heisserman, D. "Now A Do-it-yourself U F O , " ence, V o l . 196 (May 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 0 9 . Hellman, H a l . "New Look At the UFO Enigma," D i g e s t , V o l . 62 (November 1 9 6 7 ) , 9-15. Hooven, Frank J . "UFO and the Evidence; Saturday Review, V o l . 52 (March 29, Science,

i '

2 1 ^ wl V J ^

Popular SciScience

mJ h P Report,"

1969), I6-I7+.

Condon

Hughes, F. P. "Trained Eye on U F O s , " ( l e t t e r ) V o l . 156 (June 9, 1967), 1 3 H - 1 3 1 2 .

Science,

;
it

Hynek, Joseph A. " F l y i n g Saucers, Are They Real?" Readers D i g e s t , V o l . 90 (March 1967), 6I-65. . " S c i e n t i f i c Study of Unidentified Flying Objects by E . U. Cond on-Revi e w , " B u l l e t i n of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , V o l . 25 (April 1969), 39-^2. . "UFOs And The Numbers Game," Natural VoT7 77 (March 1968), 24-25+. "UFOs Merit S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y , " ToTT 154 (October 2 1 , 1 9 6 6 ) , 3 2 9 . . History, L Sci ence,

(letter)

Keyhoe, Donald E . " F l y i n g Saucers From Outer S p a c e , " Look, V o l . 17 (October 2 0 , 1 9 5 3 ) , 114-120.

77

"Korean S a u c e r s , " Newsweek, V o l .

39

(March 3 ,

1952),

44.

Krutch, J . W. " I f You D o n ' t Mind My Saying So; Inexplicable Saucer Reports," American Scholar (Summer 1969), 3?o+. L e a r , John. "The Disputed CIA Document on U F O s , " Saturday Review, V o l . 49 (September 3 , I 9 6 6 ) , 45-50. . "UFOs And The Laws Of P h y s i c s , " v i e w , V o l . 50 (October 7 , 1967), 5 9 . Saturday ReSatur56

. "What Are Unidentified Aerial Objects?" day Review, V o l . 49 (August 6 , 1 9 6 6 ) , 42-49. Lee, Ben S . " A F vs S a u c e r s , " (June 2 3 , 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 6 . Aviation Week, V o l .

L e v i t t , I . M. "A S c i e n t i s t Diagnoses The Flying S a u c e r , " Popular Mechanics, V o l . 98 (September 1 9 5 2 ) , 95+. Long, Allen. "The Air Force Looks At ' S a u c e r s ' , " D i g e s t , V o l . 35 (January 1 9 5 4 ) , 9-10. "Lost Cause; Science

27, 1969), 100.

Condon R e p o r t , " Nation, V o l .

208

(January

Margolis, H. "UFO Phenomenon," B u l l e t i n of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , V o l . 23 (June 1 9 6 7 ) , 40-4-2. Markowitz, W i l l i a m . "Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying O b j e c t s , " Science, V o l . 157 (September 1 5 , 1 9 6 7 ) , 1274-1279. "New Light On Flying S a u c e r s , "

20, 1967), 16.

U.S.

News, V o l . News, V o l . 37

62 67

(March (Decem195*0,

"New Turn For Flying S a u c e r s , " U . S . ber 2 9 , 1 9 6 9 ) , 7 . "Now They're I n I t a l y , " 133-134. Life, Vol.

(November 2 9 ,

Pace, Thornton. "Photographic Sky Coverage For The Detection of U F O s , " S c i e n c e , V o l . 160 (June 1 4 , 1 9 6 8 ) ,

1258-1260.

78

Pi e l , J . "UFO Watcher Watcher," Newsweek, V o l . 20, 1967), 111. "Remember The Flying Saucers?" (October 1 9 ^ 7 ) , 69-71.

69

(March 22

Science D i g e s t , V o l .

Rogers, Warren. " F l y i n g Saucers: Sl.nhtinsrs And Study of U F O s , " Look, V o l . 31 (March 2 1 , 1 9 6 7 ) , 76-80. Sagen, C a r l . " U n i d e n t i f i e d Flying O b j e c t s , " Bulletin of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , V o l . 23 (June 1 9 6 7 ) , 43-44. "Saucers'

1969), 44-45.

End;

Condon R e p o r t , " Time, V o l . 66

93

(January 1955), (August

17, 52.

"Saucer Blue B o o k , " Time, V o l . Scott, D. H. "U and the UFO," 1 9 6 7 ) , 81-82.

(November 7 , 81

Flying, Vol. (letter)

Seaman, E. A. "A 1953 S i g h t i n g , " 154 (December 2 , I966), 1 1 1 8 .

Science,

Vol.

S h a l e t t , Sidney. "What You Can 3 e l i e v e About S a u c e r s , " Saturday Evening Post, V o l . 221 1 9 4 9 ) , 20-7TT:

Flying (April 3 0 ,

. "What You Can Believe About Flying S a u c e r s , " Saturday Evening Post, V o l . 221 (May 7 , 1 9 4 9 ) , 1 8 6 + . "Shooting Down The UFOs; Condon R e p o r t , " Newsweek, 73 (January 2 0 , 1969), 5 ^ . Shuldiner, H . "Great UFO P r o b e , " 191 (October 1967), 120-123. Popular S c i e n c e , Vol. Vol. Time, Popular (letter) Vol.

" S i c k l e s In The S k y , Communist UFO O b s e r v a t i o n s , " V o l . 90 (December 2 2 , I967), 2 8 . S t e i n e r , Ralph. "How To Expose Flying S a u c e r s , " Science, V o l . 162 (January 1 9 5 3 ) , 226-229. S t i b i t z , George R. " U F O ' s Dimensions and S p e e d , " S c i e n c e , V o l . 155 (January 2 7 , I967), ^ 0 4 . "Study Grounds Flying S a u c e r s , " Senior S c h o l a s t i c , 94 (January 31 , 1 9 6 9 ) , 21-22.

79

Taylor, Henry J . Digest, V o l .

"Flying Saucer Is Good News," 57 (July 1 9 5 0 ) , 14-16.

Headers'

"UFOs Over Washington; Call For Renewed S c i e n t i f i c And Government Saucer Research," Newsweek, V o l . 72 (August 1 2 , 1 9 6 8 ) , 72. "UFO Photographs Anyone?" Science D i g e s t , V o l . 62 tember 1 9 6 7 ) , 7 3 . "UFO Report Rejects Nonterrestrial O r i g i n , " Vol. 90 (January 2 7 , 1969), 85. (Sep-

""

Aviation Week,

Warren, D. I . "Status Inconsistency Theory and Flying Saucer S i g h t i n g s , " Science. V o l . 1 7 0 (November o , 1 9 7 0 ) , 599-603. "Washington B l i p s , 'Somethings' Over the Capitol Are Traced On Radar," L i f e , V o l . 33 (August 4 , 1 9 5 2 ) , 39-40. Wood, Robert H. "What Are Flying Saucers?" Aviation Week, Vol. 54 (June 2 5 , 1 9 5 1 ) , 7 4 . Wylie, P. "UFOs, The Sense and Nonsense," ence, V o l . 190 (March 1967). 76-79. O f f i c i a l Documents Air Force Regulation 200-2, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO). Washington: Department of the Air Force, 1953, Congress, House Committee on Armed Services. Unidentified Flying Objects, Hearing 89th Congress, second session. Washington: U . S . Government Printing Office, 1 9 6 6 . Congress, House Committee on Science and Astronautics. Symposium on UFO, Hearings 90th Congress, second session. Washington: U . S . Government Printing Office, 1968. Project Blue Book Special Report No. 1 4 . (Analysis of Reports of Unidentified Aerial Objects) WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio: Air Technical I n t e l l i g e n c e Center, 1 9 5 5 . Popular Sci-

80

Unpublished

Material

, "The UFO Problem: Time For a ReassessKing, John R. ment." Unpublished Air Command and S t a f f t h e s i s , A i r U n i v e r s i t y , Maxwell AFB, Alabama., I 9 6 9 . "UFOs and E x t r a t e r r e s t r i a l L i f e . " Stanley, Darrell L . Unpublished A i r Command and S t a f f College t h e s i s , A i r U n i v e r s i t y , Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 1 9 6 8 .

81