Symposium on ufos/u.s. House of representatives 5;
Rebuttal Attempt: Working with NICAP;
The Branscomb letter probably marked a turning point in tactics for McDonald. Up to that time there was always the feeling that the report might prove acceptable. However, three weeks after the letter appeared
Symposium on ufos/u.s. House of representatives
McDonald wrote to Hall to discuss good CU cases to begin reinvestigating for a rebuttal to the report. [72] McDonald did not want to be caught by surprise and as a result produce a rebuttal so far after the fact that the Condon Report would be forgotten and the rebuttal, therefore, without impact.
No doubt still looking toward the future possibility of funding from the ONR McDonald sent the Saunders galleys to Hughes along with his commentary on various parts of the book. He told Hughes that Saunders' choice of UFO cases did not impress him, but the administrative history of the project was well done and it heartened him to see it in the open record. [73]
The galleys eventually went to the NAS also, but only because the New American Library, Saunders' publisher, sent them. Saunders himself concluded that the galleys were not a scientific document and did not feel he could forward them.
Concern for the report further heightened when McDonald heard "a well-confirmed rumor" that Condon did not want the study to go to the NAS or the public unless he were covered for libel suits from witnesses. This made McDonald believe that Condon categorized many witnesses as cheats, frauds, unreliables or psychotics. This possibility increased his desire to prepare the rebuttal and he told Hall to begin assembling a list of all CU cases if one didn't already exist. [75]
McDonald argued that Condon's desire for libel protection was a ploy to "bottle up" the report. However, he didn't think it would work because of the publicity received by CU in the Look and Science articles. He thought the Air Force would release the report even if it meant providing the libel protection.
[76]
EDITOR'S NOTE: The footnote numbering on this page skips from 73 to 75; there is no footnote 74.
[[155]]
He continued with plans to organize the rebuttal. He told Hall that they were not doing their homework; that the report would be out shortly, they would be asked for comment and be caught short if they did not hurry their preparation. The case review could best be conducted, he thought, by getting together with Saunders, Levine and Armstrong. To pursue post Condon UFO work with a formal organization, without a good critique of CU, McDonald considered sheer folly. [77]
Although going forward with these plans McDonald continued his efforts to get through to the NAS review panel. He offered Seitz his comments and critique of the Condon Study which he argued would be more helpful to the panel prior to its deliberations than after. [78]
In further rebuttal talk McDonald urged Hall to keep their efforts quiet. He argued that the rumor chain could work both ways and if the people at CU or the Air Force were to learn of the cases that were undergoing investigation they might have them reworked or excluded from the report. The next six to eight weeks seemed critical to him. [79]
In the interim Hall and his associates at NICAP worked up a plan for the rebuttal. It included the release of UFOs: A New Look along with a press release, the writing of a "white paper" on the CU project with a covering press release, the development of an analysis of the Condon Report with an accompanying press release, and the systematic use of the media by NICAP Subcommittees and Affiliates to present local rebuttal throughout the nation. [80];
************************************************** ********
Rebuttal Attempt: Working Through NAS;
When Seitz replied to McDonald it was to say that he thought there would be ample time for criticism after the report and review came out. He asserted that the panel was chosen to be as impartial as possible and would be given the Roush Hearings to peruse as well as McDonald's
congressional statement. [81]
This implied that everything which McDonald had to say could be read in those two documents. McDonald retorted that the hearings did not touch upon the Air Force handling of the UFO problem or the Condon Study. Therefore, access to the Hearings would not permit the committee to weigh those points he believed most salient. McDonald closed by directly asking Seitz for the names of the Review Panel members. [82]
In correspondence with Malone he said Seitz and the secrecy at the NAS made him uneasy. He thought the NAS was in the process of digging itself into a hole with Condon and so he asked Malone to provide any constructive suggestions that might occur to him. [83]
The interaction with the NAS continued with McDonald, not hearing from Seitz in six days, dashing off a quick note in a further attempt to get what he considered vital information to the Review Panel. He asked Seitz to give the Panel his 1/31/68 letter to Low as well as his 2/9/68 and 3/5/68 letters to Seitz expressing grave concern. McDonald claimed that he took every step since his 4/20/67 meeting with Seitz with misgivings, but he continued to believe the problem sufficiently important to justify his actions. He said that he wanted confirmation that the correspondence had been forwarded to the Review Panel. [84]
The same day Seitz wrote McDonald that any material he had for the Panel should be forwarded. However, the Panel had to remain anonymous to avoid intrusions into the members' lives. [85]
The entire situation looked ominous to McDonald after Lou Corbin told him that John Sievers at the Academy left the impression that all the panelists were Academy members. McDonald began attacking on another front. Having once successfully engineered House Hearings on UFOs he
tried again.
Jerry Pettis, a House member from California, publicly discussed the possibility after the Redlands sightings in 1968. Now McDonald told Malone that he contacted Representative Udall asking him to urge Pettis to act. [86]
BACK to History of Events
Release of the Colorado Report;
Early January found McDonald eager to get at the soon-to-be released report. When he determined the actual date that the NAS would make it public he telegrammed Seitz, "Understand Condon Report available Thursday. Will fly Washington Wednesday and phone Thursday about studying copy at Academy or other source." [87] A week later he had been through the thousand-page document and was up in arms, for as he anticipated the conclusions were, from his perspective, negative. Condon stated: [88]
Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has been added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFO's probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.
Properly conducted research, according to McDonald, would have justified an unfavorable outcome. However, McDonald viewed the research as prejudiced in approach, poorly conceived and improperly conducted; hence a rebuttal was in order.
This took both verbal and written form, occupying him for most of 1969. He began by contacting Hynek at Northwestern to get him to speak out on the Report. In addition, he got Kuiper, Hartmann and others at the UA together in a colloquium for purposes of indicting the Boulder study.
The following week McDonald put in full-time rechecking the work done by Condon and his staff. He found numerous glaring errors epitomized by the statement, "the more I look the worse it gets." He
admitted there were some bright spots, but they were not in the areas which made a difference. [89]
During this period plans went forward at NICAP for an extensive written rebuttal. Constant contact between the NICAP staff, particularly Hall, and McDonald took place. The latter intended to make a large written contribution as well as softening up selected government, military and academic audiences through speaking engagements. His speaking feats, prodigious since October 1966, took him to the podium seventy-eight times. In the first six months of 1969 he intensified these efforts by speaking out against the Condon Report at eighteen different functions (see Appendix A for a list of his speaking engagements).
He pursued another tactic by attempting to find disaffected members of Condon's staff who would publicly denounce the Report. He asked William Hartmann, who did the photo analysis work for Condon, if he would make the same statements which he had made at an IAP colloquium, where he disagreed with the conclusions and recommendations of the Report, in a more public way in Science. He also wondered if other project members might join in since in a recent talk with Franklin Roach (who did the section on astronaut sightings) he found out that a number of the staff did not agree with the conclusions of the Report. [90]
Although Hartmann was not impressed by the substance of the UFO phenomenon, he did express concern that it did not receive fair treatment from journal editors. Nevertheless, he felt he could not speak out against Condon because Condon's chapters of summary, conclusions and recommendations were under his own name. Consequently, to criticize Condon publicly for using wording different from that used by
his staff in other chapters to describe the research of the latter would be impossible.
Hartmann further suggested that McDonald would be wise to take his case to Science rather than to the speaking circuit. [91]
With Hynek, Saunders and others McDonald did a Voice of America tape on the UFO problem and focused on the Condon Report. It disappointed him that Condon refused to participate.
At this time he mentioned to Hughes undergoing the first major change in his position since June 1966, in that he believed the Condon Report was just one more example of the Air Force receiving bad advice from the scientific community. The Air Force did not foist a conspiracy on the public; the scientific community failed to advise the Air Force wisely and a twenty-year foul-up resulted. [92]
BACK to History of Events
Continuing Rebuttal Activity;
McDonald also recruited others to help in the rebuttal. He asked Hall if there was anything that needed doing which William Bickel, a professor of Physics at the UA, might work on? He said Bickel's area was plasma spectroscopy and he wanted to help. [93] By this time McDonald's ideas regarding the size of the rebuttal were grandiose. He spoke in terms of 300 pages, [94] while Hall considered 150-200 pages the optimum length. [95]
One might ask of what this rebuttal work consisted. To provide some idea of what took place the following letter from McDonald to Ted Bloecher at NICAP is presented in full. [96]
Unfortunately, from McDonald's standpoint, after several months of effort both on his part and on NICAP's, administrative problems at NICAP forced the rebuttal to a halt. Nevertheless, the output from its preparation provided McDonald with a great deal of grist for his verbal and written critiques of the Condon Report.
link; http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccar....html#reaction
02-24-2011, 06:16 PM
Fatal Guillotine
Symposium on ufos/u.s. House of representatives 6;
This letter from a very well respected and senior physicist named Macdonald is evidence that the Condon report was inadequate, bias and purposely misleading and ignoring cases that contained levels of very "high strangeness" or where very difficult to label them swamp gas ect;
************************************************** ********
Mr. Ted Bloecher;
N.I.C.A.P.
1536 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Ted:
There are several points to briefly mention concerning cases that I have recently been checking.
I talked with Tom Nicholl, Leawood, Kansas, and was well-impressed with him. There were only a few details over and above his rather complete report that I got over the phone. Mainly, I feel that it can be treated as a fairly solid report and an interesting indication of Condon's casual handling of such cases. We made a tentative date to have lunch together in Kansas City when I am speaking to the AIAA Section there in late May.
Some weeks ago you sent me NICAP file material on the 3/25/66 sighting in Ann Arbor by Grenier and others. I have now talked with Grenier and with Kartlick who works at a University of Michigan lab (supported by NASA) but not correctly called a NASA Lab). Sounds like a strong case and I am getting further information from both of them on it. Dr. Espey, whose tergiversations with respect to swamp gas are an amusing facet of that case is no longer in Ann Arbor. Kartlick will try to locate him for me.
Finding the 3/25 incident more impressive than I would have guessed, I reviewed the short section in the Condon Report dealing with the March, 1966 wave in Michigan. The more I pondered Condon's casual rehash of the Air Force statement plus Bland's suggestion that maybe it was swamp gas after all, the more annoyed I became. There was the series of sightings which led directly to the creation of the Condon Committee and he passes it off with a page and one half most of it direct from Air Force press personnel.
So last Sunday I called Frank Mannor. Briefly, that has led me into an intensive recheck on the Dexter-Hillsdale sightings, and it has left me boiling mad at Allen Hynek. Quite by chance Allen, passing through Tucson, called me from the airport a few days ago and I gave him some of my sentiments directly.
I have interviewed Mannor, Dexter police chief Taylor, Deputy Fitzpatrick, Hillsdale Civil Defense Director VanHorn, Sheriff Harvey, Sgt. Schneider, Hillsdale College Director of Public Affairs Ferguson, Deputy McFadden, and there are three or four more whom I am still hunting down including Mrs. Kelly Hearn of the Hillsdale sighting, Nolen Lee, and Robert Hunawill.
[[161]]
I am digging into this because it is one more point of critique and rebuttal of the Condon Report which I now believe warrants strong emphasis. It also discloses the abysmal Condon-like prejudices that Hynek brought to that case and that characterize so much of his pre-1966 Bluebook work. I can't take time to even give you the highlights of what are now about 20 pages of telephone notes from this interviewing, except to say that it is one more incredible facet of the UFO problem.
If in the NICAP files you have anything from Mrs. Kelly Hearn, who I have yet to locate, I would very much appreciate copies. I see no point in asking you to copy what must be an extremely large file of material on the Michigan cases. However, if in going through it you should see any gems that you would guess that I have never studied, obviously I would be interested.
But there is one matter that I would like to ask you and Dick and Isabel to try to help me on, if possible. It's a detail in the 6/29/54 BOAC stratocruiser case. I just got a tape of the audio of the BBC-TV and I have listened carefully to the interview with Capt. James Howard. I have also gone over an article which was published In 1955 in Stag magazine, which was written by Howard "as told to" some writer. I have only one or two contemporary clippings on it, plus the other obvious references in the Evidence, etc.
An extremely important detail, that may serve to explode completely Thayer's mirage explanation concerns the height of the cloud tops below the stratocruiser. He was at 19,000 ft, and in the Stag article he states that the cloud tops were down around 5,000 ft. Do you know of any information that would tend to confirm cloud heights that low? I have calculated, from standard refraction theory, the horizon dip-angle for any of a number of assumed cloud deck altitudes. If the cloud tops lay anywhere below about 17,000 or 18,000 feet the dip-angle is so large that Thayer's suggestion of a superior mirage from an assumed overlying inversion layer is absurd. Can you help me at all on this?
If in going through the NICAP or the CSI files you locate anything in the way of any substantial press interviews or other articles in addition to the Stag article, I would greatly appreciate getting copies.
I wrote to Captain Howard, c/o BOAC, several weeks ago, and then followed up with another letter about two weeks later. I want to get directly from him, if possible, information on those clouds. To date, no answer. I may write him again in about a week.
My California trip and other matters have gotten in the way of further writing of my RESA draft. I am getting back to it now.
[[162]]
I can't take time and space to elaborate, but I have some very interesting information on the Kirtland case (page 141 in the Bantam edition), as well as the 5/13 Colorado Springs radar case. Also, Norm Levine has sent very relevant commentary on the Kincheloe case. I have so much material to discuss that my principal problem is how to boil it down.
Best regards,
James E. McDonald;
Senior Physicist;
JEM:mlt
Nor did he give up on showing the Air Force the error of its ways. Probably his revised position with respect to the poor scientific advice provided in the past spurred him on. In the same time-frame as his attempts to critique the CU study he again knocked on the Air Force door. He informed William Price at AFOSR that he would be in Washington from June 9-11 for an NSF Advisory Panel Meeting on the Atmospheric Sciences and requested Price to arrange a colloquium on UFOs for interested AFOSR personnel. He told Price that after four months of checking he was very concerned about the Condon Report. [97] Price said the Air Force no longer had responsibility in the area, but McDonald could confer with the OAR and AFOSR people who handled the CU contract. [98]
Of paramount importance to McDonald was the anticipated Air Force action on the Condon recommendations. He spoke at the AFOSR giving a critique of the Condon Report and told Price that since the Condon recommendations did not rule out further studies if properly designed, that he would submit a proposal for funding. [99] A Colonel Whitfield Martin wrote to McDonald some time later informing him that the AFOSR had no responsibility for UFOs and so he could not encourage the submission of a proposal. [100]
In his continuing effort to check cases in the Condon Report McDonald became involved in another imbroglio. One of the problems with the Condon Report, at least in the eyes of those interested in reinvestigation of cases, was the fact that witness names were not used and the geographic location of the sighting was given as a section, such as the Northwest United States. Condon claimed he adopted this approach so that witnesses would not be harassed after publication of the report. Some of the cases investigated were well enough known, however,
that McDonald could determine from the above information alone who to contact.
Yet, others were more obscure and it was to obtain information on these cases that he contacted Dr. Ralph Ellsworth.
He phoned Ellsworth, head of Norlin Library at CU, to check some cases in the Project files which Condon presented to the Western Historical Collection in Norlin. Ellsworth indicated McDonald needed Condon's permission to examine the material. McDonald thereupon wrote Condon asking to see the files in May and/or June. [101] Condon replied that McDonald could not consult the files because, "it is not our intention to make them publicly available in the near future." [102]
This undoubtedly brought McDonald to a slow boil. He had already obtained copies of the radar cases analyzed by Gordon Thayer in the Condon Report from Blue Book, but the witness names were excised. He argued to Condon that because the project had access to the names and because the copies of the Blue Book files held at Norlin were not a direct outgrowth of the project that he should be permitted access. [103]
This argument did not persuade Condon. He reiterated that project files would not be opened in the near future, especially the Blue Book files. He asserted it would be inappropriate to do so since the Air Force kept witness names confidential. To get McDonald's hackles up he forwarded a copy of his American Philosophical Society paper on UFOs in which he placed UFOs in the category of occult nonsense. [104]
To this McDonald responded by going over Condon's head. He contacted Morris Udall who spoke with Secretary of the Air Force Seamans and Representative Moss who chaired the House Freedom of Information Subcommittee. He also forwarded Condon critiques of the Report and told him that, "your Philadelphia and Irvine talks indicate you must have no
real awareness of the weakness of the position you have developed" and "in giving the Academy such a Report, I believe you did science a direct disservice.
That the Academy processes could lead to endorsement is disturbing." [105] In a terse note Condon thanked him for the enclosures and advised McDonald of the termination of the correspondence. [106] This is the beginning of the CU data controversy.
Even though this only brings us halfway through 1969 it is as far as McDonald's correspondence goes in that year with respect to the Condon Study, although it picks up again in mid-1970. This is largely due to his involvement in the SST debate, his preparation for the 1969 AAAS UFO Symposium and his battle with Philip Klass.
The CU data controversy is the last extended interaction of McDonald with the CU project other than his intermittent public talks, his Icarus review which put his criticism in a respected scientific journal [107] and his AAAS paper presented in Boston in December 1969. Therefore, this chapter will close by following his efforts to obtain access to the Condon Project data in 1970 and 1971 and omit mention of any other extant, but limited activities relating to the Condon Report.
In 1970 McDonald continued to develop his personal rebuttal to the Condon Report. Failing to secure satisfaction from Secretary of the Air Force Seamans and Congressman Moss, in June of 1970, after waiting a year, he made another request of Ellsworth at Norlin Library to access the Xeroxed Blue Book files which were part of the Condon Project material. [108]
He considered this a propitious time to act because of Condon's recent retirement and he (McDonald) intended to travel to NCAR in Boulder for a meeting in mid-July. [109] John Brennan, Curator of the Western Historical Collection, replied for Ellsworth explaining that the
files could not be made available because the Library continued to operate under the 4/22/69 instructions given by Condon. [110]
This attempt aborted as did a personal conversation with Brennan on July 6 while visiting NCAR on business; nevertheless, McDonald did not consider this the end of the matter. He wrote Ellsworth again using a slightly different approach. This time he pointed out that the Blue Book cases were archived at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama which meant they were available, but he stated that he had no reason to be in that area of the country. However, he said he would be in Boulder in late August and asked Ellsworth to obtain Condon's permission to Xerox two to three dozen cases. [111]
In reference to this problem in a letter to Saunders, McDonald revealed the rationale behind his request. "I'm asking if I can see just the Blue Book Xeroxes alone. Since those items are not really research material generated by the Condon Project, but rather provided at no cost by a government agency, it would seem that my plea can't be brushed aside as unreasonable." [112]
Ellsworth responded that he asked Condon's permission and awaited a reply. [113] McDonald informed Ellsworth that he would be in Fort Collins for an American Meteorological Society meeting from August 24-28 and in Boulder during September. He enclosed a list of the cases he wanted to look at. [114] Several days later Ellsworth indicated to McDonald that Condon refused access on the grounds that a confidential relationship existed with the Air Force, but if the Air Force were to agree and the material could be sorted out, it would be alright. Ellsworth said that unfortunately the Library did not have the money or the staff to do the
sorting and so he suggested McDonald travel to Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama to acquire the material. [115]
We can obtain a feeling for Condon's position on this matter by looking at the rationale he presented to Ellsworth for the above response. He stated, "I believe that the material consists of a mixed bag that needs a lot of sorting. If there are some rough notes of the Colorado Project fieldwork in it, I would expect him (McDonald) to pounce on that and criticize our mode of handling it."
"But more formally, a refusal can be based on the fact that the Air Force cases were given to us in confidence with the understanding that names of persons involved in the cases would not be disclosed, so to let him see the files would be to violate our understanding." [116]
McDonald reacted to the Ellsworth letter by writing Colonel William Coleman at SAFOI in Washington to ask permission to Xerox the Blue Book material. [117] He forwarded a carbon to Ellsworth and told him that Saunders claimed the files were ordered in such a way as to minimize the staff time involved in sorting the material. [118] Coleman's answer was to the effect that McDonald could have access to the material if it could be worked out with the University of Colorado. [119]
Ellsworth followed this up by saying that it was alright with him but McDonald still needed Condon's consent. [120]
Finally Condon personally entered the fray. He told McDonald that the project files were not a part of the Norlin collection, but were only in storage there until he could decide what to do with them. He went on to say, "On the basis of my previous experiences in dealing with you I have decided that you will not be given access to any of this material. As I read the fourth paragraph of Colonel Coleman's letter
the names and addresses of witnesses are confidential.
We have no machinery for administering this provision of their regulations." [121]
McDonald actually received the above letter from Condon on August 25. On August 24 while in Boulder he went to Norlin to determine if he could have access to the files. He was told that Condon removed them from the Library. He wrote Condon reiterating his position that he only wanted Blue Book Xeroxes, was already working with similar material from Maxwell and, according to Ellsworth's 7/24/70 letter, only needed Air Force permission and the cooperation of the CU staff to get the files.
He said that since his prior correspondence made it clear that he had access to Maxwell material, and Coleman's letter only dealt with the disclosure of witness names in the scientific literature, and not with the examination of the files, he found Condon's refusal on the grounds that he had "no machinery for administering this provision of their regulations" difficult to understand.
He asserted that he still wanted the material and claimed Condon reversed himself on the conditions for access which he had previously laid down.
McDonald wanted to know if Condon thought the files were his private property and, if so, if he considered it his right to destroy them? [122]
This closed the debate for 1970 because Condon never replied. There is only one more chapter to the story. It came in February 1971. Gordon Thayer, who did the radar case analyses for the Condon Report and later had some second thoughts on the UFO problem, agreed to write up the classic Lakenheath, England radar case for the journal Aeronautics and Astronautics of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
He called McDonald for a copy of the Blue Book file, for by that time
McDonald had made several trips to Maxwell, but McDonald told him to get it from Condon since he (Thayer) worked at ESSA in Boulder. Thayer replied that he asked Condon and was told that the files were too bulky to store so he had destroyed them. [123] McDonald was furious, but to no avail. The attempt to guide the Condon Study and then to rebut its findings was over. McDonald lost, but what did he try to do, and how did he try to do it?
(in short this well respected man named Macdonald highlighted fatal errors and exposed purposely misleading conclusions on the UFO cases that this USAF Condon investigation reached.He without a doubt showed that Condon and his team ignored the harder UFO cases and concentrated on labeling ALL UFO cases they studied as of no significance or threat to national security despite hundred"s of UFO cases ,(with military witnesses),showing that unknown objects where entering and leaving USA restricted and civilian air space at WILL.)
Symposium on ufos/u.s. House of representatives 7;
What is very important to perceive and remember here is that the finale conclusions and findings presented to the "US HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES" from the "Condon UFO" report or "BLUE BOOK" as it was called back then, would determine any past or FUTURE fundings into serious UFO research by scientific academics be they civilian or military based;This is what Macdonald realized along with Condon and his governmental scientific panel who where to have the finale say on whether the UFO reports ect where a serious concern to continue further investigation and scientific research;
The fact that so many UFO files containing serious cases where destroyed by Condon and his ongoing refusal to openly debate certain UFO cases with Macdonald indicates that Condon played dirty and had something to hide from the public,he in fact made sure there would be no future serious scientific investigations ,funding and research by his actions and behavioral attitudes towards Macdonald and people who questioned his research and investigation techniques through his tenure and time he spent on the "Condon UFO report or "BLUE BOOK" .
The finale part of this series of posts ends with the "SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS" showing how even a serious and respected man like Macdonald in his time can be treated and the panic it can have on the people like Condon who serve the official line and the ends they are prepared and possible helped to go to to hide the truth of this UFO enigma;
************************************************** ********
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS;
He operated within the framework established in the last chapter. With this strategy he intended to legitimate UFO research and in the process shift a paradigm. To accomplish this he tried to insure a favorable outcome to the Condon Study. For it was a well-recognized fact that the Boulder project would determine the future funding policies for the examination of UFO data in the short run and possibly for decades, McDonald knew that, because at all the federal agencies where he took his case they told him "to wait for Colorado." The answer seemed to be, then, to offer aid and guidance if necessary, through the completion of the research.
McDonald used several tactics beginning in 1967 and continuing through early 1971. In the beginning he offered Condon aid both to help and to monitor CU. When that failed he offered what he considered constructive criticism. Then he engineered a confrontation with Condon and concurrent with all three of the above tactics he took his case to higher authority in the form of the NAS. Finally, after all else failed McDonald went about the task of developing a rebuttal to the final report.
In March of 1967 McDonald offered to brief Condon and asked him to
appear on the American Society of Newspaper Editors Panel with Menzel and Quintanllla, but Condon refused on both counts. A month later he publicly stated that Condon did not spend much time on the project and in August, after considerable persevering. Low asked him to brief the project staff. He came away convinced that the project was in trouble. Condon reinforced this feeling the following month when he gave his infamous NBS talk about which McDonald protested to Low.
Condon's NBS talk was apparently a turning point, for after that McDonald met with Saunders and Levine in early November and talked of engineering a confrontation. This did not materialize until two months later when McDonald sent his letter critical of the CU project administration and of the Low memo to Low. The letter caused Condon to fire Saunders and Levine which resulted in their combining with McDonald and Fuller to prepare the Look article exposing the inner workings of the project. This, McDonald hoped, might turn the project around.
While Saunders and Levine began legal action against Condon so did McDonald. The latter felt that Condon owed him an apology for claiming that he forced Saunders and Levine to steal the Low memo. Eventually he discontinued the suit claiming that it was a poor tactic in a primarily scientific matter.
McDonald's appeal to the NAS took place at the same time as the above tactics. This was the result of his fear that things were not what they should have been in Boulder. Condon's February 1967 talk to the Corning Glass Ware Chapter of the [Sigma Chi Iota] Honorary Fraternity exacerbated these fears. This began McDonald's appeals to the NAS.
[[170a]]
He wrote Philip Seitz, president of the NAS, in March to explain that he wanted to brief Seitz on the UFO situation because he didn't want the NAS to be caught unprepared when the issue broke and the public began to ask questions. He obtained a hearing with Seitz in April, prior to which he forwarded some of his UFO work and a list of his speaking engagements to impress the NAS president with the degree of seriousness he imputed to the problem. McDonald's pleas proved of little avail, so he bided his time for several more months.
However, after his visit to Boulder in August he came away saddened by Condon's attitude and wrote Seitz again. This time he asked that the NAS set up a special review panel to look at UFO case material independent of the Condon Study. Again Seitz told him to wait for the results of Condon's research. That he could not do, for he saw what he believed were progressively deteriorating conditions at CU.
So he engineered a confrontation over the Low memo and followed this with another letter to Seitz in February 1968. He enclosed his 1/31/68 letter to Low which started the skirmish at CU (getting Saunders and Levine fired), the Low memo, and earlier letters on the Condon Project sent to Sievers and Coleman, both NAS staffers. In McDonald's mind this constituted a preamble to the detailed criticism of CU which would follow.
At this stage of the NAS appeal he feared Keyhoe might bring the press into it. He wrote him not to do so, and indicated that it could be pursued quietly at the NAS level. McDonald expected action, but got none; he thought the study should be stopped, but Seitz said it should run its course. He assumed publication of the May Look article on the Low memo would finally force the NAS to do something, yet again nothing happened.
As the months passed and the situation continued to look grave McDonald
became sufficiently worried about the problem that in October he contacted Representative Roush's administrative assistant, Phyllis O'Callaghan to ask her to obtain the names of the NAS Panelists who would review the Condon Report so that he could contact them. Moreover, he talked Saunders' publisher into forwarding the galleys of Saunders' forthcoming book on the Colorado Project to the NAS. Then he followed this up a month later with an offer to Seitz of a critique of the Condon Project for the NAS Review Panel.
This was at a time when he realized that he could not learn the names of the panel members.
Seitz told him that his testimony at the July 1968 House Hearings would be adequate to present his position to the Review Panel, but McDonald claimed it would be inadequate and again asked for the identities of the panelists.
Before he received a reply he made a last effort to convey what he considered vital information to the panel. He asked Seitz in the last letter of his appeal to insure that the Panel obtained copies of the 1/31/68 letter to Low and his 2/9/68 and 3/5/68 letters to Seitz.
Such were the tactics when it appeared that the Condon Report might be reformed or exposed prior to its publication. By October 1968, however, it seemed highly probable to McDonald that the Colorado findings would be negative. Consequently, he began to prod Hall about rechecking CU cases in order to get out a good rebuttal. He felt that if it did not come out rapidly it would have a minimal impact. Moreover, a good critique of the Report was necessary if the academic UFO research organization which he contemplated were to flourish in a post-Condon environment.
Since they were starting early McDonald told Hall to keep the rebuttal
cases quiet. He wanted to avoid the possibility that the rumors would reach Boulder and result in the omission of the rebutted cases from the Report.
When the Condon Report appeared in January 1969 McDonald went through it in a week and began to contact academics to speak against it. He spoke to government, military and academic audiences (eighteen talks between January and June) to prepare them for the prospective rebuttal. Along with Hynek and Saunders he did a Voice of America tape critical of the Report and he attempted to recruit disaffected Project members to speak out against the research.
Finally, McDonald began to recheck sighting reports which led him to the battle with Condon over the Xeroxed Blue Book cases, which were probably just an excuse to get into the general project files. Before resolution of the issue occurred he appealed to Ellsworth, head of Norlin Library, Condon, Representative Morris Udall, Secretary of the Air Force Seamans, Representative Moss and Colonel Coleman at SAFOIS. Yet, despite his efforts Condon eventually won the day by destroying the material.
SUMMARY OF TACTICS;
Aid to the Project.
Numerous offers of briefings.
An actual briefing.
Forwarded his UFO papers.
Talked with Price and Ratchford.
Exposure of Project.
Attempted to get Condon to sit on the ASNE panel.
Claimed Condon did not spend much time on the Project.
Protested Condon's Corning Glass Works talk.
Protested Condon's NBS talk.
Engineered the confrontation over the Low memo.
Contributed to the Look expose article.
Provided Philip Boffey of Science material for an article.
The NAS;
Appealed to Seitz at the NAS on several occasions
Told Keyhoe to keep the protest at the NAS level.
Had Saunders' publisher send his galleys to the NAS.
Offered the NAS a critique of the CU project.
Offered the NAS Review Panel correspondence critical of CU.
Attempted to obtain the names of the NAS Review Panel members.
The Rebuttal;
Prodded Hall prior to publication of the Condon Report.
Advised secrecy with respect to rechecked cases.
Spoke against the Report 18 times between January and June 1969.
Criticized the Report in a VOA tape with Hynek and Saunders.
Rechecked cases.
Sought out disaffected project members to speak against the Report.
Appealed to Condon and others for access to the Blue Book Xeroxes.
with Stephen Bassett, Stanton Friedman and Betsy McDonald. Dr. James E. McDonald was the most prestigious and most influential scientist who ever entered the UFO research field. He was the single scientist who made the most valuable contributions and the one who gave up more of his life for the cause of disclosure.
************************************************** *******
This remarkable atmospheric physicist is becoming widely known in our field since the 2003 publication of Firestorm? Dr. James E. McDonald's Fight for UFO Science, and it is hoped that the field will return to his strictly scientific approach. Known previously only to veteran UFO researchers who knew and worked with him personally between 1958 and 1971 his contributions in our field were numerous, meaningful and complex, as were outlined, although necessarily briefly, in last year's talk.
Now, specific examples of roadblocks from government and high scientific sources that were placed in his way during the unforgettable years he worked publicly with us will be detailed. It is essential the disclosure movement be aware of previously-hidden facts about the demise of NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) which began during Jim's last two years with us. McDonald had chosen to work most closely with NICAP and its famous Director Major Donald E. Keyhoe (USMC Ret.) because he regarded NICAP as the most objective and scientifically-oriented civilian UFO research organization at that time.
He and NICAP were making unprecedented strides toward government disclosure, including proof that Project Blue Book was merely a public relations scheme instead of a true government UFO study. Jim McDonald's prestigious scientific career in climatology and meteorology stands by itself. So also does his remarkable contributions to our UFO research field and his work for disclosure of what our government truly knows about this most mysterious phenomenon.«
James E. McDonald (May 7, 1920 – June 13, 1971) was an American physicist. He is best known for his research regarding UFOs. McDonald was senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona, Tucson.
McDonald campaigned vigorously in support of expanding UFO studies during the mid and late 1960s, arguing that UFOs represented an intriguing, pressing and unsolved mystery which had not been adequately studied by science. He was one of the more prominent figures of his time who argued in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis as a plausible, but not completely proved, model of UFO phenomena.
A dedicated and tireless UFO researcher and scholar, McDonald interviewed over 500 UFO witnesses, uncovered many important government UFO documents, and gave important presentations of UFO evidence. He testified before Congress during the UFO hearings of 1968[1]. McDonald also gave a famous talk called "Science in Default" to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was a summary of the current UFO evidence and a critique of the 1969 Condon Report UFO study[2].
link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._McDonald
Born May 7, 1920;
Duluth, Minnesota;
Died June 13, 1971 (aged 51)
Tucson, Arizona;
Education; PhD. Iowa State University
Occupation Physicist;
Ufologist;
Organization;Institute for Atmospheric Physics,
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
National Academy of Sciences,
American Meteorological Society,
NICAP, APRO;
03-24-2011, 04:42 PM
L~>1<~NKS
Aliens exist, wake up, they are the metaphors you read about in ORIGINAL ancient scriptures.
the REAL and not OFFICIAL evidence of Alien life is all over YouTube, here's a couple of my favs:
Ol' Dirty Knew it too:
03-25-2011, 09:57 AM
Fatal Guillotine
i will try to make another version of this an more updated version
THE REAL COSMIC FEMALE? She looks indian - that would make sense.
What yawl think of these?
04-08-2011, 10:25 AM
Fatal Guillotine
Fascinating letter and statement to the United Nations by the very well respected scientist Dr. James McDonald on his genuine concerns and beliefs on the UFO situation back in the 60s;Its respected and credible scientific academics like him who shed so much light and genuine scientific investigations on this genuine mystery;The first main paragraphs are mainly on Dr Macdonald himself and his credentials followed by his actual text of his letter and views he held on UFOs;
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
James E. McDonald , Ph.D.
Short Biography;
James Edward McDonald received his Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University in 1951, then worked there as an assistant professor in meteorology. He was a research physicist in the University of Chicago's department of meteorology (1953-54). In 1954 he joined the University of Arizona faculty, first as an associate professor (1954-56), then as a full professor in the department of meteorology (1956-71).
McDonald was also a senior physicist in the University's Institute of Atmospheric Physics, and served as both associate director (1954-56) and scientific director (1956-57). He also advised numerous federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation, The Office of Naval Research, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Environmental Science Service Administration.
During the mid-late 1960s, McDonald became intensively involved in UFO research, interviewing hundreds of UFO witnesses and lecturing widely on the subject to professional societies. His talks emphasized the need for a serious scientific study, adding that he considered the best reports to be evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. He also played an important role in Congressional UFO hearings in 1968.
Privately, McDonald analyzed all Project Blue Book case files, convincing him that the Air Force had performed an entirely inadequate investigation, which appeared to have been more concerned with internal politics rather than real science. He also reviewed the cases of the Air Force's sponsored University of Colorado UFO study, and concluded that many of their explanations were not well founded either. McDonald left no book but privately published many monographs based on his lecture presentations, some of which are included below.
Monographs;
Science in Default - 22 Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations;
The Problem of Unidentified Flying Objects;
Meteorological Factors in Unidentified Radar Returns;
UFOs And The Condon Report - A Scientist's Critique;
Statement on UFOs - Hearings Before The Committee on Science and Astronautics Committee on Science and Astronautics, "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects -- Hearings Before The Committee on Science And Astronautics," U.S. House of Representatives, 19th Congress, Second Session, July 29, 1968;
McDonald Credentials compiled by Val Germann;
Born: Duluth, Minnesota, May 7, 1920.
B.A., Chemistry, University of Omaha, 1942.
M.A., Meteorology, M.I.T., 1945. Ph.D.,
U.S. Navy, Intelligence & aerology, 1942-45.
Instructor, Physics, Iowa State University, 1946-49.
Physics, Iowa State University, 1951.
Assistant Professor, Physics, Iowa State University, 1950-53.
Research Physicist, Cloud Physics, Univ. of Chicago, 1953-54.
Associate Prof., Physics, Univ. of Arizona, 1954-56.
Full Professor,, Physics, Univ. of Arizona, 1956-57.
Senior Physicist, Inst. of Atmospheric Studies, 1958 - 1971.
Member, Weather Modification Panel, NAS, 1965 - 1971.
Member, Navy Stormfury Advisory Panel, 1966 - 1971.
Member, NSF Weather Modification Panel, 1967 - 1971.
Member, AAAS, American Meteorological Society,
Sigma Xi, American Geophysical Society, American Society of University Professors. Married, Six Children
Dr. James McDonald's Letter and Statement to the United Nations;
James McDonald, June 7, 1967 (reprinted on UFOs at close sight);
Summary: This is the statement read by Dr James E. McDonald at the Outer Space Affairs Group of the United Nations and the letter, introductory to this reading, sent by the scientist to Mr U. Thant, General Secretary of the United Nations.
On June 5, 1967, professor James E. McDonald wrote the letter that follows to Mr. U. Thant, Secretray General of the United Nations:
Dear Sir,
"I wish to thank you again for making it possible for me to meet with the U.N. Outer Space Affairs Group pour y parler des aspects scientifiques internationaux du problème des objets volants non identifiés.
Attached hereby you will find a copy of the declaration which I will submit on June 7 to the Group of the Outer Space Affairs. It briefly summarizes the reasons for which I have exhorted the United Nations to take immediate action with regard to the problem of the UFOS.
This problem is a very vast problem, therefore a short summary of this type can present only a highly summarized draft of the apparent nature of the problem of the UFOS and the possible scientific methods to study it.
I believe that a serious and solid effort on behalf of the United Nations to gather information about this problem and to encourage an immediate scientific attention in its connection among all the nations members would be a considerable step towards the removal of this "lid of ridicule" which, at for now, is opposed in such a strong manner to the publication of many UFOs observations.
Many other actions by the United Nations could and should be undertaken in order to increase the interest of the scientific world into the UFOs problem.
As I indicated in my declaration, attached hereby, to the Group of the Outer Space Affairs, I believe that it is necessary to take into very serious account the assumption that these strange objects constitute some sort of extraterrestrial probes. Before I had undertaken a personal study of the problem, I was willing to grant credit to such an assumption.
After one year of intensive study, I must still regard it only as an assumption, but I must stress that my research strongly pushes me to admit that this assumption is the only acceptable one as for now if one wants to account for the utterly amazing number of observations at low altitude and short distance which are now recorded in the whole world and which relate to objects that have the appearance of machines.
I wish to offer whatever personal assistance or counsel you or your colleagues might be able to draw from my own personal experience in studying the problem. The problem of the UFOS is an eminently international scientific problem. The U.N. has both responsibilities and obligations to accelerate serious scientific study of the UFO problem throughout the world. To the numerous serious investigators of the UFO problem, it appears conceivable that something in the nature of a global surveillance by UFOs has been underway in recent years.
If this view is correct, then our present ignorance of the purpose and plan of such surveillance must be urgently replaced by maximal understanding of what is going on. If the whole phenomenon is of some other nature, we also need the knowledge. The present ignorance, the present neglect and the present mocking remarks, all constitute regrettable features of our collective attitudes with regard to what can be, for all the people of the world, an affair of utter importance.
An attentive examination of these questions by the United Nations is, in my opinion, urgently needed.
STATEMENT ON THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM OF THE UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS, PRESENTED ON JUNE 7, 1967 TO THE GROUP OF THE OUTER SPACE AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION, BY JAMES E. MC DONALD, PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA.
During twenty years, there was a persisting and intriguing flood of reports, coming from countries located in all the parts of the world, relating to what we finally called the unidentified flying objects (UFOS). In all these reports, whatever their geographical origin, the nature of the reported objects appears to be primarily similar.
During the last twelve months spent, I pursued an intensive examination of the scientific aspects of the UFO problem, dealing with reports originating within the limits of the United States. After I interviewed the key witnesses to dozen important cases distributed over the whole 1947-1967 period; after having studied, with personal of the U.S. Air Force, official methods of investigation; and after having personally checked a great number of other sources of information, I concluded that, far from being a stupid problem, the problem of the UFOS is a problem of an extraordinary scientific interest.
It is my conclusion that no official group of my country conducted an adequate study of this problem. This conclusion is against the impression many people have, at the same time inside and out of the United States, that a qualified scientific examination of the American reports was undertaken. I fear that this false impression, largely spread, has diverted the scientific attention to a problem of a great international scientific interest for a long time.
I requested the present occasion to appear in front of the Group of the Outer Space Affairs because I want to urge that all the possible steps be immediately taken by the United Nations, via its scientific staff and via scientific establishments available in all the nations which are members, so that a systematic study of the UFO problem, at the scale of the world, is undertaken without delay.
There is now a clear indication that the number of reports of observations, at short distance and low altitude, of absolutely strange aerial objects, having the appearance of machines and whose performances show unexplainable characteristics, increased in the few years that have just passed. It is certainly apparent inside the United States.
I have the strong impression that the same increase appears in many foreign territories. My own studies led me to reject the opinion according to which they are only natural atmospheric phenomena or misinterpreted astronomical phenomena; in this respect a number of official explanations are almost absurdly erroneous. It is not possible anymore to explain all these observations with assumptions calling upon the products of a technology of avant-garde or experimental secret craft, with assumptions of mystification, fraud or trickery, or with psychological assumptions.
Each one of these assumptions intervenes indeed in a great number of cases, but there still remains an astonishing number of other reports, submitted by observers highly worthy of faith during the two last decades, which cannot receive such a satisfactory explanation. I believe that this vast residue of reports, which amounts now to hundreds and perhaps thousands of cases, requires the attention of the most eminent scientists of the world.
However, because of the official mocking remark that journalists, and even scientist, largely spread, almost no scientific attention is currently granted to this problem. This situation, I insist there, must be as fast as possible transformed, because the records - as soon as one examines them closely as I tried to do these last months - directs irrisistibly towards a certain phenomenon about which we should quickly acquire much better information.
The official mocking remark must be replaced by a meticulous scientific examination and of high precision of this problem. Because of the worldwide nature of the phenomenon, it falls immediately into sectors where the United Nations must take its responsabilities to encourage an immediate raising of the level of the scientific examination of the problem.
It is my present opinion, based on what I believe to be a sufficient scientific examination of excluding mutually assumptions, that the most probable assumption to account for the phenomenon of the UFOS is that these are a certain type of monitoring space probes, of extraterrestrial origin.
I stress that, at present, this can only be considered as an hypothesis against which, naturally, much preconceived scientific ideas are opposed, which are obvious. I stress also the fact that there are innumerable facets of the UFO phenomena which I can only describe as highly strange and unexplainable in terms of the scientific and technological knowledge of today.
I would also like to point out that, if these objects are not extraterrestrial origin, then the mutually exclusive assumptions which would be necessary to account for them would be even odder, and perhaps of an even greater scientific interest for humanity.
Therefore, regardless of what ultimate explanation is found for the UFO phenomena, the present scientific neglect and ridicule must be replaced by scientific concern and intensive study. My recommendation to the Outer Space Affairs Group is that it seek all possible means of securing worldwide attention to this problem.
The first need is for erasing the ridicule that is quite clearly suppressing open reporting of sightings of unconventional objects in the air and on the ground. I am personally totally aware about its inhibiting effects in my own country. My conversations with scientists and other people from abroad convinced me that derision and the mockery are comparable in the foreign countries to those one can find in the United States, and that only a tiny fraction of the whole of the reports manages to pass by the official channels.
It is necessary to quickly remedy this deplorable situation, since all the attempts to discover significant structures of the space and temporal distribution of the observations are blocked at present by an obvious difficulty: it is never known if a structure that one distinguishes is not simply and fortuitously in connection with some local and transitory reduction of the mocking remark with which the reports are so frequently accommodated.
A serious interest with regard to an unknown and potentially very important problem must become the dominant official treatment of these observations of UFOS throughout the world if one wants to put an end to the mocking remark which constitute an obstacle to a complete information today.
In the second place, the existence of a detection system already available in the form of radar equipment of radars must be recognized as extremely fortunate. At present, most radar sightings of UFOs are not getting into scientific hands, largely because most radar equipment is operated by military groups who, in almost all countries of the world, tend to ignore inexplicable high-speed radar target reports or else to withhold them from scientific attention.
As though this is fully understandable, at first sight, this attitude must quickly be changed. No other currently available technique can compare with radar acting to obtain objective data on the movements and operating features of the unidentified flying objects. It is hoped that better detector sets will be elaborate as soon as the problem of the UFOS is considered with the serious that it largely deserves. But, in the immediate future, radar equipment, more than any other available equipment, offers the greatest promise to provide us the scientific data about this problem.
A wide range of electromagnetic disturbances accompanying close passage or hovering of the UFOs is now on record throughout the world - despite this record not yet being admitted into what one would ordinarily call the "scientific record". Disturbance of internal-combustion engines coincident with close passage of disc-like or cylindrical unconventional objects is on record in at least several hundred instances. I personally know of dozen cases of this phenomenon reported by credible people, within the sole limits of the United States and during the last years.
Often the disturbances are accompanied by broad-spectrum electromagnetic noise picked up on radio devices. In many instances compasses, both on ships and in aircraft, have been disturbed. Magnetometers and even watches have been affected. All these reports point to some kind of electromagnetic noise or electromagnetic side-effects that offer promise for design of new sensing devices, which will only be developed when competent engineers and physicists take seriously the rapidly growing body of reports of close-range, low-altitude sightings.
But these equipment can be useful only when qualified engineers and physicists seriously take the quickly increasing mass of the short distance and low altitude sightings reports of the unidentified flying objects. In the immediate future, radar must be used but new detectors will have to be worked out to reinforce the means of continuation and the techniques of detection of these objects. The temporal and space variations at the time of the movements of the UFOS must be noted without the diverting effects of these psychological factors which exert an inhibiting influence even on the fraction of all the observations which is openly reported.
Some serious students of the UFO phenomenon claim since years that one can distinguish in UFOS the structures, the layouts, of reconaissance and exploration. I am been willing to give the insurance that some of these layouts appear in the reports, but I am not inclined to try to draw from this any firm conclusions, because I was informed by too many testimonys that only a small fraction of all the observations reach us, or are even confidentially announced.
There is curious evidence, still too inadequately studied to warrant any firm conclusions, that unconventional objects apparently rather similar in nature to those that have been reported in our global airspace in the past two decades have been seen prior to the 1947 epoch of marked rise in sightings. If this is true, then it is, with regard to our final interpretation of what happens in the UFO phenomenon UFO, that it has huge implications.
It would be necessary that a scientific examination of these testimonys is undertaken by people versed in a large variety of disciplines, by scientists who have a knowledge of the various historical aspects of technology and the disciplines which relate to it.
I will not try here to develop the thing in detail, I only want to stress that a certain number of students of the problem gathered testimonys in which rises the convinction that the UFO phenomenon goes back to at least a half-century, if not more. Consecutively with this remark, one must then stress this somewhat disconcerting point that the frequency of sightings increased by perhaps two or three orders of magnitude in 1946-47 - for reasons we do not now understand in the slightest degree.
It may be that this ignorance is not easy to surmount; but, unless we begin the serious scientific study of the UFO problem, we will persist in complete ignorance of what is perhaps, for the entire humanity, a subject of exceptional concern.
In short, I will say all the value that give to this occasion which was given to me to meet you and to speak with you about this problem. I insist that the United Nations immediately undertakes the examination of the problem of the UFOS, perhaps by the intermediary of the Group of Outer Space Affairs. And I hope that all the member nations will be encouraged to create research groups and commissions for the examination of the UFOs observation in their own country, and in order to obtain a rapid increase in the world scientific attention with regard to this problem.
If, on the basis of my recent scientific research about this attractive problem, I can personally help you in some manner, I hope that your Group will call upon me. Many others which I know would be also ready, I believe, to offer their assistance in this field, with the hope that this long time neglected problem can be quickly raised to the condition of a problem in which a high scientific priority would be granted.
I do not know any other scientific problem whose character is more intrinsically international than this problem of the nature and the origin of the unidentified flying objects. Consequently, it seems essential to obtain that the United Nations engage in the study of this problem, whose importance can be really enormous for the world.
New FBI ‘vault’ discusses Utah UFOs, other secrets
By Lee Davidson
The Salt Lake Tribune
First published Apr 08 2011 05:00PM
Updated Apr 9, 2011 12:12AM
On April 4, 1949, FBI agents in Utah sent a cable marked “urgent” to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. It said an Army guard at the Ogden Supply Depot, a Logan policeman and a Utah Highway Patrol officer in Mantua each saw from miles apart a UFO — which they said exploded over Utah.
Under the title “Flying Discs,” the cable said they “saw a silver colored object high up approaching the mountains at Sardine Canyon” that “appeared to explode in a rash of fire. Several residents at Trenton … [reported] seeing what appeared to be two aerial explosions followed by falling object.”
That and other documents show the FBI was investigating whether UFOs were real, and it figured they could be. Such documents are now available in “The Vault,” vault.fbi.gov, a revamped FBI website for documents that have been released through the Freedom of Information Act and have been recently or often requested.
Besides talking about Utah UFOs, other Utah-related documents on the website look at such things as FBI snooping into whether the Salt Lake City NAACP had been infiltrated by communists; a death threat in Utah against Lady Bird Johnson; and Hoover lambasting W. Cleon Skousen — a Utahn who has become an icon of the tea party movement.
“The new website significantly increases the number of available FBI files, enhances the speed at which the files can be accessed, and contains a robust search capability,” David Hardy, chief of the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section, said in a statement.
One document shows that the Logan UFO incident occurred two weeks after the FBI told bureaus that a “reliable and confidential source” reported that “flying discs are believed to be man-made missiles rather than natural phenomenon. It has also been determined that for approximately the past four years the USSR [Soviet Union] has been engaged in experimentation on an unknown type of flying disc.”
Documents show that an earlier UFO sighting had been investigated in Logan in September 1947. It said numerous witnesses told the FBI they saw “flying discs” in formation that were “circling the city at a high rate of speed.”
Most interestingly, on March 22, 1950, Guy Hottel, the agent in charge of the Washington Field Office, sent a memo reporting that an Air Force source said that flying saucers had crashed near Ros*well, N.M., and had been recovered.
“They were described as being circular in shape with raised centers, approximately 50 feet in diameter. Each one was occupied by three bodies of human shape but only 3 feet tall, dressed in metallic cloth of a very fine texture. Each body was bandaged in a manner similar to the blackout suits used by speed flyers and test pilots,” it said.
Documents on the new website also show such things as a letter that Hoover wrote to a nun in 1962 criticizing Skousen, a former FBI agent who then was writing books and giving speeches on communism and conservative principles that later would make him vocally admired by many tea party leaders today, including TV and radio personality Glenn Beck.
“Former Special Agents of the FBI are not necessarily experts on communism. Some of them have sought to capitalize on their former employment with this Bureau for the purpose of establishing themselves as such authorities,” Hoover said in replying to questions from Sister Mary Shaun about Skousen.
“I am firmly convinced there are too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified, factual data, who are engaging in rumor mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against people whose views differ from their own. This makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator,” Hoover wrote.
Other documents show the FBI in the 1950s was looking at whether the Salt Lake NAACP was infiltrated by communists, and was keeping track of its leaders and their backgrounds.
A memo said the Communist Party wanted the NAACP “to win leadership among negro organizations,” and “various attempts have been made by the CP [Communist Party] to infiltrate and dominate certain NAACP branches through the country.”
Another document shows that a threat against Lady Bird Johnson, the former first lady, was sent to the FBI’s Salt Lake City office in 1988 in an anonymous letter saying she “must die.” Agents found it was likely sent by a New Mexico woman who was mentally ill, and no charges were filed against her.
04-12-2011, 09:39 AM
Fatal Guillotine
good shit
04-13-2011, 10:01 AM
Fatal Guillotine
just that you all know the 5 UFOs Fly Over Military Base In Hawaii On 4/8/11 is believe to be CGI
An uncovered letter written by John F Kennedy to the head of the CIA shows that the president demanded to be shown highly confidential documents about UFOs 10 days before his assassination.
The secret memo is one of two letters written by JFK asking for information about the paranormal on November 12 1963, which have been released by the CIA for the first time.
Author William Lester said the CIA released the documents to him under the Freedom of Information Act after he made a request while researching his new book 'A Celebration of Freedom: JFK and the New Frontier.'
The president’s interest in UFOs shortly before his death is likely to fuel conspiracy theories about his assassination, according to AOL News.
Alien researchers say the latest documents, released to Mr Lester by the CIA, add weight to the suggestion that the president could have been shot to stop him discovering the truth about UFOs.
In one of the secret documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, JFK writes to the director asking for the UFO files. Enlarge http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...29_468x594.jpg Released: Letter from JFK to CIA director asking for access to UFO files, which has been released to an author under the Freedom of Information Act
In the second memo, sent to the NASA administrator, the president expresses a desire for cooperation with the former Soviet Union on mutual outer space activities.
The previously classified documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act to teacher William Lester as part of research for a new book about JFK.
He said that JFK’s interest in UFOs could have been fuelled by concerns about relations with the former Soviet Union.
‘One of his concerns was that a lot of these UFOs were being seen over the Soviet Union and he was very concerned that the Soviets might misinterpret these UFOs as U.S. aggression, believing that it was some of our technology,’ Mr Lester told AOL News.
‘I think this is one of the reasons why he wanted to get his hands on this information and get it away from the jurisdiction of NASA so he could say to the Soviets, “Look, that's not us, we're not doing it, we're not being provocative. “.’
But conspiracy theorists said the documents add interest to a disputed file, nicknamed the ‘burned memo’, which a UFO investigator claims he received in the 1990s.
The document, which has scorch marks, is claimed to have been posted to UFO hunter Timothy Cooper in 1999 by an unknown CIA leak, but has never been verified.
In a note sent with the document, the apparent leaker said he worked for CIA between 1960 and 1974 and pulled the memo from a fire when the agency was burning some of its most sensitive files.
The undated memo contains a reference to ‘Lancer’, which was JFK's Secret Service code name.
On the first page, the director of Central Intelligence wrote: ‘As you must know, Lancer has made some inquiries regarding our activities, which we cannot allow.
‘Please submit your views no later than October. Your action to this matter is critical to the continuance of the group.’
The current owner of the ‘burned memo’, who bought it from Timothy Cooper in 2001 told AOL News that it shows that when JFK asked questions about UFOs that the CIA ‘bumped him off’.
UFO investigator Robert Wood said he has tested the paper it was printed on, the ink age, watermarks, font types and other markings.
He said: ‘I hired a forensics company to check the age of the ink and check several other things that you can date, using the same techniques you’d use in a court of law.’
