UFO/Alien Chronological Thread Directory.

Symposium on ufos/u.s. House of representatives
SYMPOSIUM ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS HEARINGS/PART ONE;

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
NINETIETH CONGRESS;

SECOND SESSION;
JULY 29, 1968;
[No. 7]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Astronautics;

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1968;

This Internet Edition Prepared by The Sign Historical Group With the Assistance of National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) - USA; http://www.ncas.org/

************************************************** ********

Sign Historical Group;
SYMPOSIUM ON UNIDENTIFIED
FLYING OBJECTS
HEARINGS

BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Introduction by Jan L. Aldrich;

On two previous occasions the Congress of the United States has conducted open hearings on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects. On April 5, 1966 the House Armed Services Committee held public hearings, and on July 29th, 1968, the U. S. House of Representatives' Committee on Science and Astronautics convened a one-day Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects, chaired by then-Indiana Congressman J. Edward Roush.

However, these two occasions were not the only time that the subject was discussed by legislators. Project Blue Book documents, newspaper stories and letters in the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) files show that on a number of occasions UFOs had been privately discussed in executive session of various committees and subcommittees.

However, the July 29, 1968 Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects was unique in the respect that it provided Congressmen and Committee staff with the opportunity to ask questions of the participants, and the results were made accessible to the public through the government printing office.

Since the late fifties, NICAP had struggled to get Congressional attention focused on the UFO phenomenon and the official handling of UFO investigations. During this period the Project Blue Book files had only been available to a few select individuals.

While the Blue Book files contained an extensive collection of UFO reports, they were hardly definitive. In fact, NICAP probably had just as many well-investigated cases in its own files. However, the denial of public access to the Project's files seemed like a cover up, and something on which to focus the request for Congressional action. NICAP developed a number of proposals they hoped Congress would help implement:

(a) the public release of official UFO files from the USAF Project Blue Book and other agencies,

(b) a review and reform of the USAF UFO investigation methods,

(c) an end to the mistreatment of some UFO witnesses, who NICAP felt were unfairly categorized in press statements or ordered into keeping silent about their experiences, and

(d) a review of possible threats to US national security, which NICAP thought were being ignored.

Congressman L. C. Wyman requested the type of hearings that NICAP proposed and entered a resolution into the House to authorize the Committee on Science and Astronautics to conduct a wide-ranging hearing, complete with witnesses and subpoena powers. Indiana Congressman J. Edward Roush, an advocate of serious attention for the UFO problem, thought the action premature, and wanted to wait until the Condon Committee, then underway at the University of Colorado, had delivered its final report.

In the meantime he proposed a Symposium and became the driving force behind it.
The Symposium that resulted was not what NICAP had hoped for. Rather than examining the USAF's handling of UFO investigations, or the details of the then in-progress University of Colorado study, the discussion was confined to an exchange of views and evidence presented by the participants.

The Symposium consisted of six scientists presenting their views on UFOs to the committee:

Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Chairman, Department of Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois and at the time a scientific consultant to the USAF on UFOs for almost two decades;

Prof. James E. McDonald, Department of Meteorology, and Senior Physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who had conducted a multi-year full time investigation of the UFO problem;
Dr. Carl Sagan, Associate professor of astronomy, Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York;

Dr. Robert L. Hall, Head, Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois;

Dr. James A. Harder, Associate professor of civil engineering, University of California; and

Dr. Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. Senior scientist, System Sciences Corp., North Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, California who had also done extensive analysis of UFO films.

These scientists also participated in discussions with the Congressmen and their staff after the initial presentations and some had written statements read into the record.

A number of other scientists who did not appear before the committee but submitted written statements were:

Dr. Donald H. Menzel, Director of the Harvard University Observatory, author of a number of books and articles on UFOs;

Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle, Division of Counseling and Testing, University of Wyoming;
Dr. Garry C. Henderson, Senior Research Scientist, Space Sciences, General Dynamics;

Stanton T. Friedman, Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory;
Dr. Roger N. Shepard, Department of Psychology, Stanford University;
and

Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, Head, Plant Science Department, Utah State University, NASA consultant and author of UFO articles.

The Symposium represented a variety of opinions on UFOs, from the advocacy of Dr. James McDonald to the skepticism of Dr. Donald H. Menzel, who felt that any consideration of the problem was a complete waste of time.
Representative Roush's defeat in the next Congressional elections was the end of UFO hearings "On the Hill." With the nation's interest consumed by the war in Viet Nam there could be no further action into public hearings without the support of at least one dedicated Congressman from the committee.

J. Edward Roush maintained his interest in UFOs and later accepted a position on NICAP's Board of Governors.

In his introduction to the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, Dr. Condon pointed out that the Symposium might be viewed as a counterbalance of opposing views to the University of Colorado study. While to a certain extent this may be true, most of the scientists' presentations were introductory in nature and did not go into detailed analyses. Regardless, the Symposium represents diverse opinions on UFOs that were held among a number of scientists who had taken more than a cursory glance at the phenomenon.

The Sign Historical Group wishes to express its thanks to the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) for their assistance in placing this record of the Symposium online.–August, 2002.
************************************************** ********

Members of the Committee on Science and AstronauticC
http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/members.html

Call to Order and Introduction 1;
http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/intro.html

STATEMENTS;

Dr. J. Allen Hynek Head, Department of Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill 3

Prof. James E. McDonald Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz 18

Dr. Carl Sagan Associate professor of astronomy, Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, Cornell University 86

Dr. Robert L. Hall Head, Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Chicago, Ill 100

Dr. James A. Harder Associate professor of civil engineering, University of California 113

Dr. Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. Senior scientist, System Sciences Corp., 650 North Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, Calif 126

All Symposium Participants GROUP DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RAISED IN THE SYMPOSIUM 190;

************************************************** ********

PREPARED PAPERS;
Dr. Donald H. Menzel Harvard College Observatory 198

Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle Division of Counseling and Testing, University of Wyoming 206

Dr. Garry C. Henderson Senior Research Scientist, Space Sciences, General Dynamics 210

Dr. Stanton T. Friedman* Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory 213

Dr. Roger N. Shepard Department of Psychology, Stanford University 223

Dr. Frank B. Salisbury Head, Plant Science Department, Utah State University 235

OTHER ITEMS;
Prof. James E. McDonald CASE STUDIES IN PREPARED STATEMENT
http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/mcdcases.html
Various Participants PHOTOGRAPHS, DIAGRAMS & GRAPHICAL DATA
http://www.project1947.com/shg/sympo...ex2images.html
************************************************** *******

House Resolution 946;

http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/hr946a.gif

90th CONGRESS;
1st SESSION;
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
October 17, 1967;

Mr.WYMAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on Rules;



1 Resolved, That the Committee on Science and Astro-
2 nautics, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized
3 and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and
4 study of unidentified flying objects.
5 For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the com-
6 mittee or subcommittee is authorized to sit and act during the
7 present Congress at such times and pierces within the United
8 States, including any Commonwealth or possession thereof,
9 whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has ad-
10 journed, to hold such hearings, and to require, by subpoena or
11 otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses
12 and the production of such books, records, correspondence,

- 2 -

1 memorandums, papers, and documents, as it deems necessary;
2 except that neither the committee nor any subcommittee
3 thereof may sit while the House is meeting unless special
4 leave to sit shall have been obtained from the House. Sub-
5 penas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of
6 the committee or any member of the committee designated by
7 him, and may be served by any person designated by such
8 chairman or member.
9 The committee shall report to the House as soon as
10 practicable during the present Congress the results of its
11 investigation and study, together with such recommendations
12 as it deems advisable. Any such report which is made when
13 the House is not in session shall be filed with the Clerk of
14 the House.

LINK; http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/shgintro.html

Symposium on ufos/u.s. House of representatives 11
Sign Historical Group; PART 2;

...most scientific problems are far better understood
by studying their history than their logic.–Ernst Mayr;

The Sign Historical Group (SHG) is pleased to present three primary documents with relevant supplementary materials from an era of augmented scientific and governmental interest in the study of unidentified flying objects. This era (1966-1969) marked one of the longest sustained waves of sightings, which resulted in a critical period of scientific and political decision-making concerning the UFO issue.

SHG appreciates the opportunity to mirror two documents that were originally presented on the National Capitol Area Skeptics (NCAS) website; and additionally to present, for the first time, Paul McCarthy's notable treatise:

FINAL REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS: Conducted by the University of Colorado Under Contract to the United States Air Force (1968), by Dr. Edward U. Condon, Scientific Director.
http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/index.html

SYMPOSIUM ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS: Hearings Before The Committee On Science and Astronautics, U. S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, Second Session, July 29, 1968.
http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/index.html


POLITICKING AND PARADIGM SHIFTING: James E. McDonald and the UFO Case Study (1975), Ph.D. Dissertation by Dr. Paul McCarthy.
http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccarthy/index.html

Also included is a fairly comprehensive Links Section, which provides a significant number of ancillary documents and materials.http://www.project1947.com/shg/shglinks.html




Brief Background;

On February 3, 1966, the Air Force convened an "Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project Blue Book." The O'Brien Committee's recommendation was for the Air Force to negotiate contracts "with a few selected universities to provide selected teams to investigate promptly and in depth certain selected sightings of UFOs."

Coincident with the release arrived one of the biggest UFO flaps in history. The flap energized the UFO community, but more importantly, it pushed the decision on a university study over the threshold. Blue Book's consultant, J. Allen Hynek's characterization of the Dexter-Hillsdale, Michigan sightings as "swamp gas" unleashed a howl of anger and ridicule by the press.

Congressmen became so put-off by the apparent USAF irresponsibility that they put heat on the Pentagon to explain how this could be happening. Michigan Congressman Gerald Ford essentially demanded an apology to his constituents, and within a week the House Armed Services Committee held hearings. In May, the Air Force announced that it would begin looking for the recommended universities, which led subsequently to the Air Force contract with the University of Colorado in October 1966.

The project director was Professor Edward U. Condon, a distinguished physicist. Work on this contract was carried out over a two-year period, resulting in the publication of the "Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects" (Condon & Gillmor 1969; often referred to as the "Condon Report"). It remains the most influential public document concerning the current scientific status of the UFO issue.

Of interest to historians is Section V of the Condon report, titled, "Historical Aspects of UFO Phenomena." This section includes Chapter 1, "UFOs in History" by Samuel Rosenberg;http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/s5chap02.html Chapter 2, "UFOs: 1947-1968,"; written by E. U. Condon; and Chapter 3, "Official UFO Study Programs in Foreign Countries" by Harriet Hunter. Condon's chapter provides a fairly detailed chronicle of events beginning in 1947 leading to the Colorado Study.

Of particular significance was the publication of the letter dated 23 September 1947 from Lt. General Nathan F. Twining to the Commanding General of the AAF (Appendix R)http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/appndx-r.html recommending an officially sanctioned investigation; and the 30 December 1947 General L. C. Craigie letter to the Commanding General of AMC (Appendix S)http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/appndx-s.html authorizing Project Sign. Both of these letters had been referred to previously (Ruppelt, 1956; Tacker, 1960), however, the full text of the letters were not released until publication in the Condon Report, over a decade later.

During the course of the Colorado Project, internal dissension brought about the terminations of several of the project personnel and resulted in a critical expose being published in Look Magazine in early 1968. Brought to the attention of legislators, Indiana Congressman Edward Roush took to the floor of the House to criticize the Air Force handling of the problem and also cited the Look article entitled the "Half Million Dollar Trick,"http://www.project1947.com/shg/articles/fiasco.html which referred to the $500,000 budget of the Condon Study. Roush argued that the article raised questions of scientific profundity and objectivity;

further explaining, that if the Look article was correct it raised questions about the University of Colorado's approach to the federal contract process. He said that as a result of his talks to and correspondence with most serious UFO researchers, he would propose Hearings conducted by the House Committee on Science and Astronautics.

The Symposium (which it was called rather than a hearing) On Unidentified Flying Objects took place on July 29, under the auspices of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. However, the participants were not to discuss the past Air Force handling of UFO investigations or the current situation with the Colorado Project. In the words of Roush, "Our emphasis is to understand the technical and scientific facts surrounding these phenomena as the facts are understood by competent researchers in the field."

POLITICKING AND PARADIGM SHIFTING: James E. McDonald and the UFO Case Study (1975), Ph.D. Dissertation by Dr. Paul McCarthy.

Politicking and Paradigm Shifting chronicles the activities of atmospheric physicist, Dr. James E. McDonald (University of Arizona), in a series of UFO-related controversies between 1966 and 1970. This was the period when the Colorado UFO project was underway, in which the final report to the Air Force recommended that further scientific study of UFOs should not be supported. Also, on July 29, 1968, the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the U.S. House of Representatives organized a one-day Symposium on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects.

From the historical perspective, Dr. McCarthy's dissertation provides significant background to these documents by revealing the story of McDonald's efforts to influence the outcome of events and convince scientists that the pursuit of satisfactory explanations for UFO reports represented an important scientific problem, which was not getting adequate attention.

For example, in Chapter III http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccarthy/chap03.htmlwe find McDonald working to influence the Air Force-sponsored Colorado Project and in Chapter IV engineering the 1968 Symposium by the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the United States House of Representatives. Dr. McCarthy extends his inquiry to another significant event in Chapter VI,http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccarthy/chap04.html the AAAS UFO Symposium held in Boston on December 26-27, 1969. Dr. McDonald found few allies in this scientific quest, and many of the relevant questions remain unanswered to this day.http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccarthy/chap06.html

Paul McCarthy in the Preface and Introduction to Politicking and Paradigm Shifting has provided a comprehensive introduction to his rationale and modus operandi in choosing this particular subject as a dissertation topic. The reader is encouraged to review these sections to better understand his motivations behind the study.http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccarthy/contents.html

In a recent interview Paul McCarthy explained that back in 1970, he was inspired by Thomas Kuhn's renowned book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which, at the time, produced a drastic change in our view of science and scientific progress. A fine summary of Kuhn's work can be found here.http://cgi.student.nada.kth.se/cgi-b...et/CSS/kuhneng Kuhn argued that science advances not from proof, but from conviction, and he questioned the possibility for science ever to find a truth.

Accordingly, the problem McCarthy resolved to address was "how does one convert the scientific community to a belief without real evidence?" It needs to be noted that in the early seventies, the concept of Political Science did not effectively incorporate interpersonal (political) issues as playing a significant role in the advancement of science. Rather, the concept was almost exclusively associated within government-funded sciences. In this sense, Kuhn's book succeeded in establishing a paradigm itself.

Dr. McCarthy was fortunate (or unfortunate, as the case may be) in his timing, since James McDonald died in June 1971. Following his death his widow requested the help of Richard Greenwell (then with APRO) in organizing her husband's sizable research materials. This corresponded with Dr. McCarthy's trip to Tucson where Greenwell assisted him in accessing the files. McDonald had spent a considerable amount of time reinvestigating old cases, made detailed analyses of possible explanations and maintained regular correspondence with most of the leading researchers of the time.

He was by all accounts prolific and wholly determined in his effort to convince the scientific community that unidentified flying objects represent "the greatest scientific problem of our times." In this respect, McCarthy could not have asked for a better study to explore what he calls the "personal politics of science. This consists primarily of how scientists interact with one another, and an explication of the personal strategies they adopt in the pursuance of their science-related goals."

Preparations of these on-line versions are a collaboration between (SHG)http://www.project1947.com/shg/index.html and National Capital Area (NCAS).http://www.ncas.org/ Both SHG and NCAS share an interest in making accessible primary source documents relevant to the history of the UFO issue.

There are many people to thank for the work involved in bringing these materials online. Especially, we wish to express our gratitude to Jim Giglio for his resolute work and perseverance on the project, as well as, the staff at NCAS including, Lynn Francis; Mary Pastel; Neil Inglis; Tim Scanlon; Barry Blyveis; and Zoe Ann Lapinski. In addition, SHG would like to extend its gratitude to Richard Greenwell, John Schuessler, Philip Klass, Peter Sturrock and Michael Swords for permission to include various works presented on these pages.

SHG also gratefully recognizes the assistance and materials provided by Jerry Cohen, Jean van Gemaert, Richard Moss and Joseph Dundovic in the links section, and extends its sincere appreciation to Brad Sparks and Candy Peterson of SHG who helped with important suggestions and editorial assistance; and specially to John Stepkowski, Project 1947 and SHG webmaster, for his patience and untiring work on this project.

We think you will find that Jim and John have done an exceptional job maintaining the look-and-feel of the original documents, while providing an extremely efficient means of navigating these web documents.

Additionally, we would like to thank Dr. McCarthy for ensuring this valuable resource will remain available to students of UFO history.

Tom Tulien
Sign Historical Group – September 7, 2002;

LINK; http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/hr946.html

Symposium on ufos/u.s. House of representatives 3;
The list below of the history of early concerns will be covered in each successive post;


HISTORY OF EVENTS;

III. THE CONDON STUDY;

Early Concerns;
Reaction to Condon Statements;
The Low Memorandum: Confrontation;
The Low Memorandum: Aftermath;
Activity in Other Venues;
Rebuttal Attempt: Working with NICAP;
Rebuttal Attempt: Working Through NAS;
Release of the Colorado Report;
Continuing Rebuttal Activity;
The CU Data Controversy;

CONTEXT;

1;Early Concerns;

Each of the four chapters which follow overlap one another chronologically. To some extent the partitioning of McDonald's life during this period reduces the intensity of the impact which the simultaneous recounting of these events would otherwise have. However, for purposes of clarity and analysis this approach seems better than endeavoring to relate the events concurrently. During this time McDonald did many of the same kinds of things which he did in the previous chapter, but the central issue became the Condon Study. The study should be viewed in the context which was developed in chapters one and two.

For a decade, and in some instances longer, the UFO groups desired a full-scale scientific investigation of the UFO phenomenon. Then in early 1966 as a result of numerous reported sightings, public outcry, the quiet behind the scenes work of J. Allen Hynek, the NICAP lobby effort, the recommendations of the Ad Hoc UFO Committee of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board and possibly other pressures the Air Force agreed to fund such a study by independent university contractors.

However, the project proved a mixed blessing because while it provided the long-awaited scientific analysis, on the other hand the funding came from the Air Force. No one knew what the implications of such funding were, if any, or what strings might be attached, but they (meaning those seriously concerned with the UFO problem) were circumspect regarding the Air Force involvement. Although impossible to demonstrate that a conspiracy existed to hide the facts about UFOs, even those who would argue no such plot existed were hesitant about Air Force backing

[[131]]
of the proposed research. For most UFO watchers saw the Condon Study as an opportunity either to legitimate UFO studies in the halls of academe if the Condon team reported that the phenomenon warranted further study or, to the contrary, set the field of Ufology back ten years if the final report concluded the phenomenon were nonsense.

The make-up of the research project staff and the duration of the Air Force contract for the study added to this concern. The Air Force feared that anyone already involved with the UFO problem whether pro or con would bring these predispositions to the project and make any resulting conclusions suspect. Consequently, unlike the motivation for doing most other research -- namely, interest on the part of the investigators -- the staff of the Condon Study, by Air Force stipulation, was chosen for its lack of prior interest.

This, combined with the year-and-one-half contract, tended to frighten those UFO researchers familiar with the problem because they considered the contract period too short a time to become apprised of the complexity of the UFO situation and also conduct meaningful analysis.

With these sorts of considerations in mind we can better understand McDonald's actions in 1967, 1968 and 1969. We have already seen his distress begin to develop in 1966. First he thought he might be the principal investigator. When that possibility waned he volunteered his services to "sell" the none too popular project to any lukewarm scientists who might be candidates for the job of principal investigator.

When the Air Force failed to take advantage of his offer this not only annoyed him, but also made him wonder about Air Force intentions. Once Edward Condon's name appeared as principal investigator and the University of Colorado received designation as the research site

[[132]]
McDonald again offered his services in an advisory capacity. When Condon was slow to invite him to Boulder he chafed at the bit and, as we saw, eventually obtained an invitation by sheer perseverance. What he found at CU did not please him and he concluded that the project had to be closely monitored. It should be remembered that by the end of 1966 he had lived with the conclusion that UFOs were a form of extraterrestrial visitation for some five or six months and consequently believed the issue to be the most important problem facing twentieth century science.

He felt action had to be taken immediately and believed himself more qualified than any other academic to pursue the problem. It is at this point that we begin the story in 1967.

link; http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccar...3.html#context

************************************************** ********

2;Reaction to Condon Statements;

In mid-September Condon gave another of his UFO talks. This one was for an Atomic Spectroscopy Symposium of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) in Gaithersburg, Maryland. A friend of McDonald's, William Bickel, attended and he wrote a memo to McDonald expressing his disgust with Condon's funny, entertaining stories about contactees, hoaxes, and research problems confronted because of ridicule, when Condon had an opportunity to stimulate the interest of the best atomic physicists and spectroscopists in the country.

[18]
In a letter to Low discussing UFO cases McDonald raised the issue of the NBS talk and mentioned his concern over the matter. Low did not respond. [19] Donald Keyhoe at NICAP received a copy of the Bickel memo from McDonald and felt it had to be followed up. McDonald suggested to Keyhoe that he indicate that he had the memo to strengthen his bargaining position with Low. McDonald said he would wait until October 4 to see if Keyhoe obtained an answer. If he did not then McDonald would write Condon himself. [20]

[[138]]
However, before this could be settled McDonald received word of another Condon slap at the UFO phenomenon. This time while speaking with the press on September 27 he indicated disillusionment with the UFO business, almost wished he could drop it, and had praise for a Science article on UFOs by William Markowitz, a physicist at Marquette University, who attempted to demonstrate the impossibility of interplanetary travel given the physical laws as we know them. Lastly, Condon said he agreed with Markowitz that twenty-first century physics would laugh at us for investigating UFOs. [21]


As a result of the above statements made by Condon a concerned William Hartmann, a UA astronomer doing UFO photo analysis for the CU project, called McDonald. He tried to explain that Condon's isolation from the project permitted him to concentrate on crackpot cases while the remainder of the staff pursued better data. He said he (Hartmann) talked the staff out of a September 28 press release refuting Condon's September 27 remarks and as far as Hartmann could tell a blow-up would probably be avoided, as would a minority report. It was likely that a compromise would be reached and even if a dissenting report were written only Condon's voice would be heard.


Hartmann believed that Condon's statements subtly sealed the lips of the project staff who could not contradict him and found this reinforced by Bob Low's comments that the staff would now be forced to go along with Condon. At this time McDonald was about to write Condon, a strategy Hartmann seconded, and in fact urged McDonald to emphasize in his letter the need for Condon to keep in close touch with his staff. [22]
This increased McDonald's concern for the future of UFO studies. His worst fears were apparently being realized. To determine if this

[[139]]
were true he augmented his efforts to gather information about the inside workings of the UFO project and the authenticity of various public statements attributable to Condon.

Considered a fighter by all who knew him, Condon responded to the commotion over his public utterances not by conciliation, but by further inflammatory remarks. On October 16 the New York Times quoted him as saying he was inclined to think UFO studies should be discontinued unless someone came up with a new idea on how to approach the problem. [23]
Meanwhile, McDonald got together with Norman Levine and David Saunders who were on the project.

They discussed Condon's NBS speech, the untenability of the Air Force conspiracy hypothesis and the possibility of Air Force interference in the project if the research appeared to be coming to a positive conclusion. [24]
Levine reacted to some of McDonald's questions in a note in which he said that: [25]

He couldn't find a copy of Condon's letter to the editor.
Condon is 50% on the project.
Wadsworth's statement on the third university man is not available.
Low's statement on Alamosa (a case) is enclosed.

Low spent one day at Loch Ness.
He had not checked on the Rocky Mountain News Condon quote.
Point five was important to McDonald because Low spent project money to attend an astronomical conference in Europe, but did not contact any European UFO researchers. Low's stop at Loch Ness annoyed him further because it seemed to put UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster in
[[140]]
the same category of phenomena. This was something McDonald did not accept.

By this time the disquietude at NICAP had reached a new high. Keyhoe wrote two letters, one each to Low and Condon, demanding answers to numerous questions related to the credibility of Condon and the research project. He outlined the various ups and downs which NICAP had had with Condon, including the severing of relations two months earlier a; a result of Condon's public statements. Throughout Keyhoe showed concern that Condon would coopt NICAP into appearing to endorse by association a negative, perniciously concocted final report. [26]

The end of November found McDonald thinking beyond the CU study. Based upon a letter to Saunders we can conclude that they, along with Norm Levine, had already begun discussing the future of UFO studies. McDonald asserted that all federal research agencies were waiting for the outcome at Boulder before committing themselves. He felt a NASA size effort was in order, but if CU were negative then a different strategy would be needed.

He believed a professional organization that focused on the study of UFOs was necessary to raise money in the form of dues to support a journal and research. Such an organization would be made up of academics and be research-oriented. He wanted to discuss this with Saunders and Levine the next time they met. [27]

Condon replied to Keyhoe, as did Low, assuring Keyhoe of the integrity and independence of the project. Condon would not respond to most of the questions because he said the answers would give NICAP advance information about project conclusions. He asserted that all of his public statements were unbiased. He also provided assurances that if
[[141]]
dissenting opinions existed when the research concluded that they would appear in the report. [28]

However, McDonald remained unconvinced of Condon's good intentions. On December 11 he wrote Aime Michel, considered the foremost European UFO researcher, to inform him that Condon's staff did not share Condon's attitudes and "our hope lies with them." [29]

However, by the 28th in another letter to Michel, McDonald indicated that he was "disappointed and disillusioned with Condon." Evidently more so than previously for he said, "some confrontation is going to have to be effected. This is difficult to engineer. A number of us are working on that problem and thinking about it as carefully as we can." [30]

Symposium on ufos/u.s. House of representatives 3;
The list below of the history of early concerns will be covered in each successive post;


HISTORY OF EVENTS;

III. THE CONDON STUDY;

Early Concerns;
Reaction to Condon Statements;
The Low Memorandum: Confrontation;
The Low Memorandum: Aftermath;
Activity in Other Venues;
Rebuttal Attempt: Working with NICAP;
Rebuttal Attempt: Working Through NAS;
Release of the Colorado Report;
Continuing Rebuttal Activity;
The CU Data Controversy;

CONTEXT;

1;Early Concerns;

Each of the four chapters which follow overlap one another chronologically. To some extent the partitioning of McDonald's life during this period reduces the intensity of the impact which the simultaneous recounting of these events would otherwise have. However, for purposes of clarity and analysis this approach seems better than endeavoring to relate the events concurrently. During this time McDonald did many of the same kinds of things which he did in the previous chapter, but the central issue became the Condon Study. The study should be viewed in the context which was developed in chapters one and two.

For a decade, and in some instances longer, the UFO groups desired a full-scale scientific investigation of the UFO phenomenon. Then in early 1966 as a result of numerous reported sightings, public outcry, the quiet behind the scenes work of J. Allen Hynek, the NICAP lobby effort, the recommendations of the Ad Hoc UFO Committee of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board and possibly other pressures the Air Force agreed to fund such a study by independent university contractors.

However, the project proved a mixed blessing because while it provided the long-awaited scientific analysis, on the other hand the funding came from the Air Force. No one knew what the implications of such funding were, if any, or what strings might be attached, but they (meaning those seriously concerned with the UFO problem) were circumspect regarding the Air Force involvement. Although impossible to demonstrate that a conspiracy existed to hide the facts about UFOs, even those who would argue no such plot existed were hesitant about Air Force backing

[[131]]
of the proposed research. For most UFO watchers saw the Condon Study as an opportunity either to legitimate UFO studies in the halls of academe if the Condon team reported that the phenomenon warranted further study or, to the contrary, set the field of Ufology back ten years if the final report concluded the phenomenon were nonsense.

The make-up of the research project staff and the duration of the Air Force contract for the study added to this concern. The Air Force feared that anyone already involved with the UFO problem whether pro or con would bring these predispositions to the project and make any resulting conclusions suspect. Consequently, unlike the motivation for doing most other research -- namely, interest on the part of the investigators -- the staff of the Condon Study, by Air Force stipulation, was chosen for its lack of prior interest.

This, combined with the year-and-one-half contract, tended to frighten those UFO researchers familiar with the problem because they considered the contract period too short a time to become apprised of the complexity of the UFO situation and also conduct meaningful analysis.

With these sorts of considerations in mind we can better understand McDonald's actions in 1967, 1968 and 1969. We have already seen his distress begin to develop in 1966. First he thought he might be the principal investigator. When that possibility waned he volunteered his services to "sell" the none too popular project to any lukewarm scientists who might be candidates for the job of principal investigator.

When the Air Force failed to take advantage of his offer this not only annoyed him, but also made him wonder about Air Force intentions. Once Edward Condon's name appeared as principal investigator and the University of Colorado received designation as the research site

[[132]]
McDonald again offered his services in an advisory capacity. When Condon was slow to invite him to Boulder he chafed at the bit and, as we saw, eventually obtained an invitation by sheer perseverance. What he found at CU did not please him and he concluded that the project had to be closely monitored. It should be remembered that by the end of 1966 he had lived with the conclusion that UFOs were a form of extraterrestrial visitation for some five or six months and consequently believed the issue to be the most important problem facing twentieth century science.

He felt action had to be taken immediately and believed himself more qualified than any other academic to pursue the problem. It is at this point that we begin the story in 1967.

link; http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccar...3.html#context

************************************************** ********

2;Reaction to Condon Statements;

In mid-September Condon gave another of his UFO talks. This one was for an Atomic Spectroscopy Symposium of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) in Gaithersburg, Maryland. A friend of McDonald's, William Bickel, attended and he wrote a memo to McDonald expressing his disgust with Condon's funny, entertaining stories about contactees, hoaxes, and research problems confronted because of ridicule, when Condon had an opportunity to stimulate the interest of the best atomic physicists and spectroscopists in the country.

[18]
In a letter to Low discussing UFO cases McDonald raised the issue of the NBS talk and mentioned his concern over the matter. Low did not respond. [19] Donald Keyhoe at NICAP received a copy of the Bickel memo from McDonald and felt it had to be followed up. McDonald suggested to Keyhoe that he indicate that he had the memo to strengthen his bargaining position with Low. McDonald said he would wait until October 4 to see if Keyhoe obtained an answer. If he did not then McDonald would write Condon himself. [20]

[[138]]
However, before this could be settled McDonald received word of another Condon slap at the UFO phenomenon. This time while speaking with the press on September 27 he indicated disillusionment with the UFO business, almost wished he could drop it, and had praise for a Science article on UFOs by William Markowitz, a physicist at Marquette University, who attempted to demonstrate the impossibility of interplanetary travel given the physical laws as we know them. Lastly, Condon said he agreed with Markowitz that twenty-first century physics would laugh at us for investigating UFOs. [21]


As a result of the above statements made by Condon a concerned William Hartmann, a UA astronomer doing UFO photo analysis for the CU project, called McDonald. He tried to explain that Condon's isolation from the project permitted him to concentrate on crackpot cases while the remainder of the staff pursued better data. He said he (Hartmann) talked the staff out of a September 28 press release refuting Condon's September 27 remarks and as far as Hartmann could tell a blow-up would probably be avoided, as would a minority report. It was likely that a compromise would be reached and even if a dissenting report were written only Condon's voice would be heard.


Hartmann believed that Condon's statements subtly sealed the lips of the project staff who could not contradict him and found this reinforced by Bob Low's comments that the staff would now be forced to go along with Condon. At this time McDonald was about to write Condon, a strategy Hartmann seconded, and in fact urged McDonald to emphasize in his letter the need for Condon to keep in close touch with his staff. [22]
This increased McDonald's concern for the future of UFO studies. His worst fears were apparently being realized. To determine if this

[[139]]
were true he augmented his efforts to gather information about the inside workings of the UFO project and the authenticity of various public statements attributable to Condon.

Considered a fighter by all who knew him, Condon responded to the commotion over his public utterances not by conciliation, but by further inflammatory remarks. On October 16 the New York Times quoted him as saying he was inclined to think UFO studies should be discontinued unless someone came up with a new idea on how to approach the problem. [23]
Meanwhile, McDonald got together with Norman Levine and David Saunders who were on the project.

They discussed Condon's NBS speech, the untenability of the Air Force conspiracy hypothesis and the possibility of Air Force interference in the project if the research appeared to be coming to a positive conclusion. [24]
Levine reacted to some of McDonald's questions in a note in which he said that: [25]

He couldn't find a copy of Condon's letter to the editor.
Condon is 50% on the project.
Wadsworth's statement on the third university man is not available.
Low's statement on Alamosa (a case) is enclosed.

Low spent one day at Loch Ness.
He had not checked on the Rocky Mountain News Condon quote.
Point five was important to McDonald because Low spent project money to attend an astronomical conference in Europe, but did not contact any European UFO researchers. Low's stop at Loch Ness annoyed him further because it seemed to put UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster in
[[140]]
the same category of phenomena. This was something McDonald did not accept.

By this time the disquietude at NICAP had reached a new high. Keyhoe wrote two letters, one each to Low and Condon, demanding answers to numerous questions related to the credibility of Condon and the research project. He outlined the various ups and downs which NICAP had had with Condon, including the severing of relations two months earlier a; a result of Condon's public statements. Throughout Keyhoe showed concern that Condon would coopt NICAP into appearing to endorse by association a negative, perniciously concocted final report. [26]

The end of November found McDonald thinking beyond the CU study. Based upon a letter to Saunders we can conclude that they, along with Norm Levine, had already begun discussing the future of UFO studies. McDonald asserted that all federal research agencies were waiting for the outcome at Boulder before committing themselves. He felt a NASA size effort was in order, but if CU were negative then a different strategy would be needed.

He believed a professional organization that focused on the study of UFOs was necessary to raise money in the form of dues to support a journal and research. Such an organization would be made up of academics and be research-oriented. He wanted to discuss this with Saunders and Levine the next time they met. [27]

Condon replied to Keyhoe, as did Low, assuring Keyhoe of the integrity and independence of the project. Condon would not respond to most of the questions because he said the answers would give NICAP advance information about project conclusions. He asserted that all of his public statements were unbiased. He also provided assurances that if
[[141]]
dissenting opinions existed when the research concluded that they would appear in the report. [28]

However, McDonald remained unconvinced of Condon's good intentions. On December 11 he wrote Aime Michel, considered the foremost European UFO researcher, to inform him that Condon's staff did not share Condon's attitudes and "our hope lies with them." [29]

However, by the 28th in another letter to Michel, McDonald indicated that he was "disappointed and disillusioned with Condon." Evidently more so than previously for he said, "some confrontation is going to have to be effected. This is difficult to engineer. A number of us are working on that problem and thinking about it as carefully as we can." [30]

Symposium on ufos/u.s. House of representatives 4;
The Low Memorandum: Confrontation;

1968 brought with it the confrontation which McDonald desired. He played the major role in this episode which turned on the infamous "Low memo" mentioned in the previous chapter. Although intended as one facet of a multi-pronged offense launched by McDonald against Condon in an attempt to change the direction of the project, it turned out that the "Trick Memo," as it came to be called, became the central topic of discussion for several months. This began with a letter from McDonald to Low in late January in which he detailed his criticisms.

> He wrote to Low because of a phone conversation they had engaged in a few days earlier in which Low became upset when McDonald directed some harsh comments toward the administration of the project. He began the letter by saying he wanted to outline his main concerns about the project and that he saw no reason for Low to become upset. He argued that criticism at that time was important because it could influence the outcome of the research, and even though an unusual step to take prior
to the completion of a study he nonetheless felt justified in doing so because the future of UFO research hung in the balance.

McDonald's major points revolved around Condon's negative press statements, his preoccupation with crackpots, his refusal to examine witnesses in good cases, the limited amount of communication between Condon and his staff and the lack of investigation of obfuscation cases (cases in which McDonald felt the Air Force had prohibited or inhibited investigation).

In addition, he discussed the Low memo in straightforward terms suggesting that its presence in the "open files" meant it no doubt could easily be explained. He also brought up what he called project communication problems, the waste he considered the $50,000 Stanford Research Institute radar study contract, the inappropriateness of Aldora Lee's opinion poll 15 months after the project began, and the scientific unproductiveness of bringing Air Force intelligence officers up to Boulder for a briefing when the project staff were about to begin writing the final report. [31]

A letter from McDonald to Hall indicates that they viewed the Low memo as very important, and quite possibly their major weapon, from the beginning. As early as January 31 McDonald told Hall that after a talk with Gordon Lore, NICAP Assistant Director (Hall had left NICAP), and Donald Keyhoe that they resolved to get the memo on the record at the NAS and at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Saunders apparently concurred in this tactic and McDonald commented that an NAS staff member agreed that this was the best way in which to accomplish his objectives at NAS. [32]

[[143]]
By February 9 McDonald had not heard from Condon regarding the critical letter of January 31 to Low and, concerned that Condon might not rise to the bait, penned him a note. McDonald indicated that via CU administrative channels he knew that Condon had been apprised of the letter to Low. He told Condon that he intended to send copies to the NAS as a first step in making his case; a more detailed statement would follow. [33]
The same day McDonald sent off a statement to the NAS.

He submitted the 1/31/68 letter to Low along with the Low memo, and his United Aircraft Research Labs paper presented January 26, 1968. He considered these a preamble to the more detailed criticisms of the "lack of scientific open-mindedness and lack of scientific vigor in project administration" which would follow and stated that they were in keeping with the concerns which he expressed to NAS staffers Coleman and Sievers on 4/20/67, Coleman on 9/29/67 and Coleman again on 1/30/68. [34]


The repercussions of McDonald's 1/31/68 letter to Low were much greater than anticipated. On February 8 Condon called Saunders and Levine to his office, accused them of stealing the memo from private files and fired them from the project for "incompetence." McDonald wrote Saunders and Levine expressing his distress that Condon had such small regard for the scientific matters at stake. He also regretted that Saunders and Levine had "to pay so high a price for getting on with a proper scientific investigation." [35]

It seems that McDonald had second thoughts about the interpretation which the NAS staffers might put on his forwarding of the Low memo and so he wrote a note to qualify his actions. He explained that only
project members and those with a scientific concern for the project had copies. He said the NAS received one because of its responsibility in the area.

[36]
He also evinced a concern that Keyhoe of NICAP, known for his publicity exploits, might over-react to the situation. He explained to Keyhoe that Saunders and Levine would not go to the press and intended to respond solely at the NAS level until it was certain what the NAS would do. Consequently there was no need for NICAP to get involved in the behind-the-scenes activities.

In the same letter McDonald conveyed a bit of the thinking underlying his own involvement. He felt that Condon used the incompetence excuse for the firings to insure that reporters would not look for the memo. He indicated that Condon called Dr. Harvill, president of the UA, to tell Richard Kassander, McDonald's superior, that he (Condon) would soon contact Kassander demanding the return of the memo. However, McDonald had briefed Kassander on the situation and so Kassander told Condon to call McDonald if he wanted the memo. [37]

In troubled times McDonald usually got off a note to Jim Hughes his project monitor to keep him informed; this was no exception. He told Hughes of the events which occurred and passed along copies of the memo and NAS correspondence which he wanted Hughes to keep confidential. He said he forwarded the material to keep Hughes apprised in light of the day when he would apply to the ONR for funding to do UFO work. He told Hughes that any discussion of these matters should go to his home address because he didn't want such explosive material channeled through his department. [38]

[[145]]
A cordial letter which must have infuriated McDonald arrived from Seitz. He contended that Condon was a distinguished scientist who took his work seriously; press and grapevine accounts no doubt were superficial. Seitz indicated that the project had to run its course, but he would discuss McDonald's suggestions with Condon at the next opportunity. [39]

Condon answered McDonald's letters with questions and accusations of his own. He asserted that the Low memo was stolen from private files because it bore a date prior to the commencement of the project. Referring to his talk with Kassander he said he had done so because he thought the memo had been misrepresented to McDonald and once McDonald understood that he would return it. Now that he realized that McDonald would not return it he considered such conduct gravely unethical.

Furthermore, Condon said the review request of the project which McDonald made to Coleman at the NAS puzzled him. He wanted to know if McDonald desired a review prior to the completion of the report, or a review of the situation as a whole. Even though McDonald had adopted an adversary position with respect to the project in Condon's eyes, he closed by asking McDonald's cooperation on several procedural matters concerned with UFO Investigation. [40]

In a newsy note to Hughes, McDonald forwarded the Seitz and Condon retorts with the comment that the "NAS will not pick up the hot potato." He asked Hughes to keep the letters confidential and hoped they would bear on getting him some support in the future. Regardless of the cold shoulder given him by the NAS he indicated to Hughes that he intended to write up and forward the statement of concern already begun. [41]

By this time Saunders and Levine had started legal action against Condon for the use of "incompetence" as the reason for their firings.
[[146]]

Mrs. Saunders wrote McDonald thanking him for the support he gave the fired pair in a press release which appeared in the Denver Post. She was worried because Condon allegedly told Saunders, "for this (releasing the memo) you should be professionally destroyed." [42]
link; http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccar....html#reaction
************************************************** ********

The Low Memorandum: Aftermath;

McDonald again wrote Aime Michel to ask him to keep European ufologists abreast of the CU situation. He told Michel that "behind the scenes" efforts to force changes in the project were in progress. He said that although Hynek's participation had been hoped for, he nevertheless dropped out. The loss of Saunders and Levine, according to McDonald, seemed a high short-term loss but would be worth it in the long run. Incompetence not conspiracy was the villain, along with Condon's prestige, which proved a formidable weapon, as attested to by the lack of NAS action. [43]

It is difficult to assess what McDonald thought would be gained from publicly attacking Condon in UFO circles, but this is what he did and advocated. In a note to Charles Bowen, editor of the British Flying Saucer Review, he asked that Bowen speak out against Condon's project management if he felt this were possible in good conscience. [44]

Through his inside channels McDonald learned more about happenings at CU and passed this along to Hughes. Apparently a staff meeting took place at which Condon received considerable criticism. It appeared that he saw for the first time that the project had gotten into Low's hands and that Low was incapable of running it. [45]

McDonald was more informative in writing Hall the same day. He said that Roy Craig would be the primary investigator with the departure of Saunders and Levine and Craig might leave according to rumor if Low were not fired. Moreover, while Condon told Craig he could not go as
far as the ETH, he did say that Craig could write report conclusions in which UFOs were considered a serious problem warranting further attention. McDonald suggested caution, however, since people on the project claimed that Condon could not be trusted.

On the legal front McDonald planned to get a lawyer to force Condon to retract various charges, in particular, that McDonald had coerced Saunders and Levine into stealing the memo. Saunders and Levine were also proceeding with legal steps as mentioned previously. [46]

About the same time Mary Lou Armstrong, Condon's administrative secretary and full participant in the project, proffered her resignation. In a ten-page letter she argued that Low was the cause of the project's problems. She enumerated nine points which portrayed Low in a negative light and suggested that if Condon had directed the project the conflictual situation would have been avoided.

[47] This letter was cause for rejoicing on the part of McDonald and others of his persuasion because it seemed that this placed more pressure on Condon to take a further look at the conclusions his project would endorse. For at this time a set developed by Low already circulated among the staff.

The gravity of Armstrong's actions are best revealed by the letter through which Condon replied. He apparently spoke with her on the phone and then wanted to reaffirm the confidentiality of the resignation. He said he would consider it both unethical and a grave offense to reveal its contents which he suspected people would tempt her to do. [48]

On February 28 William Messing, McDonald's attorney, wrote to Condon. He informed Condon that unless he retracted the accusations made to Kassander, Harvill and the NAS in ten days Messing would have to take all necessary steps to protect McDonald's legal remedies. [49]

[[148]]
On still another front McDonald, Saunders, Levine and Armstrong took action of their own. They met with John Fuller, who previously wrote two UFO books, and now planned to pen an expose of the CU project focusing on the Low memo. He spoke with Condon, Low and Manning (the latter being the recipient of the memo) but received "no comments." McDonald told Hall he expected the article to appear in Look in four to six weeks.

He also argued that although the NAS had taken no action, that once the article came out it would have to, if only behind the scenes. [50] In writing the article McDonald assured Fuller that he could count on the cooperation of William Bickel who wrote the note to McDonald describing Condon's NBS talk.

[51]
Condon said in his February 15 note to McDonald that he had not studied McDonald's January 31 letter to Low, so in his response McDonald asked Condon to do so. In addition, he spoke to Condon's other points, the most important being, in McDonald's eyes, the use of "stolen" and "coerced" in his 2/15 letter and the intimation that McDonald had not attempted to cooperate with CU.

With regard to the former McDonald said he did not participate in any coercion or theft. He demanded a retraction which would go to himself, Kassander and Seitz. He said he wanted to hear from Condon on those charges. Concerning the charge of non-cooperation McDonald detailed his distress with the project going back to an 8/1/67 conversation with Condon. Moreover, he argued that this statement on the part of Condon revealed how little he knew about his own project, whereupon McDonald proceeded to list his efforts to cooperate with Low and Condon from as early as 10/16/66. [52]

[[149]]
After his response to Condon, McDonald sent an enraged note in answer to Low's missive of 2/2/68 in which Low asked for case material in a way which McDonald interpreted as feigning naivete concerning McDonald's past offers of aid. Probably McDonald suspected this to be an effort on Low's part to develop "files protection" regarding the relationship of the project to McDonald just in case an investigation of the project were ever made.

McDonald asserted that the letter had a hollow ring to it; that it was written in a style suggesting Low had just heard about his (McDonald's) interest in UFOs. He said he found the events at Boulder shocking and was still waiting for a retort to his critical letter of 1/31/68. [53]

In his fifth letter of the day McDonald sent off a dissatisfied reply to Seitz at the NAS. He was sorry the concern shown by Seitz was so slight and paraphrasing Seitz said, "I think it will be scientifically undesirable to let the Condon study run its course." He was upset that the material he had sent Seitz (the 1/31/68 letter to Low and the Low memo) had not convinced people at the NAS that Condon and Low had a preset bias which the Air Force overlooked. In the selection of the NAS Review Panel he hoped this would be considered. [54]

Condon wrote McDonald to the effect that he rejected McDonald's notion that the memo was taken from "open files." That it was done surreptitiously was proof enough for Condon that the perpetrators were engaged in wrong-doing. He believed McDonald's conduct was unethical and explained that, because the issue had become a legal matter, he had been advised to terminate correspondence by his attorney. [55]

McDonald, after mentioning that he wanted to be included in the indemnification insurance he understood the Look lawyers were considering
for contributors to the Low memo article, told John Fuller he was glad the Look editors cleared the manuscript. He said, "I feel sure that its impact on scientific attitudes (as well as public attitudes) concerning the handling of the UFO problem will have a most salutary effect." [56]

However, he believed the article needed several sentences indicating Harriet Hunter (a project staff member) confronted Low with the memo in October 1967. This would thwart, he thought, Condon's claim that it was done behind his and Low's backs. [57]

Meanwhile McDonald decided to postpone any legal action against Condon for maligning his good name. He told Hall he felt it would be a tactical error to pursue legal instead of scientific channels in a dispute which was essentially scientific. [58]

When the Look article finally came out McDonald found it a bit short at 5,000 words, but he believed the salient points were put into the open record. He sent fifteen copies off to various foreign UFO groups. [59]
On April 30, a day prior to publication, Keyhoe managed to complicate the already confused situation by calling a NICAP press conference "to blow it all open." What annoyed Keyhoe was the fact that Look did not intend to give NICAP a box comment in the article, and that Fuller and the Look editors refused to see him in order to avoid a confrontation on the issue.

At the press conference Keyhoe broke relations with the Condon Study, accused Condon of a conspiracy (according to the press) and released copies of the memo to the press, which angered Saunders, Saunders' lawyer and Fuller. [60] Saunders' concern was primarily with his court case against Condon. He feared that what Keyhoe said might get back to Boulder and hurt his chances;
particularly since Philip Klass had taped the press conference and reportedly took it to the AFOSR.


http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccar....html#reaction


************************************************** ********
Activity in Other Venues;

At this point it would appear that the NAS did not react as McDonald expected and so he took his case to other quarters. It is unclear whether he approached Science or vice-versa. In fact, the situation is further confused by a letter to Science from one of its editors, Daniel Greenberg. [62] In it Greenberg responded to Lewis Branscomb's criticisms [63] of the article which finally did appear by saying that initially Condon approached Science, which already planned an article on CU, when he (Condon) thought he would have to counter the negative publicity from the Look article.

When the negative publicity failed to materialize he refused to cooperate with Science and said he did not want a story done. At any rate in early June, McDonald wrote Philip Boffey, an editorial writer for Science, enclosing papers, background material, and his 3/5/68 letter to Condon. He urged Boffey to carry the matter as far as possible in the hope that Science might be able to rectify some of the neglect accorded the subject.

Referring to his 3/5/68 letter he said, "This whole thing is an unprecedented situation and only my strong conviction that we're dealing in the UFO problem with a matter of high scientific importance which Condon was going to casually reinter has led to my pursuing some of these courses." [64] Boffey eventually wrote an article critical of the Condon Project for Science. [65]

During this same period Congressman Roush of Indiana, who with McDonald engineered the House Science and Astronautics Committee
hearings on UFOs in July of 1968, wrote Seitz at the NAS, probably at McDonald's request, making a few suggestions. He wanted the NAS to:
Examine the Look allegations and McDonald's objections to the Condon Study.
Examine other significant cases as recommended by Hynek.
Look into the dismissal of Saunders and Levine.

Roush said he would suspend a Government Accounting Office review of the project which he had initiated until the NAS finished its review. [66]
Another attempt at obtaining publicity, this time with Industrial Review Magazine, did not work out as well as the Science gambit. When the magazine first took an interest in CU -- with or without McDonald's prodding is unclear -- Condon who was on the editorial board of the magazine, tried to dissuade the board from the story. When he failed he resigned from the board.

[67] However, the writer assigned to the story, an A. J. Cote, could not come around to seeing the Condon Study as McDonald did. In fact, he reached the point where he felt he had laid the groundwork to indict either the project or its critics, but he couldn't come down off the fence until he saw the final report. So, after writing an introductory article, he decided not to write the final piece. For Cote it was a question of whose accusations to believe and only the report could settle the matter. [68]

It would appear that he did not write the final article even after the release of the report. This was a blow to McDonald after his expenditure of considerable time and energy in trying to convince Cote of the efficacy of his position.

Activity on the part of McDonald with respect to the CU study slackened during the summer months. This was due to his intense involvement in the July House Hearings mentioned above and their aftermath. Nevertheless, in October his concern for the outcome of
the Boulder study remained high, as evidenced by a note from Phyllis O'Callaghan, Legislative Assistant to Representative Roush.

Apparently McDonald wrote to her asking that she use the good offices of Roush to ferret out any information she could obtain about the secret NAS Panel which was to review the Condon Report. This was important to McDonald because he wanted to contact the panel members to give them the inside story on both the UFO project and the UFO phenomenon in general.
O'Callaghan reported that Coleman at the NAS told her the panel members were chosen by the President and members of the NAS Council and would remain secret. The review would not immediately be made public, but would be forwarded to the Air Force and released at the discretion of the Air Force.

[69]
Intent upon informing the panel of what had taken place at CU McDonald pursued another tactic. He contacted Saunders, who by that time had written a book on his CU experience with Roger Harkins, a Boulder reporter. He persuaded Saunders and his publisher to send the galleys to the NAS. McDonald felt the book contained information not in the Look article which would have a salutary effect on the Academy scientists. [70]

He undoubtedly took this action because of the above-mentioned letter to Science by Branscomb. Both he and Saunders felt that since Branscomb was a colleague of Condon at CU that the letter, which defended Condon and indicted McDonald, presaged a negative final report.


http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccar....html#reaction

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

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]

************************************************** *******


The CU Data Controversy;

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.)


http://www.project1947.com/shg/mccar....html#reaction

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.



Visit http://www.X-Conference.com DR. JAMES E. McDONALD’S FIGHT FOR UFO DISCLOSURE PANEL DISCUSSION,;

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

James E. McDonald;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...McDonald_1.gif

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;

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:

i will try to make another version of this an more updated version

kevin trudeau interviews erich-von-daniken http://www.ktradionetwork.com/guests...s-of-the-gods/

THE REAL COSMIC FEMALE? She looks indian - that would make sense.

What yawl think of these?

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

link; http://www.ufoevidence.org/researchers/detail24.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++

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.


James E. McDonald , Ph.D.
author's bio;


http://www.ufoevidence.org/Researche...esMcDonald.jpg



THE LETTER:

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.

Respectfuly yours,

James E. McDonald
Professor.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

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.

link; http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1056.htm

...just published today:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...vault.html.csp

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.

Story continues below

http://tap.rubiconproject.com/stats/...01&upn=prepend http://c.betrad.com/a/4.gif http://tap.rubiconproject.com/stats/...101&upn=append

“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.

good shit

just that you all know the 5 UFOs Fly Over Military Base In Hawaii On 4/8/11 is believe to be CGI

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ssination.html


Was JFK killed because of his interest in aliens? Secret memo shows president demanded UFO files 10 days before death

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:35 AM on 19th April 2011

• Comments (20)
• Add to My Stories

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.'


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...30_468x340.jpg Assassination: Was JFK shot to stop him discovering the truth about UFOs?


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.


More...

• What a headache: Astronauts find paracetamol doesn't work in space
• Hard times: The Victorian artist who mastered the night but was shadowed by debt

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.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...70_468x286.jpg Beam me up: Days before he was killed, JFK wrote to the CIA demanding access to their files about UFOs


Enlarge http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...69_468x561.jpg Unclassified: A second memo written by JFK on November 12 1963, 10 days before his assassination, which has been released by the CIA

‘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.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...80_468x561.jpg Disputed: In the 'burned memo' the CIA director allegedly wrote: 'Lancer [JFK] has made some inquiries regarding our activities, which we cannot allow'


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.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1JwGnZrFE

A BIG black triangle surrounded by an "eerie" white glow was captured on camera hovering over a fishing lake. Near Derby UK April 10th .....

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/ne...l/article.html

interesting video containing a talk by Dr michio who speaks about the world of physics and what is to come;

I think Kaku is full of CACA - and knows a lot more then he is telling. All that rhetoric about 'we are going to make contact' is getting old. I submit that 'first contact' has been established or re-established generations ago.

I hate to say it but this sounds a lil more realistic, although I still haven't drawn a conclusion as to whether the following is real or not. However, it just seems more BELIEVABLE then the whole "going to" talk... that sounds like they are preparing us for the inevitable and as history shows, the inevitable is almost always scripted or perverted by the oligarchs, monarchs, and plutocrats of our planet:














Michael Jackson was right "...the history books are all lies..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L~>1<~NKS

---

Quote:

---

Siberian “Dead alien” fake
Published: 19 April, 2011, 17:14

A video of what was claimed to be a mutilated alien corpse, which scored hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube, has turned out to be fake.

The tiny “dead alien” is just skin from chicken filled with bread, reports the website 7d.org.ua. Police questioned the men who claimed to have found the “body” and they allegedly confessed to creating it themselves.

---

.

The National Security Agency's UFO Investigations;
Following on from the The National Security Agency's UFO declassified documents here is a bit more;
************************************************** ********

X Files Opened: The National Security Agency's UFO Investigations Unearthed;


quote;
"There is one question that persistently circles the community of Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) true-believers: If the government has nothing to hide, UFO fans often ask, then why is it keeping so many UFO records under lock and key?

"Well, it turns out that the government does have something to hide, but it has nothing to do with extraterrestrials," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C.

"A document has surfaced that had been stamped "Top Secret Umbra"--the codeword for the highest, most sensitive category of communications intelligence".

************************************************** ********


The once-classified affidavit was originally filed by the National Security Agency (NSA) in a 1980 lawsuit to justify the withholding of records on UFOs. The document is largely declassified--with certain sections cut out, ostensibly to protect employee names, and keep NSA technologies, skills, and foreign connections out of the limelight.

The document--In Camera Affidavit of Eugene F. Yeates: Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. National Security Agency, October 9, 1980--was released in redacted form on November 3 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from researcher Michael Ravnitzky and posted on the website of the Federation of American Scientists.
************************************************** ********
1.Foreign signals;

A read of the document yields insight into how a super-secret agency like the NSA became caught up in the UFO phenomenon.

Created in November 1952, The National Security Agency/Central Security Service is America's cryptologic organization. It coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to protect U.S. government information systems and churns out foreign signals intelligence information.

Being a high-tech organization, the NSA is a cutting-edge home for communications and data processing. It is also a center for foreign language analysis and research within the government.

The just-released 1980 document explains that a total of 239 documents related to UFOs were located in NSA files, with 79 of those documents originating with other government agencies. One document is an account by an NSA official attending a UFO symposium. A healthy chunk of these reports were produced between 1958 and 1979.
************************************************** ********
2.Deceptive data;


The titles of NSA-related UFO documents that are noted in the declassified document are intriguing, such as UFO Hypothesis and Survival Questions.



Another title cited is UFO's and the Intelligence Community Blind Spot to Surprise or Deceptive Data. In this seven-page, undated, unofficial draft of a monograph authored by an unnamed NSA employee, the author reportedly points out what he considers to be "a serious shortcoming" in the NSA's communications intelligence (COMINT) interception and reporting procedures. That is, "the inability to respond correctly to surprising information or deliberately deceptive data."

The unidentified author uses the UFO phenomenon to illustrate his belief that the inability of the U.S. intelligence community to process this type of unusual data adversely affects U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities.

Within the pages of the newly-released affidavit--and between sections of excised copy--it shows NSA intercepted in 1971 communications between two aircraft and a ground controller discussing a "phenomena" in the sky, as well as radar screen observations, labeling what was viewed as "unidentifiable" objects.

Other intercepted and decrypted reports of bright lights, luminous objects, and unidentified aircraft--along with an elongated ball of fire--scooting through the skies over non-U.S. countries are noted too.
************************************************** ********
3;Intercept operations;

The 21-page affidavit makes clear that release of documents for public scrutiny, for a variety of reasons, "would seriously damage the ability of the United States to gather this vital intelligence information."

Furthermore, how the NSA works with a network of foreign sources, organizations, and other governments to secure intelligence data would be adversely affected.

The majority of these records, explained NSA official Eugene F. Yeates in the 1980 affidavit, were communications intelligence reports that "are the product of intercept operations directed against foreign government controlled communications systems within their territorial boundaries."
************************************************** ********
4;New insight;

According to Aftergood, the newly declassified Yeates affidavit provides new insight into the types of records sought by UFO researchers that have been withheld by NSA.

"Even with all of the deletions, one can get a sense of the enormous scale--and the apparent success--of the worldwide electronic intercept operations conducted by NSA at the height of the Cold War," Aftergood told SPACE.com.

"Unfortunately it is not clear from the affidavit how the withheld documents might have related to UFOs," Aftergood said. "There must have been some connection in order for them to be within the scope of the original FOIA request...but I have no idea what it was."

But for those hungry to show a great government conspiracy is at work and that alien-driven UFOs routinely cruise through our skies, the just brought to light document won't help you.

"The affidavit does not discount the UFO phenomenon...it simply doesn't address it one way or the other," Aftergood concluded.

To view the affidavit, check out: http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/yeates-ufo.pdf

FBI UFO Documents;1;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These FBI UFO documents appeared on April 11th, 2011;

I waited hours for these documents to download -- literally. 27 different items appeared when I used the search function to look for "flying saucers" and I still haven't had time to go through most of them:These are provided below in their respective links; Invaluable to the serious researcher i feel;



UFO Part 12 of 16; http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%2012%20of%2016/view

UFO Part 13 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%2013%20of%2016/view

UFO Part 2 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%202%20of%2016/view

UFO Part 14 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%2014%20of%2016/view

UFO Part 16 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%2016%20of%2016/view

UFO Part 1 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%201%20of%2016/view

UFO Part 15 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%2015%20of%2016/view

Project Blue Book (UFO) part 1 of 1
http://vault.fbi.gov/Project%20Blue%...%20of%201/view

National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) Part 1 of 3
http://vault.fbi.gov/National%20Inve...%20of%203/view

UFO Part 11 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%2011%20of%2016/view

UFO Part 8 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%208%20of%2016/view

Guy Hottel;
http://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/
Guy Hottel was a Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office. The information concerning Mr. Hottel is in regard to a March 22, 1950, memo he ...

UFO Part 6 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%206%20of%2016/view

National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) Part 2 of 3
UFO Part 3 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%203%20of%2016/view

UFO Part 9 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%209%20of%2016/view

UFO Part 5 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%205%20of%2016/view

UFO Part 7 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%207%20of%2016/view

Criminal Profiling Part 6 of 7;
http://vault.fbi.gov/Criminal%20Prof...%20of%207/view

UFO Part 4 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%204%20of%2016/view

Sen. Joseph (Joe) McCarthy Part 19 of 56;
http://vault.fbi.gov/Sen.%20Joseph%2...20of%2056/view

UFO Part 10 of 16;
http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%2010%20of%2016/view

Walter Winchell Part 26 of 58;
http://vault.fbi.gov/Walter%20Winche...20of%2058/view

Malcolm Little (Malcolm X) HQ File 04 of 27;
http://vault.fbi.gov/malcolm-little-...-04-of-27/view

Frank Sinatra Part 05 of 29;
http://vault.fbi.gov/Frank%20Sinatra...20of%2029/view

Malcolm X Part 5 of 38;
http://vault.fbi.gov/Malcolm%20X/Mal...20of%2038/view

Bob Digby (BUFORA) interview with South African ufo researcher Cynthia Hind.
The world-famous ufologist passed away in 2000.





"On 14th September, 1994, a UFO streaked across the sky over Southern Africa. Two days later, something landed in a schoolyard in Ruwa, Zimbabwe, with three or four things beside it, according to journalist Cynthia Hind. This was witnessed by 62 schoolchildren, who had little or no exposure to TV or popular press accounts of UFOs.

Cynthia Hind interviewed them the day after the encounter and made them draw pictures of what they had seen".Dr John Mack was also heavily involved in this case to;
************************************************** ********

These are the two books which Cynthia published and are available online mainly from Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

UFOs African Encounters was first published in 1982





http://www.ufoafrinews.com/images/is...AfricanEnc.jpg


Cynthia's second book UFOs Over Africa was published 1997

http://www.ufoafrinews.com/images/is...overAfrica.jpg



Information on Cynthia Hinds;

Quick Facts about Cynthia Hind:
A resident of Zimbabwe, Cynthia Hind is MUFON's coordinator for Africa...
Source: Amazon.com: Ufos Over Africa: Books: Cynthia Hind [www.amazon.com]

Cynthia Hind has published important books about the phenomenon in Africa...
Source: Journal of the Mindshift Institute [www.mindshiftinstitute.org

Cynthia Hind is a psychotherapist with a private practice seeing individuals, couples and families affected by eating disorders, anxiety and depression. ...

link; http://pipl.com/directory/people/Cynthia/Hind

Alien visitation & Abduction part one;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will include here a highly acclaimed series dealing with alien visitation & abduction by Juan von Trillion and Gary Vey;While this part of the UFO subject does touch upon the believability mind set of most people it is included here merely as information to those who feel that they are either beind or need more information on some of the topics that contain the aliens and disclosure part of this mystery; All quotes ect are external and all corresponding links are provided, happy digging;
************************************************** **********

"There are things that are so serious, you can only joke about them."
-- Werner Heisenberg
What, When, Who & Why;


Disclosure. An official statement that ... WHAT?

Well, that the Earth is being visited, er, has been visited since ... WHEN?

We don't know for sure, but actually the point is, we have been working with some of them ... WHO?

Tall whites, tall greys, small greys, reptilians ... some hyperdimensional ones ...
but we have this problem ... WHY?

Good question. We can't fake it anymore, so we are going to disclose ... WHAT?

Hey, not more than we absolutely have to.

If you are among those who think that this AlienUFO thing is a good joke and provides passing entertainment value at best, you are lucky, and not likely to read this. Because it means that you have so much catching up to do with reality that you will likely not catch it. You will cling to complete denial of AlienUFO for as long as you can, and then spontaneously go bananas. Enjoy your blissful ignorance for as long as it is possibly enjoyable.

Disclosure has been happening, and is happening, ever since before most of you were born. Not official disclosure, though. By the time that this will be officially disclosed, you will be shrugging it off. But that will be quite some time into the future.

I don't watch teevee, but if you have not heard of THE EVENT, a new NBC series, you will soon. Here is a brief comment, and the reply, to a post by Larry Lowe concerning the Disclosure leitmotiv of this new piece of tube you entertainment.

THE EVENT on NBC
http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-phoen...-does-not-know

I tell you what would really blow everyones mind is if you could get Barak Obama, Secretary Gates, Gen Patreus to come on afterwards and say. "what you have seen on this series is very much real, but details have been witheld for purposes that cannot be disclosed in the best interest of not just the United States but the human race as a whole.

We chose a fictional format because it was the best way we could disclose without disclosing a reality the human race just isn't quite ready to handle emotionally, mentally and spiritually.

This is the reply by Larry Lowe:

It can't be that fast, Anon. We are talking about reeducating an entire society that has been well-educated and miss-informed as a matter of public policy.

"The Event" is just the first shot, although I suspect it will be a significant one.

Call it another 5-6 years at the least before you see the kind of formal disclosure with a big 'D" that the advocates are so adamant about advocating. It will take that long for the reality of the issue to sink in.

So that when the actual real version of the event depicted in "The Event" happens everyone will go: "yeah, we know, so what?".

Which is the goal.

There is an overwhelming amount of credible evidence that non-human intelligences are on Earth, and have been on Earth. Some of them since before we humans showed up, or were seeded, or were created, or shipped. Some of how many species of aliens? Pick a number, any number below, say, 57. Even if you pick only 3 or 4, the resulting complexity is simply staggering.

Which ones of the aliens are trading their technology for something valuable that we have (other than Jazz)? Which ones of them think it is ethical to mess with our extremely messy human affairs? Which ones can you trust to be left alone with your chicken? And, most importantly, which aliens work together, or don't work together, with what other aliens? For humans, this is a messy scenario, and some alien species would certainly chime in here. Others might just look at us like a sheep trying to figure out wool futures.

As Charles Fort, a pioneer of alternative real knowledge research said a long time ago:

We are property.

You see that this gets impossibly complex once you pick more than one alien species being interacted with on Earth right now. It is not chess anymore, it is 3-D super chess on steroids, and humans need not apply.

Even if you have spent a lot of time studying the most serious, credible, dedicated and informed researchers of the AlienUFO theme, you often feel that you have a long way to go. One of the first breakthroughs is when you realize that the AlienUFO is unquestionably real. You start exploring the details, the alien varieties, the sightings and the stories, the coverups, the versions, the channelled stuff, the woowoo stuff, the speculations ... and, finally, the implications of it all.

They said (the Brookings study) that we could not handle the truth. But the truth is that we know that they can't handle us once the truth gets out. Us, that is, you and me, the general pop, the useless eaters, the masses, the sheeple, the taxpayers, the patriots, the good people, the children, in a word: us 99.99%.

They pretend that we will have a hard time coming to terms with the reality of the alien presence, when in reality, they are toast if they actually tell the entire story as it is, unabridged, no spin, no lies, no omissions, nothing but the truth. That would be the end of the line for them. Them, that is the 0.01% of the teeny-weeny minority of well-meaning population reductionists, or however they prefer to call themselves, those who are privvy to the big picture.

So. If I were you, I would not expect:

1) official disclosure of the alien presence, and

2) the full story.

Why has disclosure been going on since the first black and white televisions came out? For one, because ever since the famous Roswell Crash in 1947, preceeded by a wave of sightings in the time leading up to it, there have been major inconsistencies in official fumbleness. The air force admitted, for one day, that it had retrieved a crashed flying saucer, only to retract itself and call it a weather balloon. That is like saying you found a smoking gun but then it turns out to be just an old match.

Of course you are right when you say that it is next to impossible to keep a total lid on this. This is what targeted disinformation is for. Agencies and hired guns do their best to create a cognitive dissonance that ridicules any crucial events or evidence, even the mere concept of the AlienUFO reality. It is allowed in the movies, though, with hundreds of films and more coming. It is not hard to see why, after 70 years or so, we are still in the dark. Kept in the dark.

But are we? One thing is public knowledge. Another one is widespread public knowledge. Currently, we are between the two, all the while we are worrying about our world as we know it coming apart at the seams. Could it be that this is happening because of the AlienUFO? Trillions in taxpayer's money can not be accounted for. Is this money going into black operations dealing with the AlienUFO?

McDonnell Douglas studied UFOs in the 1960s;








CREDIBLE SOURCES;

Is there, or was there, one man or woman who has told us that not all is what it seems? Yes. Actually, several of them.

Spilling The Beans;


"The prolific AlienUFO graphic artist Jim Nichols found this mind-blowing statement by two people who laid the foundation for the US atom bomb, space program and the CIA."
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0208/a...n-mystery.html

"Dr. Hermann Oberth, who pioneered rocket design for the German Reich during World War II and later advanced rocket technology for the American manned space launches, cryptically stated, "We cannot take the credit for our record advancement in certain scientific fields alone; we have been helped." When asked by whom, he replied; "The people of other worlds."


http://www.viewzone.com/event1-1.gif



Oberth's fellow associate space pioneer, who also served the Third Reich, Werhner Von Braun, echoed similar knowledge of the extra-terrestrial reality when he stated in 1959, "We find ourselves faced by powers which are far stronger than hitherto assumed, and whose base is at present unknown to us. More I cannot say at present. We are now engaged in entering into closer contact with those powers, and within six or nine months time it may be possible to speak with more precision on the matter."

[From Above Top Secret by Timothy Good, William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1988.]



The AlienUFO issue is the biggest one there is. Everything else follows from it. Staggeringly huge budgets for black technology, derived from found, or traded, alien tech, are paid for by your taxes and a huge industry of covert, illegal operations.

To make a long story short: since Eisenhower or Nixon, this parallel world which deals with the AlienUFO has been privatized. It is owned and managed by the military-industrial complex, Rockefeller, those people.

The last US president to be briefed on the AlienUFO was apparently Ronald Reagan, who promptly spilled his beans. John F. Kennedy was apparently not okay with keeping this matter from the public.

President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech version 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces

You just can not trust these presidents who, once in office, actually think that they are entitled to know deep secrets. One must wonder what can possibly be hidden in those 27 security clearance levels above that of the US president. That is a lot of room where to hide stuff.

Now let's look at examples of such credible research into the AlienUFO. All these fine intelligence and military people eventually become ex-intelligence and ex-military fine people. They approach the end of their earthly lives and some decide to take their secrets to the grave, while others decide to leave those secrets outside of their coffin. But before they die, they live their lives as retirees, with grandchildren and all, they stay in touch with their colleagues.

They talk.They may be still under oath to shut up or else, but when one's life draws to a close, everything becomes relatively ... relative. Many of these people have chosen, and choose, to confide their secrets before they leave. And not a few of them must be compelled to find out more about the AlienUFO by exchanging information and putting new incoming data into perspective.

Getting a bigger picture;

Such is the case of Project Serpo. About 150 of these now private citizens with low profiles but formerly high positions and insights in all sorts of agencies and fields meet in an email forum. An anonymous informant show up in this forum and spreads highly novel information regarding AlienUFO. They conclude that, as outlandish as it is, the anonymous whistleblower's information merits very close scrutiny.


They also try to find out who this whistleblowing person is, and among themselves, speculate about his identity (it turns out that there are three informants, one only contributing a few percent while another over 80% of the highly classified information, reportedly of some 3,000 pages total). Keep in mind that any serious whistleblower who does not go anonymous is a dead whistleblower, perhaps barely able to whistle past the graveyard, his graveyard. And if the informant answers the right questions to him in the totally wrong way, he gets kicked out of this special sandbox.

If this piques your interest, keep the link handy: http://www.serpo.org/

************************************************** ********
Ben Rich, Lockheed Skunk Works director, has admitted in his Deathbed Confession that Extraterrestrial UFO visitors are real.

http://www.viewzone.com/event1-lockhead.gif


Dr. Ben R. Rich;

Dr. Ben R. Rich confirmed:

1. There are 2 types of UFOs -- the ones we build and ones 'they' build. We learned from both crash retrievals and actual "hand-me-downs." The Government knew and until 1969 took an active hand in the administration of that information. After a 1969 Nixon "purge", administration was handled by an international board of directors in the private sector...

2. Nearly all "biomorphic" aerospace designs were inspired by the Roswell spacecraft -- from Kelly's SR-71 Blackbird onward to today's drones, UCAVs, and aerospace craft...

3. It was Ben Rich's opinion that the public should not be told [about UFOs and extraterrestrials] . He believed they could not handle the truth -- ever. Only in the last months of his decline did he begin to feel that the "international corporate board of directors" dealing with the "Subject" could represent a bigger problem to citizens' personal freedoms under the United States Constitution than the presence of off-world visitors themselves.

Most of these people are very easy to find on the web, and have given plenty of interviews telling their story. The National Press Club has hosted several top-level conferences dealing with UFO's interfering with intercontinental ballistic missile systems, turning them off, or reprogramming their target coordinates.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Have Been Compromised By UFO;



Also see story in MSM (Reuters): HERE. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS1...10+PRN20100915

Exopolitics is the new game in town.
"The biggest new discipline ever to come unexpectedly from left field. Straight out of woowoo-land, the AlienUFO complex is being exposed by courageous and articulate people, many of them, if not most, US citizens.

Some of them are definitely kooks and disinformation agents, but the vast body of evidence is reflected in a concerted effort to put together a bigger picture. Some claim that Disclosure, official Disco-co-closure with pomp and circumstance, is just around the corner. Who knows what will come up at the next major interruption of your regular programming. Very likely, more programming".

Disclosure is what you can and perhaps should do for yourself. It also is happening all around you, on the internet, in thoughtful conversations, at conferences. It is not an easy subject to get into, and aren't we all too busy? It stands your world on end and shakes it, no question about it.

AlienUFO is not stranger than you suppose, it is stranger than you can suppose. AlienUFO is not going away but only getting hotter by the year, by the month, by the week. It has been going on for many decades, and we are coming to a critical point.

Apocalypse means Revelation. If there is a bigger revelation than the revelation of the multiplicity of intelligent life in all shapes and forms around us, below us, above us, and within us ... tell me which one it is. Meanwhile, we are going to put together a good collection of material that shows you that daily disclosure has been happening, and happens.

You just don't know it until you know it. Dislose this. For yourself. Nobody official is going to do it for you without lying about it. Choose your sources well and apply a good dose of uncommon sense, intuition and pattern recognition. And forget about official Disclosure happening on your teevee. Before that happens, it happens in a few primetime TV series to get you used to it. Predictive Programming is what it is called.

In part 2 of this series, we are going to Disclose This AlienUFO thing as if there was no tomorrow.You will be surprised what hair-raising evidence is out there!

link source;
http://www.viewzone.com/event11.html

Alien visitation & Abduction part two;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth... We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
-- John Swinton, speech given while working for the New York Sun, 1880;

A note about the use of media in this series of articles;
Whenever possible, youtube videos of the short kind have been selected to illustrate a point. However, some longer videos are included as well to save on reading. We are also dealing with evidence that is much more practical to behold when presented in its original form.



What is this hair-raising evidence about the presence of AlienUFO?

We are talking about UFOs, Unidentified Freaking Objects, but that is ultimately like talking about some other being's (flying) cars, and not that being as such. You would not confuse a Porsche with its driver. But given our cultural obsession with machines, and yes girls, mostly by males, we seem to actually be more interested in their gear than their, uhmmm, philosophy, or favorite recipes, or even their guitar amplifiers.

UFO's as alien flying cars leave only a few possibilities to sort out the cognitive dissonance they cause in reasonably awake humans. It may be true in some, and not true in other cases. Remember, it's a zoo out there and a jungle in here.

1) These UFO's are somehow steered, usually rather intelligently, but there is no-body inside (e.g. the glowing orbs; not spaceships with, say, bunks, toilets, and leisure lounges)

2) They are (alien-) manned machines: the accepted General Understanding -- in itself, an oxymoronic word combination,

3) Them UFO's are not machines as we know them, but time-travel or interdimensional-travel devices; like a cross between Honda Antigrav and an Apple TimePad

4) They are a combination of factors such as those three above, or a bit of everything, depending on the case, or whatever: which we can not comprehend with our pea brains.

This is a bit academic, because the vast body of evidence indicates that UFO's and aliens travel and often appear together, usually the latter ones inside the former. Since we only know that we know almost nothing, let's put the following conclusion away in a safe place:

Aliens and UFO's are somehow related;

AlienUFO is the most important topic of our time, perhaps the most important topic of humanity. While most of us would probably be more interested in those aliens who are driving these UFO's, and rather recklessly so, ignoring G-force, some people at so-called high levels are more interested in their flying cars. They want that UFO, and they want it badly, to go and arm it with something nasty. They would do anything to get the technology, and they did.

The story is, and I am getting ahead of myself but that can easily be reversed in time, that ... the first deal that was proposed, in modern times, between the Tall Whites, or Nordics, and the Americans, was not good enough for the Americans. The Americans were told, in a nutshell, that their overall attitude sucked a lot. That these nukes were a big mistake, something like giving machine guns and 10,000 rounds of ammunition to the drugged mad monkeys at the zoo before the gates open on Sunday.

That the planet was being treated like there was a spare one somewhere. And that antigravity tech, and hence free energy, could and likely would be abused by humans. In a word: not now, maybe later. And that was not what the generals wanted to hear from the drivers of these ultra-slick flying cars. So they told Eisenhower to say no.

But ... another deal was apparently made to get the technology to build those flying cars to arm them with nasty things and stay as the top dog, and also to go to places that Einstein said they couldn't. Einsteinism is one of the major scientific frauds that conceals the physics which allow for antigravity, time travel, and scaring the hell out of rednecks.

In another optional scenario, the much-desired antigravity technology was back-engineered from crashed saucers (Roswell and others), no real deal as such involved here. Or, another variation, as some people suggest: the technology was harvested from a purposefully, sacrificially crashed saucer (same Roswell case).


Some have noticed that the Roswell Incident happened at very specific coordinates at a particular time. Numerology, Gematria, Cabala and Magic play into this, and quite heavily. In 1947, Roswell was also the only place in the world which had nuclear weapons, another interesting fact because there is the argument that UFO's started to appear en masse after the first atom bomb explosions.

There is no bigger swamp than AlienUFO, so let's try to stay inside our hovercraft at all times. How to do this? Don't ask why. That is never a good question with AlienUFO, despite your natural urge to do it anyway. Resist that urge. Ask anything, but not why. Because the answer is ... who knows?

Keep an open mind but don't let your brain fall out. Be as skeptical as you can, but do not discard arcane bits of information or perspective just because you are not familiar with them. Because it is all stranger than you can suppose, and all you can do is hang on to your knickerbockers.



WTF factors: some POTUS, some Astronauts, some Spilled Beans;

At least two Presidents Of The United States have spoken in public about AlienUFO.;

UFO - Ronald Reagan's Speech about Alien Invasion






Ex President Jimmy Carter UFO






Gary does the Pentagon, which does not return the high-five

The WTF factor of this story is beyond belief. Gary, without stealing passwords, or breaking through firewalls, or anything more than commercial software and a lousy 56K modem, walked around US military computers between 2000 and 2002.

What did Gary find? He found that there is a Space Fleet Program, apparently man-made, so, nothing immeeeeediately worrisome ...). There were names for vessels like USSS Le May and USSS Hillenkotter, named after serious AlienUFO insider military people. Gary McKinnon says that he saw an Excel spread sheet titled NON-TERRESTRIAL OFFICERS, with a list of 20-30 names. There were references to ship-toship as well as fleet-to-fleet transfers of material.

Let this sink in for a moment.

Gary's decidedly not a hacker (though he admitted to breaking some law and regrets it - kids, don't do this at home, okay?). Because these computer networks that he hung out in, between 2000 to 2002, had blank, default passwords. He saw large numbers of other connected people from all kinds of countries, but could not determine their right or lack of it to be there. It looked more like an open-door thing than anything else.

Gary had heard that the Johnson Space Center Building 8 had people erasing (airbrushing) evidence from hi-resolution satellite images. He found his way into the computers at Building 8 and located the file folders. They were named raw and edited, essentially, and he was able to slowly download a 200-plus megabyte image in NASA proprietary graphic format, reducing the channels, via his 56K dial-up modem connection (an no, he did not take a screenshot.

He saw a huge cigar-shaped object with geodesic domes at its ends, no sign of riveting or other manufacturing, the photo apparently having been taken from a satellite looking down onto the alien object. He was disconnected before he could save the image, and Gary was subsequently tracked down and arrested by the British High Tech Crime Unit, which utterly failed to see the irony between unprotected military networks and their name.

Gary had tried to find a corresponding listing of the space command personnel which he had seen, but was unable to find one. Also, ships are always named USS such-and-such, not USSS. United States Space Ship, anyone? Wanna bet?

You would think that walking around computer networks that are not protected should not get you in trouble. After all, you are not hacking, rather, surfing along and opening unlocked doors, or just walking past them while nobody is looking, not vandalizing anything, not planting any woowoo bugs or worms or viruses.

You just want to find evidence that some people on planet Earth have their hands on anti-gravity, or zero point energy technology, while us standard-issue hominids have to pay huge money for fuel in winter, if we are lucky (meaning, there’s fuel around and the money is worth something). This was Gary's mission, having empathy with senior people who could not afford to pay for heating in England's winter. Beats Bono, if you ask me.

Gary has also been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism, essentially making him unable to lie and compulsively putting honesty and truth before everything else, even if it harms himself. Being reclusive, and smoking pot while surfing on his cheesy 56K modem around NASA, NSA, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Space Command, Pentagon, and other such "highly protected" networks,


Gary was one of millions, only the URL’s he went to were funky. Pot-smoking American presidents could have done this in their spare time (had they inhaled) if they only cared, or knew some computing basics. Some have professed that they want to let the American public know about all those secrets that some people keep somewhere and all, but they don't do the deed.

So. Highly classified computer networks had passwords which were left blank, on Windows machines being connected to the internet. Great.

Admittedly, Gary left some messages saying that their network security, in a word, sucked. They never admitted this, or forgave him. They want his British arse in some black military court. What was originally a 6- month community service penalty in his home country, the UK, ballooned into a 60-70 year prison sentence if Gary McKinnon gets extradited to the US.

An undisclosed source at the high brass in the US reportedly said that they were concerned about what Gary might have seen in his wanderings around the world's worst-kept secrets (look, no passworks, mom!), but has not disclosed. Then again, what he said he saw may be the whole truth. After all, he is not a lying scumbag politician. I would take his word any day over that of about a million people on teevee.

Gary did his mission in 2000, 2001, 2002. Does anyone remember any significant events about that time that could have been as "wellprotected" as those lists of NON-TERRESTRIAL OFFICERS of NASA/DoD/Navy Intelligence/Air Force Space Command, which Gary McKinnon could have laid eyes on?

Gary looks a bit like an alien, and he is extremely articulate and obviously highly intelligent, courageous and empathetic. These are all attributes lacking his opponents, the oxymoronic military intelligence.

Your grandchildren will know who he is when their time comes, so you better check him out. A long list of entertainment people, especially musicians like David Gilmour and Chrissy Hynde are supporting him, and it will be a battle to get him extradited to the US.

UFOs-NASA (http://freegary.org.uk/)

At 6:50 into the clip: what Gary found while hacking into NASA

InfoChimps’ UFO Sightings Database;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a new UFO search tool from InfoChimps ,(datasets API) ,it apparently can access up to a staggering 60,000 UFO cases straight from the National UFO Reporting Center.In essence cases can be compared as they are reported and it might encourage witness to come forward and report their sightings more as they see more people report them.This can only be a good thing for not only UFO reports but those that are investigating them;
************************************************** ********

Aliens Revealed in InfoChimps’ UFO Sightings Dataset;


quote;
"InfoChimps, those enterprising primates, have another incredibly interesting dataset to offer up to the world: 60,000+ UFO Sightings. And you thought that they didn’t exist! Now you’re going to have to apologize to the believers that you mocked because this dataset has come to set the record straight. Aliens exist and the evidence is the InfoChimps Datasets API, which makes searchable every documented sighting".

"This data is accessible through a RESTful API and is returned in JSON. With this dataset you could create a visualization showing information such as: all sightings in a particular year, month of day. Maybe even an animation showing the sightings as days tick by. What patterns might emerge? Imagine the people that might come forward after seeing that others had seen these same UFOs that they had seen but not reported! A little exposure could make this data set explode with contributions. Sign up at InfoChimps and give the API a test run. Test your mashup skills and combine this with your favorite map data API."


Search accounts of UFO sightings from the National UFO Reporting Center.;

"Data is from a comprehensive listing of over 60,000 unidentified-flying-object (UFO) sightings in the United States (and some elsewhere).
Fields of particular interest are the shape, which describes the shape of the UFO encountered as well as the description which is free-form descriptive text about the event;"


http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/6...ons-and-metada

Here’s a couple same response items:

http://blog.programmableweb.com/wp-c...O_Example1.png



quote;
"This dataset is sure to make for a fun implementation project that the internet will eagerly devour".



http://blog.programmableweb.com/2011...by-infochimps/

http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/6...ons-and-metada

http://ufolibs.heroku.com/

Vehicle Interference/UFOPhysical Evidence Related

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some very interesting case's relating to UFO Reports that have caused Vehicle Interference;Below are some worth mentioning;
************************************************** ********

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports (Sturrock Panel): Vehicle Interference; PART ONE;

Peter Sturrock / Sturrock Panel Report / Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports;

Summary:
" Rodeghier reviewed a small but important fraction of UFO reports that are said to involve effects on electric lights, automobiles, and other machines of various sorts. These reports have occurred throughout the modern era of UFO reports (since 1947) and come from all over the world, although (as with all UFO reports) they come primarily from Western nations. Of such reports, those that involve claims of vehicle (mainly automobile) interference have received most attention. One such case is discussed below".


The Tully "saucer nest" has a very special place in UFO lore. The famous Tully "UFO nest" affair of 1966 is one of the best known accounts of an apparent UFO landing report. It is the focus of a very important nexus in the pivotal question of UFO reality. 1966 was a major year for UFO activity in Australia.

The classic UFO landing at Horseshoe Lagoon near Tully, far north Queensland, and witnessed by 28 year old banana farmer George Pedley, entered the term UFO "nest" into popular UFO parlance. The locality was the centre of an extended UFO milieu that continued for many years, particularly in 1969, 1972 and 1975. The area was also the site of controversial experiments in UFO detection through remote sensing and filming.

The Tully incident has been mentioned extensively in the UFO literature over the years, and yet surprisingly many inaccuracies and misconceptions have developed. These problems became more critical when the famous incident once again became the focus of attention, this time due to the English "crop circle" controversy.

The prominent schools of thought on the crop circle formations adopted the 1966 Tully incident as a classic example of their perceived explanations for the circle complexes. Their claims about the relevance of the Tully incident as the progenitor or a classic example of the currently perceived crop circle phenomenon were flawed and generally unfounded. Doug and Dave, the notorious "circle" hoaxers, also cited the Tully incident as the inspiration of their crop circle creation escapades.

Instead of being an example of a wind vortex effect, "spaceship" landing site, the result of occult paranormal forces, "plasma vortex" evidence or hoaxed "saucer nest", the Pedley "nest" is a remarkable example of a UFO physical trace case. The choice of "UFO" is deliberate in that an unidentified phenomenon was apparently involved and a definitive explanation currently eludes us.



THE SITE ;

The actual site of the 1966 "nest" was in a locality called Horseshoe Lagoon. The lagoon is approximately 40 feet wide and about 90 feet across in an approximately east to west direction. The locality gains its name from the horseshoe shape of the site. The water in the lagoon at the time of the incident was approximately 6 feet deep, but was largely obscured by dense swamp (sword grass) reed growth. These reeds were about half an inch thick and extended about 2 feet above the lagoon surface. The floor of the lagoon was a clay base soil.

In terms of access and view, Horseshoe Lagoon is open on its eastern side -- the base of the U shape. This shape wraps around an area of trees and scrub. The lagoon is surrounded in all directions for some 6 kilometres by flat lowland country. Some heavily forested areas are located some 2 kilometres to the south - south east and to the south. Further isolated patches of trees are found amongst the sugar cane fields that dominate the area.

The lagoon is situated on property owned by Albert Pennisi. The Pennisi family have lived there since 1947. His residence is approximately 1.6 kilometres to the north. A line of trees about a kilometre north of the lagoon obstructs the view from the house.



THE ENCOUNTER;
At about 9 am, on January 19th, 1966, George Pedley was driving a tractor heading south along a narrow track on Albert Pennisi's sugar cane farm. The weather that morning was calm, with the sun shining at approximately 30 to 40 degrees east. When he was approximately 25 yards from Horseshoe Lagoon, Pedley heard above the noise of the tractor, a loud hissing sound, "like air escaping from a tyre."

"The tractor tyres seemed O.K. to me, so I drove on," Pedley said. "Suddenly, an object rose out of the swamp. When I glanced at it, it was already 30 feet above the ground, and at about tree-top level. It was a large, grey, saucer-shaped object, convex on the top and bottom and measured some 25 feet across and 9 feet high. While I watched, it rose another 30 feet, spinning very fast, then it made a shallow dive and took off with tremendous speed. Climbing at an angle of 45 degrees it disappeared within seconds in a south-westerly direction ...". He added, "I saw no portholes or antennas, and there was no sign of life either in or about the ship."



A PHYSICAL TRACE;
When Pedley drove around the bend of the track to the lagoon, there, at the spot beneath where the object had risen, was a huge, round cleared area in the swamp grass. The water in this circular area was slowly rotating and appeared to be completely cleared of reeds. With this evidence of what he had observed, Pedley concluded, "I have really seen something!" He had passed the same spot some three hours earlier, as close as 12 feet, and had not seen anything unusual.

Within a few minutes he returned to his tractor which he found he had to restart. He had noted just immediately prior to hearing the hissing sound a sound like a misfire in the tractor motor. He was sure it had not stopped. As with most farmers it was not his habit to switch off the tractor motor until finished with it.

Later in the day, apparently about noon, George returned along the track and stopped for another inspection. The cleared area of the lagoon surface was no longer visible. What was clearly evident was a floating mass of reeds, approximately 30 feet in diameter, that had apparently come to the surface of the lagoon during the time Pedley was absent. The floating mass of reeds and grass was noticeably distributed in a radial pattern, in a clear clockwise manner. Pedley was certain the reeds were quite green in this mass, as they were in all the surrounding reeds in the lagoon.


Original Tully "Saucer Nest" ;
(Image courtesy Paul Jackson - TUFOIC)

Unable to keep this experience to himself, by about mid-afternoon George Pedley had told a friend, and also Albert Pennisi, the property owner. He led them both to the spot where the extraordinary evidence lay. Both were astounded. Neither had ever seen anything like this before, despite being experienced bushmen. Pennisi "knew" his lagoon and a circular effect like this was totally unprecedented in his experience.

Pennisi and Pedley waded out to the floating mass and found that it was possible to swim from either side under the mass. The water was clear of any obstructions and the lagoon floor beneath it was smooth and clear of any roots. Pedley and Pennisi were most struck by a particular feature of the surface of the floating reed bed - what seemed to be a clear "print" or impression of the UFO.

The outer perimeter of the floating mass was thrust down markedly as if indented by a massive inverted saucer shape, with a circular centre about 6 to 8 feet in diameter. Pennisi rushed to his house and returned with a camera to take a series of photos. By then the upper surfaces of the reeds on top of the "nest" had turned brown. The underside of the reeds remained green. This browning had occurred by late afternoon, some 8 hours after the sighting by Pedley.



OTHER TRACE ANOMALIES;
About 6 feet to the north of the "nest" a rectangular patch of the swamp couch grass, approximately 5 by 6 feet had been clipped at water level and pulled out completely. Pedley apparently noticed this initially with his original observation of the circular area. A further interesting anomaly was found by Christine Rounland, whose husband helped Pedley with crop fertilising.

She came across some ground markings that resembled curious tracks in loose ploughed soil of an adjoining paddock between Pedley's banana palms. They led from the direction of the lagoon area and extended a short distance into the ploughed field. They were shaped like a tear drop, pointed on one end and rounded at the other. Each were about 3 to 4 inches in length and about 2 inches across at their widest point. They were spaced out at about 12 inch intervals and in a straight line.

Subsequent underwater checks indicated 3 large holes in the muddy floor of the lagoon beneath the Pedley nest. Whether these were there at the time of the sighting could not be absolutely proven, but to some they suggested the possibility of tripod landing indentations. Pedley also reported later that he noticed the presence of a "sulphur" smell in the area around the nest, just after the UFO had departed.



THE NEST MILIEU DEVELOPS;
While only the "nest" associated with George Pedley's sighting had an explicit connection with a UFO close encounter, other "nests" were found in quick succession in Horseshoe Lagoon. While intriguing none of the subsequent finds were as compelling as the original "nest". The area became the focus of ongoing "nest" phenomena and indeed Tully became known as the UFO capital of Australia. Tully had long been known as the locality with one of the highest regular rain falls in Australia.

The period of Pedley's encounter fell within the "wet" season, namely January to February. Usually this takes the form of heavy to drizzling rain. Hence it is easy to see why weather phenomena was deemed a possible explanation. However the facts do not lend themselves to this convenient answer. Strong winds during this "wet season" usually occur when cyclones are present. Pedley's encounter occurred during calm fine weather. The prevailing weather for the area in the 24 hours proceding the incident were not conducive for the formation of local windstorms.

Locals are familar with wind damage, even those involving small scale vortices. These usually feature rougher and messy grass coverage disturbance and evidence of debri and trails in the immediate locality. None of this was evident. When the news of George Pedley's encounter and the "nest" started to spread, coverage through the media proliferated. It was front page news. All sorts of theories abounded for the "nest". Helicopters, nesting birds ("Big Bird"?), crocodiles, dogs, secret military devices, "spaceships", reed eating grubs, willy willy and whirlwinds were amongst the many ideas trotted out.

There was some confusion with regard to the direction of the nest spiral which persisted in various accounts over the years. The Pedley "nest" had a clockwise swirl. This aspect at least ruled out one explanation. The Brisbane paper, The Courier Mail, of January 25th, 1966, stated, "RAAF officials discounted the theory that 'nests' have been made by helicopters. The RAAF said that in depressions left by helicopters the grass usually ran in an anti-clockwise direction - the main nest found at Tully ran in a clockwise direction."

Alf Macdonald, the Stock Routes Inspector for Northern Queensland, who had lived in the area since 1933, thought the wind vortex theory was unlikely. He said that the district had not had a strong whirlwind, and indicated that they left a path anyway. George Pedley also commented, "I've seen wet whirlwinds and dust whirlwinds. If the police believe this, let them. I know what I saw. It wasn't a whirlwind."

The Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society (now VUFORS) published an excellent item, "The Tully 'nests': How freakish can whirlwinds be?" which concluded that "the atmospheric vortex hypothesis" was untenable, despite cyclonic rotation in the southern hemisphere being clockwise. Large scale vortex weather systems such as cyclones and whirlwinds largely have their rotation determined by the Coriolis Effect, but local factors can negate these tendencies, particularly in smaller vortex systems such as "willy willies".

Stan Seers of the Queensland Flying Saucer Research Bureau (QFSRB) arranged for samples to be taken by Albert Pennisi, namely reeds, mud and water from the "nest" area and also from nearby grass. These were received in Brisbane on January 24th, and submitted for examination by the Queensland University Botany and Physics departments. Results for radioactivity were minimal. All samples bar one were negative. The sample taken from the centre of the nest showed a small increase in beta activity, much less than from a luminous wristwatch dial.

Mr. G. Taylor, the staff physicist confirmed that this was an insignificant result and was probably within background readings. Dr. Langdon of the botany department reported that the grass apparently died from submersion in swamp water. No evidence for parasitic infestation or burning was found. The submersion theory was not supported by the facts or local tests conducted by Albert Pennisi at the suggestion of QFSRB. It seemed the reeds in the nest had turned brown in about 8 hours. Reeds that were uprooted and submerged in swamp water turned brown after about 3 days.

Aerial and ground searches of the area were conducted in the wake of the Pedley find. Another two nests were found on January 20th by local farmer Tom Warren and school teacher Hank Penning, only 25 yards from the original "nest". They were a few feet apart and only about a third of the diameter of the original. The reeds were flattened, one clockwise and the other counterclockwise.

This find led to extensive searches. A week after the original find, cane farmer, Lou Lardi, and his nephew, Van Klaphake, discovered another two "nests", both apparently much older than the Pedley find.

One was about 12 feet in diameter and the other was 8 feet, with distinct signs of burning in a circular patch of reeds in its centre. A few days later, another identical "new" nest with an apparent scorched centre was found among the earlier nests. The last 3 nests all had their reeds flattened in anti-clockwise fashion.

The traces found after the original nest, although interesting, are less compelling, because of the huge interest and presence of many people in the wake of the initial publicity. Although not proven, hoaxing may have been possible in the later finds. None of these nests had an apparent UFO connection. There was extensive UFO activity being reported but none of it was related to explicit UFO landing events.



THE FALLOUT;
George Pedley, a bachelor, lived with Ashley Butler, 64, a neighbouring farmer. He was known to be a quiet, hard worker. None of the locals had anything against him, even those who did not believe in his sighting. He said to journalists, "Had anyone asked me five days ago if I believed in flying saucers I'd have laughed and thought they were nuts. But now I know better." Farmer, George Pedley's sighting at Horseshoe Lagoon and the physical evidence found there caused a media sensation.
The Brisbane newspaper, The Sunday Mail, of January 23rd, 1966 "quoted" Pedley:


"I was driving the tractor through a neighbouring property on my way to my farm about 9 a.m. on Wednesday when I heard a loud hissing noise above the engine noise of the tractor.

"At first I ignored the sound, but suddenly I saw a spaceship rise at great speed out of Horseshoe Lagoon, about 25 yards in front of me. It was blue-grey, about 25 ft. across, and nine feet high. It spun at a terrific rate as it rose vertically to about 60 ft., then made a shallow dive and rose sharply. Travelling at a fantastic speed, it headed off in a south-westerly direction. I saw no portholes or antennae, and there was no sign of life either in or about the ship.

"But on my way home to Tully that night I met Albert Pennisi, who owns the property where I saw the saucer. He said that about 5.30 a.m. on Wednesday his dog suddenly went mad and bounded off towards the lagoon."



THE UFO MILIEU;
While George Pedley was himself a skeptic converted by his experience, the January 20th sighting did not occur in a vacuum. One suprising element came out in an article by Sun-Herald journalist John Dickson on January 23. Pedley attributed the following to Albert Pennisi, the property owner:

"He believed me straight away and told me he had been dreaming for a week that a flying saucer would land on his property.
"He said that about 5.50 am on Wednesday [the morning of the discovery of the original nest - B.C.] his dog suddenly went mad and bounded off towards the lagoon."

Pennisi elaborated on these dreams in an interview with the Sydney newspaper The Sun on January 24, 1966. He was quoted by journalist Ben Davie:

"I'd get them almost every night. And they were beginning to worry me. I couldn't understand them. It was always the same. This thing like a giant dish would come out of nowhere and land nearby. And I would watch it in my dream and get real afraid before it went away. Then on Wednesday morning about 5 o'clock my dog suddenly seemed to go out of its mind. It was howling like a mad thing and raced off towards the lagoon."

While Pennisi did not clarify this strange element to the Tully UFO saga, there were suggestions of paranormal happenings. Much of this information was anecdotal and unconfirmed. More than a decade later, according to information I received, at nearby Murray Upper, a similar situation apparently unfolded. A young woman was woken up by her father, apparently because he thought the house was on fire. There was a huge orange glow outside.

They tried to wake up other family members without success. Fear started to overcome them and they ran down the hallway of the house away from the light. Their next recollection was that they both woke up the next morning extremely puzzled by what seemed to be a bizarre shared dream. Over breakfast they heard radio reports of UFO sightings. They then realised their "memories" were not dreams. A circular area of flattened sugar cane was found near the house.

I subsequently spoke with the young woman. While she only confirmed these events in a vague sort of way she did have a history that many would consider to be a classic UFO abductee. I even spoke to her father but he did not confirm the experience and was not keen to elaborate further. I was not able to confirm the validity of the affair.

There were other accounts in the surrounding area that were somewhat suggestive but ultimately unconfirmable. For example Ted Phillips' Physical Traces associated with UFO Sightings catalogue (CUFOS, 1975) describes the following intriguing event:

At about 10 pm, on November 5th, 1971, in the South Johnstone area,


"two locomotive men of the South Johnstone Cooperative Sugar Milling Assoc., Ltd. were in the Number Two Branch area when the traffic control officer tried to contact them by radio. Jumbled and incoherent voices were heard. Believing an accident had occurred, a rescue party was sent out. One of the group observed a dazzling and powerful light in the area where burnt cane scarred by great heat was found. When they reached the driver and fireman they found them stupefied with one man repeatedly pointing to the sky. Both were taken to a hospital."
The source is cited as the Evening Advocate.

The UFO Investigation Centre (UFOIC) files of the early seventies reveal a possible partial confirmation of the story. A correspondent referred to what was apparently this incident:


"It was either during the inward or the outward trip of a loco that the driver and his mate saw a strange light in one of the fields. On investigation of the light, the men are reported to have seen some kind of strange object in the field... The upshot was that they were placed in hospital under sedation, for about 2 weeks, due probably to hysteria ..."


One of the most prolific sources of UFO stories from the Tully area was local witness, Claire Noble. She reported on extensive activity that preceded the famous Pedley sighting of January, 1966. According to Mrs. Noble there had been aboriginal stories spanning many years from Tully Gorge, Murray River and mountain areas around Tully. Apparently aboriginal folklore suggested similar occurrences from earlier times although I have not come across explicit evidence of this.

One of the earlier reports came from near Euramo, the closest village to Horseshoe Lagoon. In September, 1959, a Max Menzel was driving a tractor when he spotted "a brilliant, large, conical craft, approximately 30 feet long", which seemed to be hovering over the top of sugar cane, just 100 feet away. A nearby house was illuminated in a vivid red and orange light. There was a proliferation of sightings through 1965, including an apparent night time landing on the slopes of Mount Mackay on November 29th.

Activity surged for months in the wake of Pedley's experience. The Tully district seemed to be haunted by UFOs. "Nest" activity reoccurred during early 1968 culminating in a strange affair involving a remote "UFO detector" and linked camera at Horseshoe Lagoon being triggered and running off footage. The undeveloped footage was posted off to Kodak.

The package was returned with a note from Kodak saying the container contained no film on arrival in Melbourne, despite the original postage being indicative of a film being present. Investigators even used a local member of parliament to try to get to the bottom of the missing film mystery, but all to no avail.

"Nest" activity also occurred at Horseshoe Lagoon during subsequent years including 1969, 1972, 1975, 1981 and 1987. By 1990 Albert Pennisi was indicating there had been 22 nests at his lagoon since 1966. However none were as compelling with regard to an explicit UFO connection as George Pedley's find in 1966. While hoaxing and misinterpretation was suggested in some of the later finds, such allegations were not applicable to the original nest.



PEDLEY SPEAKS;
I have spoken to George Pedley on a number of occassions. Initially I found him to be reluctant to resurrect his experience. However he was interested to assist a serious attempt to clarify what had happened. For example, I spoke with George Pedley on June 3rd, 1981:
B.C.: From what I have read you saw what you called a spaceship? You didn't really describe it in much detail.

G.P.: Oh, I would never have said I saw a spaceship!

B.C.: That's what the papers were quoting you as saying.

G.P: Well, that's wrong for a start. I saw an object... something going up and that's it. Just what it was, I don't know.

B.C.: What did you really see?

G.P.: Well ah, I just saw this thing in the sky and it took off! It was about 25 feet when I saw it. 25 to 30 feet in the air, when I saw it.

B.C.: It was in the air when you saw it?

G.P.: Oh yes, I didn't see it in the lagoon as they say. That's wrong. The marks were in the lagoon... and it just took off from there (in the air). It went up another 25 feet and it just flew straight out.

B.C: So you saw it rise up from a position of about 20 feet when you first saw it.

G.P.: Thats right.

B.C.: And the position where you first saw it, was that in the same spot where the nests were found?

G.P.: You mean the object?

B.C.: Yes, where you saw the object rise up, you say you saw it originally from 20 feet in the air, roughly about 20 feet in the air...

G.P.: Yeah...

B.C.: Where the nests were subsequently found, was that directly beneath that position or...

G.P.: That's correct.

B.C.: What sort of size would you have put on it?

G.P.: Size? Oh, the size was pretty right. I'd say 29-30 feet, something like that.

B.C.: Did you get the impression of an object, or was it sort of a solid-looking thing or gaseous...

G.P.: Well I thought it was a solid thing, at the time. I didn't see any portholes, or anything like that, antennas or anything like that. They could have been there, I'm not saying they weren't there.

B.C.: What sort of shape would you have put on it?

G.P.: Something similar to like 2 saucers, you know, face to face...

B.C.: What sort of colour?

G.P.: It seemed a silvery grey, a blue grey, like that.

G.P.: (with regard to the media assertions that he saw the object rise up out of the lagoon) I think there was a little bit of misunderstanding there. I would say it was their fault. Anyway, I'd never say that.

B.C.: So how long in sight was it for?

G.P.: We worked it out to say 30 seconds.



THE RAAF FILES;
The RAAF files describe the famous Tully incident in the following manner:

At about 9.00 a.m. on 19th January, 1966, Mr. G.A. Pedley, a banana grower of Tully, Qld, observed a light grey non reflecting dull object, reported to be about 25 feet long and 8 feet deep, rise vertically then climb on an angle of 45° from a height of about 30 feet above marshland which was situated about 25 yards away from his position.

There was an associated hissing noise which decreased as the 'object' rose. The apparent shape was described as 'two saucers, face to face', but no structural detail was observed. The duration of the observation was approximately 15 seconds and it disappeared in mid-air whilst receding into the distance (not assessed).

"A clearly defined near circular depression remained in evidence in swamp grass at the point from which the object was seen rising, and measured about 32 feet long by 25 feet wide. The grass was flattened in clockwise curves to water level within the circle and the reeds had been uprooted from the mud. There was no scorching of grass or surrounding trees and the observer stated that there was no smell of combustion..."

My research of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) files uncovered the original police report on the incident. As these are the earliest documented sources, extracts of it are included here of details not included in the above statement made in 1973 in response to an enquiry from the Australian newspaper.

George Pedley reported his experience to Tully Police at 7.30 pm, on January 19th. At 7 am, January 20th George Pedley and Sgt. A.V. Moylan went to the site of the incident. Sgt. Moylan then contacted Townsville RAAF Base by telephone, on the morning of January 20th. Flt. Lt. Wallace advised Sgt. Moylan that he would forward a proforma questionnaire for completion by George Pedley. On Friday, January 21st, Flt. Lt.

Wallace confirmed despatch of two copies of the sighting proforma by mail that same day and also requested Sgt. Moylan obtain "a sample of the grass from the scorched area." At 3.30 pm, on the same day, Moylan returned to the site and took a sample "of the grass from the depression in the swamp grass at the site." The proforma was filled out by Moylan based on his interviews with George Pedley and was dated 26/1/66. Sgt. Moylan despatched the report and the sample on 26/1/66.

The following details are extracted from the RAAF REPORT ON AERIAL OBJECT OBSERVED Moylan filled out with George Pedley. Because so many conflicting claims have been made about what George Pedley said at the time, it is worthwhile to go back to the original official documentation filled out at the time of the incident:

Name of Observer: George Alfred PEDLEY aged 28 years ;

Manner of observation: travelling on a tractor about 1/2 mile from farm house of Albert PENNISI, Rockingham Road, Euramo. Attention attracted by hissing noise, clearly heard over noise of tractor - similar to air escaping from tyre; checked tyres and was looking about for source of noise when he saw object about 25 yards ahead. No optical instruments used in sighting.

Height or angle of elevation: First seen at treetop height 30'. Rose vertically to about twice that height, then departed, climbing at about 45 degrees.

Speed, or angular velocity: Extremely fast; No estimate of speed, but much faster than an aeroplane. It was near treetops and these gave observer a good basis for estimating height.

Direction of flight with reference to landmarks or points of the compass: Rose vertically to about 60 feet and departed south west climbing at about 45 degrees; appeared to be rotating for full time observed. (object appeared to remain on) straight climbing path.

Existence of any physical evidence: Clearly defined near-circular depression in swamp grass at point from which object seen rising, about 32' long and 25' wide. Grass flattened to surface of 4' of water lying in xxxx-clockwise curves.

[Sgt. Moylan in his report had typed in anti-clockwise initially and then corrected it to clockwise, by overtyping 'anti' with 'xxxx'. The direction of the swirl at the site of the 19 January 1966 incident was to become a matter of ongoing confusion. The clockwise direction was the correction direction - B.C.]
Weather conditions experienced at time of observation:
Clear sky; Hot sunshine.

Location of any air traffic in the vicinity at the time of sighting: Unknown but checked by RAAF Garbut.

[Flt. Lt. Wallace of Townsville RAAF base in a covering minute paper confirmed that "there were no service or Civil aircraft operating in the area.. at the time of the sighting.."- B.C.]

Any additional information: (Sgt. Moylan wrote)
Observer reported this matter to Tully Police at 7.30pm on 19/1/66 and at 7am, 20/1/66 went with me to the site of the depression in the swamp. His version then included the information that the object rose vertically, appeared to dip slightly and then went off in straight climbing path.

He then said...further that there was no smell of combustion and no scorching of grass or trees visible; that the the flattened grass or rushes was quite green when he first saw the depression; on his return that afternoon the grass had turned brown.

(Sgt. Moylan further added

In this matter I formed the opinion that the depressed area in the swamp grass had been caused by a small helicopter and that the observer, in the early morning bright sunlight shining on the rotor may have mistaken the shape. His description of the take off lent some strength to my opinion. However there was cleared land to the east for about 200 yards where such an aircraft could have more safely landed instead of the position indicated by the observer, close to trees.

Later I was informed by Wallace Evans of ...Tully, an electrician, that he has seen similar markings in a swamp at Kurrumine Beach and is quite certain that it was caused by a whirlwind, sucking up water into a waterspout, uprooting the grass and laying it out in a similar pattern. At 3.30pm, 21/1/66 I took a sample of the grass at the site and have forwarded it under seperate cover on even date.

Flt. Lt. T.D. Wright, for Air Officer Commanding, Headquarters Operational Command, RAAF, Penrith, New South Wales (NSW), on-forwarded police Sgt. Moylan's report on George Pedley's UFO sighting and Flt. Lt. Wallace's covering minute paper, to the Department of Air, Russell Offices, Canberra.

His communication classified RESTRICTED, which was channelled to the Directorate of Air Force Intelligence (DAFI), also indicated, "This headquarters believes that the depressions of the swamp grass were caused by small isolated waterspouts."

In response to an enquiry, dated 2nd February, 1966, from the Commonwealth Aerial Phenomena Investigation Organisation (CAPIO), the Secretary, Department of Air, Mr. A.B. McFarlane, wrote on 11th February, 1966:

"Investigations of the area surrounding the reported "Nests", testing of samples taken from around them and interrogation of persons involved in the report failed to reveal anything of significance.

"However, during enquiries a number of local residents stated that the reported "nests" are fairly common during the onset of the "wet". Furthermore, the University of Queensland stated that there was nothing unnatural in the samples submitted and assessed that the "nests" could have been the result of severe turbulence, which normally accompany line squalls and thunderstorms prevalent in NORTH QUEENSLAND at the time of the year.

"There is no explanation for the visible phenomena reported but it could have been associated with or the result of "down draughts", "willy willies" or "water spouts" that are known to occur in the area.

".. for information ....in January of this year from an airfield in the tropics (a number of photographs taken give) a fine example of the type and growth of a cloud formation occuring with a severe "down draught". This whirling mass of tropical air associated with thunderstorm activity, on reaching the earth's surface may dissipate and subside or persist giving rise to dust eddies, water spouts, etc, leaving a telltale circular pattern on the ground.

Should it occur over a swampy reed bed the effect would be to flatten the reeds with a circular pattern. Resultant photographs and investigations of the "nests" seem to fit in with this theory and is accepted as a possible cause of the phenomena."

It is fascinating to note how Secretary McFarlane's cursory explanatory exposition, no doubt inspired by "the tornado-like metereological phenomena" that infested skies over Willow Grove, Victoria (Charles Brews famous 1963 close encounter) and Vaucluse Beach, NSW (Dennis Crowe's striking suburban encounter in 1965), anticipated by almost 2 decades Dr. Terence Meaden's early theoretical attempts to explain the English "crop circles" of the 1980s. Dr. Meaden would mistakenly assume that George Pedley saw his "vortex" at 9 pm, not 9 am, which was a fatal flaw in the mechanism he originally put forth to explain the report.

LINK; http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc489.htm

Aircraft ufo pilot sightings;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr Richard F. Haines, Ph.D was a very credible source and investigator , i quote;
"actively studied UFO phenomena (or UAP - unidentified aerial phenomena), for thirty years, focussing on pilot witness accounts, analysis of photographic evidence, and data on Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind"

He has given this area of the subject invaluable information, time, evidence and credibility;Worth its weight in gold are the nature of his research and findings;

************************************************** ********

FIFTY-SIX AIRCRAFT PILOT SIGHTlNGS INVOLVING;
ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS;

Richard F. Haines, Ph.D.;



http://www.ufobc.ca/kinross/images/P...dHaines200.jpg


"Richard F. Haines was born and raised in Seattle, Washington. He attended the University of Washington, College of Engineering, and the Pacific Lutheran College in Tacoma, where he received a B.A. degree in 1960. He obtained an M.A. and Ph.D. from Michigan State University at East Lansing, in the study of experimental Psychology".

"He worked as a research scientist at NASA-Ames through much of the US space program (Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and Space Station). As chief of the Space Human Factors Office at NASA-Ames, he directed research and development into the AX-5 EVA space suit and habitability design for Space Station Freedom".

"He has actively studied UFO phenomena (or UAP - unidentified aerial phenomena), for thirty years, focussing on pilot witness accounts, analysis of photographic evidence, and data on Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind".

"He has written two books and over 20 articles on UFO encounters. He is currently chief scientist for NARCAP, the National Aviation Center on Anomolous Phenomena, which focuses on the importance of research on the effects of UAP on aviation safety".

"Richard Haines assisted my investigation by providing me information from his personal file on the Kinross Incident. It was through his clippings that I learned of the discovery of unidentified fighter jet parts near Sault Ste. Marie in 1968".

link; http://www.ufobc.ca/kinross/persons/personsHaines.htm



ABSTRACT;

"Reports of anomalous aerial objects (AAO) appearing in the atmosphere continue to be made by pilots of almost every airline and air force of the world in addition to private and experimental test pilots. This paper presents a review of 56 reports of AAO in which electromagnetic effects (E-M) take place on-board the aircraft when the phenomenon is located nearby but not before it appeared or after it had departed.

These effects are not related to the altitude or airspeed of the aircraft. The average duration of these sightings was 17.5 minutes in the 37 cases in which duration was noted. There were between one and 40 eye witnesses (average = 2.71) on the aircraft.

Reported E-M effects included radio interference or total failure, radar contact with and without simultaneous visual contact, magnetic and/or gyro-compass deviations, automatic direction finder failure or interference, engine stopping or interruption, dimming cabin lights, transponder failure, and military aircraft weapon system failure.

There appears to be a reduction of the E-M energy effect with the square of increasing distance to the AAO. These events and their relationships are discussed. This area of research should be concentrated on by other investigators because of the wealth of information it yields and the physical nature of AAO including wavelength/frequency and power density emissions.

INTRODUCTION;

The subject of pilot reports of anomalous aerial phenomena has been of deep interest to me for over 15 years for several reasons.

(1) Pilots possess a high level of training and personal motivation for making careful observations.

(2) Their (usually) high level of experience in flight helps them make rapid and accurate assessments of often ambiguous situations.

(3) Their capability to radio for immediate assistance or confirmation of events (e.g., ground radar, etc.) often provides corollary data.

(4) Their ability to fly in different directions and altitudes provides them an opportunity to gain a better view of the anomalous phenomena or objects

(5) Maintenance of their professional reputations is important to them so that they will usually consider all of the alternative explanations before making a final report of an unknown object.

Finally;
(6) Their aircraft often possess sensitive electronic equipment that sometimes detect various aspects of the phenomenon. In short, pilots are usually very good observers whose reports contain valuable information for the investigator.

I have prepared several review articles of pilot sightings for the periods 1942 to 1952 (Haines, 1983), 1950 to 1954 from the Korean War (Haines, 1990), and from 1973 to 1979 (Haines, 1979).

In the first of these reviews, 283 cases were covered and in the second and third, 40 and 72 reports, respectively. More than 300 pilot cases were summarized by Challenger and Haines (1980). Other reviews of individual pilot sightings have been published by Del Giudice (1987), Haines (1980, 1982(a), 1982(b), NICAP (1980), Shanklin (1955), Stacy (1987-88), Wichman (1971), and Zeidman (1979).

In addition, Gillmor (1968), Greenawald (1971), Ruppelt (1956), Wilkins (1954), and Zigel (1968), to mention a few, have published books or articles that include pilot sightings, some of which involve electromagnetic effects on board the aircraft.

Perhaps the broadest conclusions that can be drawn from this large body of information are:

(1) AAO seen from the air possess the same physical characteristics as do those that are reported from the ground;

(2) some AAO are clearly capable of out-flying any aerial device mankind has yet built, (3) some AAO possess electromagnetic radiation characteristics which can interact with and interfere with man-made avionic systems at a distance. This report deals with this third matter in particular.

Several UFO investigators have reviewed E-M and ignition-interference cases including Hall (1964), on behalf of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) who listed 106 cases.

Johnson (1983, 1988), McCampbell (1973), and Rodeghier (1988) also reviewed such incidents. Johnson (1983) reviewed 276 reports involving motorized land vehicles whose electrical systems and/or ignition systems were interfered with by the presence of one or more UFO.

He analyzed the influence of UFO position and distance upon strength of the interference on the electrical system and reported, "The likelihood of a vehicle stalling out consistently increases as the distance between the vehicle and the UFO becomes small." In his 1988 paper Johnson expanded this review by adding the influence of UFO size and event duration. He found 78 relatively complete cases involving UFO size, distance, and duration.

In his 1988 paper Rodeghier catalogued 441 cases of UFO-caused vehicle interference including (engine and electrical system; engine only, radios only; power reduced to engine; headlights only; radio and lights). It has been speculated that ionized air near an engine's distributor can lead to reciprocating engine failure through a change in shape of the generated spark (Klass, 1968, pg. 97), however no supporting evidence for this presumption is given.

Hall's 1964 review of 106 perhaps controlled explosions which incidentally interfere with electrical circuits under certain conditions." Falla (1979) also summarized 420 EM cases. More recently, Smith (1991) provided me with a listing of 126 cases from his UNICAT computer file in which the parameter electromagnetic (EM) was included.

These cases include 113 from surface vehicles and technology and 13 (10.3 percent) from aircraft and related technology. Only three of these are included in the present listing.

Link for further reading, research,study;
http://www.nicap.org/papers/92apsiee.htm

Religious Sources and their ET Beliefs


This covers the religious theologians ect and their believe in ETs;
************************************************** ********

Monsignor Corrado Balducci;


http://www.ufoevidence.org/Researche...s/Balducci.jpg

quote;
"Monsignor Balducci is a Vatican theologian and an insider close to the Pope. He has been featured on national Italian television numerous times to express that extraterrestrial contact is a real phenomenon and “not due to psychological impairment”.

In this testimony he explains that not only the general populous but also highly credible, cultured, and educated people of high status are recognizing more and more that this is a real phenomenon. He goes on to speak about the extraterrestrial people as part of God’s creation and that they are not angels nor are they devils. However they are probably more spiritually evolved".

link; http://www.ufoevidence.org/Researchers/Detail101.htm

From Wikipedia:

"Msgr. Corrado Balducci, (born May 11, 1923 in Italy), is a Roman Catholic theologian, long time exorcist and an expert of demonology for the Archdiocese of Rome, he also served for the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples in USA.

He wrote several books about the subliminal messages in rock and metal music, diabolic possessions and the some theories about the existence of aliens. Monsignor Balducci often appears on Italian TV to talk about satanism and religion. He is considered a worldwide expert".

************************************************** ********

Vatican Monsignor Corrado Balducci's Pronouncements: "Star Visitors Are Real"

quote;
"Monsignor Corrado Balducci, official Exorcist for Rome, former diplomat in the Papal Nunciature in Washington, DC, past theologian member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, and an insider who has the attention of the Pope. Balducci has gone on Italian national television five times in the past several years to proclaim that extraterrestrial contact is a real phenomenon!

Balducci provided an analysis of the Star Visitors which he feels is consistent with the Catholic Church's understanding of theology. Monsignor Balducci emphasizes that encounters with the Star Visitors:

"1) are NOT demonic,

2) they are NOT due to psychological impairment,

3) they are NOT a case of entity attachment,

but 4) these encounters deserve to be studied carefully."

Since Monsignor Balducci is a demonology expert and consultant to the Vatican , and since the Catholic Church has historically demonized many new phenomena that were poorly understood, his stating that the Church does not censure these encounters is all the more remarkable.


Msgr. Balducci revealed to a visiting American professional several years ago that the Vatican is closely following this phenomenon quietly. Since Monsignor Balducci started his Vatican career by serving in the Papal Nunciature (Delegation) in Washington, DC., my informant originally surmised that the Vatican is receiving much information about Star Visitors and their contacts with humans from its Nunciatures in various countries.

But subsequent information clarified that the Monsignor has gotten his cases from other sources.

Monsignor Balducci is a member of a group which acts as consultants to the Vatican on various matters concerning humans and spirit or demonic contact. As such, the matter of Star Visitor encounters could have fallen within their purview. Thus it is significant that he instead makes careful distinctions, separating Star Visitor contacts from demonic possession. Indeed he suggests that they are probably more evolved and more spiritual than humankind. Balducci even notes the spiritual significance of the emerging general realization of contact by the Star Visitors.


Parallel information from U.S. National Security Council scientist Dr. Michael Wolf , (a member of the NSC’s Special Studies Group tasked with managing the UFO phenomenon), as well as from noted author and Vatican expert Father Malachi Martin, suggests that the Vatican is concerned that it will have a major doctrinal “updating” situation on its hands when Star Visitors contact becomes authoritatively announced by world governments over the next several years.


Parenthetically, it can be observed that this Vatican insider’s declarations on Italian national television represent technically the first declaration by a tacit representative of a Major Power government, even if "speaking as an individual", that Star Visitors contact is real and happening, and deserves serious study.

Vatican Astronomer Says Star Visitors' Existence Confirmed in the Bible
It appears that the Vatican (Catholic Church) is accelerating its Public Acclimation Program to assure its faithful, and anyone else who will listen, that Star Visitors are real, are in the Bible, and are children of God, too.


First the Vatican "let" Monsignor Corrado Balducci go on Italian national television five times to proclaim that the encounters people are having with Star Visitors are real, not a delusion, and not a case of demon possession. Further, that these Star Visitors appear to be more advanced, intellectually and spiritually, than Humans.

Now (April, 2006) another Vatican-sanctioned spokesperson, a Harvard and MIT-trained Ph.D, Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, an expert astronomer at the Vatican Observatory atop Mount Graham, Arizona, has spoken up.
In the current (April, 2006) edition of Harper's Magazine, Consolmagno writes, "There are, unquestionably, nonhuman intelligent beings in the Bible", and gives numerous citations. He also quotes Jesus as saying, "I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold."


Perhaps the Vatican astronomer's boldest statement is, "And perhaps it's not so far-fetched to see the Second Person of the Trinity not only as the Son of Man but also as a Child of other races ."

He goes on to ask, "Any creature of this universe, created and loved by the same God who created and loves us, ...Would they deserve to be called alien?"

He reminds his readers that God is "Bigger than whatever parallel universes may or may not exist beyond our own." And that God is "able to concentrate His entire effort, energy and love on each one of us tiny individuals on this tiny planet. And, I have confidence, on any other individuals on any other planet as well."

-- Richard Boylan, Ph.D.

Dr. Richard Boylan is a behavioral scientist, emeritus university instructor, certified clinical hypnotherapist, researcher into Star Visitor-Human encounters, and Councillor.


Richard Boylan, Ph.D., LLC, Post Office Box 1009, Diamond Springs,
California 95619, United States of America.

link; http://www.drboylan.com/balducci2.html

The Little Rissington UFO Incident 1950s;

Here is a case of a experienced Air Commodore Michael Swiney O.B.E. (RAF Retired) UFO encounter;
************************************************** ********
The Little Rissington UFO Incident;

Photo of Air Commodore Mick Swiney right in officer's mess, 1950s.


http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...b9f3e01174.jpg


Operation Mainbrace UFOs;
“…At the time immediately I didn’t feel frightened. I did subsequently feel that we were looking at something that really we shouldn’t be seeing. And I remember being told on landing that I looked fairly shaken, almost as if I had seen a ghost….”
Air Commodore Michael Swiney O.B.E. (RAF Retired);

quote;
"October 2002 marked the 50th anniversary of what we believe to be the most impressive UFO incident ever reported to the Ministry of Defence. The sighting involved two highly experienced military pilots whose visual report was backed up by two independent radar plots. Yet details of their amazing story have remained an official secret for half a century – until the key witnesses agreed to be interviewed during the research for our book Out of the Shadows and the BBC Radio 4 production ‘Britain’s Secret X-Files’ broadcast in April 2002.

Since that time further evidence has come to light which underlines our contention that this case constitutes the best evidence for unidentified flying objects as a real defence threat.

For the first time, the full story of the Little Rissington incident can now be told.

Background;

1952 marked a turning point in terms of the British Government’s interest in the UFO enigma. In the previous year the final report of the Flying Saucer Working Party had recommended that no further investigations of aerial phenomena should be undertaken by the MoD “until some material evidence becomes available.” When, in July 1952 UFOs were tracked by radar and pursued by interceptors above Washington D.C. the USAF was obliged to hold an unprecedented press conference in an attempt to play down the furore.

News of the Washington flap reached the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who famously asked his Air Minister for a briefing on the subject of ‘flying saucers.’ He was assured there was nothing to worry about: “….nothing has happened since 1951 to make the Air Staff change their opinion” that UFOs were optical illusions, hoaxes and misidentifications of known objects.


Headline from Yorkshire Evening Press, September 1952;

It is unfortunate that Churchill did not, as far as we are aware, pursue his question later that same year. For an incredible series of events occurred during the autumn of 1952 that produced a radical change in the attitude of both the MoD and the Royal Air Force towards unidentified flying objects.

These were the sightings made by airmen and naval personnel who took part in the NATO Exercise Mainbrace staged in September 1952 to simulate a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. According to Captain Edward Ruppelt, who led the USAF’s Project Blue Book, it was these sightings which “caused the RAF to officially recognise the UFO.”



http://drdavidclarke.files.wordpress...pg?w=300&h=213

Indeed, the high-level of interest which the Mainbrace sightings generated is reflected in a sensational memorandum prepared by the CIA’s Assistant Director of Scientific Intelligence, Dr H. Marshall Chadwell in December 1952.

The memo – ‘British Activity in the Field of UFOs’ – remained “Secret” for 50 years until we obtained a copy in 2001 following an application and appeal under the American Freedom of Information Act. Chadwell, who had worked closely with the British Flying Saucer Working Party in 1950-51, reported to the CIA director how the MoD had been forced to take a second look at UFOs as a direct result of the Mainbrace incidents.

It had covertly reformed the British UFO ‘working party’ under Dr R.V. Jones who was the new Director of Scientific Intelligence at MoD. Chadwell further reported how Jones was ‘distressed’ at the newspaper coverage of sightings reported by military personnel, particularly those by Shackleton pilots at RAF Topcliffe in Yorkshire, that had made headlines across the globe.

Chadwell noted that UFO activity was “quiet and normal” until what he called “the Yorkshire incident”:

“…In some RAF field, there was some sort of demonstration to which high officials of the RAF in London had been invited. During the show, a ‘perfect flying saucer’ was seen by these officials as well as RAF pilots. So many people saw it that many articles appeared in the public press. This is distressing to [Dr] Jones because he realises that the creation of the correction of public opinion is a part of his responsibilities.”

Although the Topcliffe incident received wide publicity, the even more spectacular Little Rissington report was successfully kept secret. The former Royal equerry, the late Air Marshal Sir Peter Horsley, told us how he was personally notified of the report, but as he was about to leave England for a Royal tour of Australia, he was unable to interview the aircrew for his study on behalf of Prince Philip.

As was the case with the Mainbrace sightings, the Little Rissington incident occurred in the midst of a major military exercise, code-named ARDENT, organised by RAF Bomber Command. This fact may explain the renewed concern, and the determination to prevent service personnel speaking about a phenomenon that could not be officially explained or controlled.

“What on Earth is going on?”


http://drdavidclarke.files.wordpress...pg?w=213&h=300

Flying saucers were the last thing on Flight Lieutenant Michael Swiney’s mind when he climbed into the cockpit of a Meteor trainer jet on the afternoon of 21 October 1952. Swiney was a staff instructor based at the RAF’s Central Flying School (CFS) at Little Rissington, Gloucestershire, where his job was to provide tuition to Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm student instructors. Seated behind him was his student for the day, a Royal Navy Lieutenant, David Crofts.

In Michael Swiney’s Flying Logbook Exercise 18 is described as “a high-level cross-country flight” that would take the two men on a southwesterly course towards a turning point on the south coast, then return to Little Rissington. Swiney, who was instructing, occupied the front seat and his student was seated directly behind him in the small cockpit.

As the aircraft taxied along the runway, there was nothing to suggest this exercise would be any different to other routine flights both men had made together. Little did they realise it would become the most dramatic – and unusual – experience of their entire flying careers.


In our interviews, Swiney described how, as the Meteor jet punched through a layer of cloud at around 15,000 feet he suddenly “..got the fright of my life because there appeared to be, smack in front of the aeroplane three white, or nearly white, circular objects. Two of them were on a level keel, and one of them was canted at a slight angle, to one side.

I thought ‘God Almighty this is three chaps coming down on parachutes,’ and I literally took the stick or pole, as we used to call it, out of David’s hand so we didn’t tear through these parachutes. He issued some sort of expletive, I don’t know what it was, and said ‘What on Earth is going on?’ and I said: ‘David, have a look at this!’

“It was something supernatural. I immediately thought of course, of saucers, because that’s actually what they looked like. They were not leaving a condensation trail as I knew we were. They were circular and appeared to be stationary. We continued to climb to twice that height [to 30,000 feet] and as we did so they did in fact change position.

They took on a slightly different perspective. For example the higher we got they lost their circular shape and took on more of a ‘flat plate’ appearance – like when you hold a tea-saucer above your head and look at it, and then bring it down to your eye-level, it loses the circular shape and becomes a flat plate.

“At one time the objects, which were still very much in view, appeared to go from one side of us to the other, and to make quite sure it was not an illusion caused by us in our aeroplane moving to one side, I checked that we were absolutely still on a very steady heading, and sure enough they had moved across to the starboard side of the aircraft.”

As the Meteor levelled out at 35,000 feet the three strange objects remained clearly visible. They were saucer or plate shaped, slightly off-white in colour and emitted a fuzzy or iridescent light from their edges. There were no visible signs of propulsion: no portholes, turrets or other tell-tale signs that might have identified them as conventional aircraft viewed at an unusual angle.

According to the version recounted by Sir Peter Horsley, the instructor (Swiney) found it so difficult to take in what he was seeing that he thought he was suffering from oxygen failure. David Crofts’ account corroborates Horsley’s memory. In 2002 he told us:

“I remember doing the 35,000 foot check and Mick, who was in the front seat, said: ‘David, did you have anything to drink at lunchtime?’ and I said: ‘No, why?’ and he said: ‘Is your oxygen on?’ and I replied: ‘Mick, we’ve just done the 30,000 foot check and you checked with me that your oxygen was alright and I checked with you that my oxygen was alright’…then he said: ‘Well, look at that – straight ahead!’

“Mick [who was in the front seat] put his head to one side and I looked straight through the D-window and there were three dots ahead…[initially] they wouldn’t have been bigger than my thumb-nail at arm’s length and there were certainly three of them. I looked up from time to time and saw they were approaching and getting further and further apart.

What I saw looked like the bottom of a stemmed glass. They were lens shaped, like an ellipse and the sun was behind them, and there was no cloud at that height. It was impossible to tell the size of them or how far away they were.

“I was thinking all the time that I’ve got to make this a good exercise and didn’t want to muff it by looking around at extraneous things…but Mick kept talking about them and saying that he thought they were UFOs so I thought:

‘Oh yes, well let’s go after them!’ thinking well now we can stop doing the exercise and we can officially say we are off the hook. But he didn’t, he said: ‘Oh Lord no, don’t you remember something that happened on the West Coast of America where a couple of pilots went after one of these things and they all got vapourised and they have never been seen since.’


I then asked him what he intended to do, and with that he called Air Traffic Control at Little Rissington and said what he could see and within a very short time he said: ‘I have control’, he turned the aircraft and we headed back to base.”

Swiney recalled what happened at this stage:

“We got to the top of the climb and I decided that really there was nothing much we could do. I was too shaken by what I had seen and decided to call the exercise off and go back to base. I called up Air Traffic Control at Rissington and said I had three unidentified objects fairly close and gave them my course.

I understand later that there was a certain amount of pandemonium on the ground because they weren’t used to having their own staff instructors calling up saying ‘we have got three unidentified flying objects in front, what do we do?’ They didn’t know what to do either.”

According to Horsley’s account, Air Traffic Control instructed Swiney to approach the UFOs and the pilot subsequently turned the aircraft towards them, opening up to full power. “At Mach.8 they gained quite rapidly but when the circular object [sic] filled half their windscreen, it suddenly turned on its side ‘like a plate’ (their words) and climbed away out of sight at great speed.”


Swiney and Croft’s memory is somewhat less dramatic.

“It was quite extraordinary. As we kept them under observation, thinking what else could they possibly be, all of a sudden, having looked across at them at one moment, then looked back in another direction just to clear one’s eyes a bit, we just looked back and they simply weren’t there. They had just disappeared.”

Altogether the three ‘flying saucers’ had been in view for around ten minutes. He added:

“I had then been flying for about nine years and I had seen many funny reflections, refractions through windscreens and lots of other things, but this was nothing of the sort. We tried very hard to explain away what we were looking at but there was no way we could do that. There was something there, there is absolutely no doubt about it. It was NOT a reflection.”

Tracked on Radar;

Unknown to the two men on the ground, the control tower at Little Rissington had called HQ Fighter Command at Stanmore, near London. It was the height of the Cold War, and with fear of a Soviet attack looming, senior officers triggered an air defence alert. Simultaneous with the Meteor pilot’s visual report RAF Sopley, a Ground Controlled Interception (GCI) radar in southern England, were tracking an “unidentified aircraft” moving across the southwest of England.

Sopley’s controller alerted the commander of RAF Southern Sector at Rudloe Manor between Chippenham and Bath in Wiltshire. The nerve centre of the Sector – known as RAF Box – was an underground bunker that contained a Signals HQ and a fighter plotting control room where aircraft movements were monitored over the whole of southern England.

All unidentified blips were treated as hostile until positively identified, and the Sector Commander gave the order to scramble interceptors. A pair of Meteors on 24-hour Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) duty at RAF Tangmere, Sussex, screamed into the air and were vectored towards the unidentified radar target under Sopley’s control.

According to Sir Peter Horsley, officers in the filter room at Rudloe Manor were able to identify Swiney’s Meteor on the plotting table as it closed on the unidentified blips, which suddenly disappeared off the tube at speed estimated as 1,000 mph. The two Meteors from Tangmere followed the target, but failed to make contact.

Independently, Mick Swiney described from memory how on his return to Little Rissington he was informed that “a radar station, which I think was a place called Box, somewhere in the Bath area, confirmed that they could see exactly what [we] could see, but it was on their radar screens as opposed to visible.” David Crofts was even more precise about the source of this information. He said the radar tracking was confirmed to him by intelligence officers from the Air Ministry who had travelled from London to interview the two men. Crofts said:

“They also told me that they [the UFOs] had been picked up on radar. I’m sure he said Sopley radar [Sopley G.C.I. north of Ringwood, Hampshire]. He certainly said that the fighters had been alerted and scrambled and that the target had a ground speed of 600 knots or 600 miles per hour, heading east but the fighters saw nothing, didn’t make a contact and returned to base.”


http://drdavidclarke.files.wordpress...pg?w=183&h=300

David Crofts in 2002 (David Clarke);

Further confirmation came in November 2002 when a retired RAF Signals officer, Terry Barefoot, contacted us independently with his own story. Terry worked in the underground complex at Rudloe Manor as a switchboard operator in 1952 and remembered the telephone call they received from the GCI station.



The central role played by RAF Signals in relaying messages between RAF stations during the UFO alert may explain another intriguing feature of this incident, which again underlines its unique status in official history. For it appears that GCHQ, the Government’s secret listening station at Cheltenham, in Gloucestershire, were made fully aware of the events as they took place. In 1997 researcher Robin Cole privately circulated a booklet researching GCHQ’s role in the alleged ‘UFO cover-up,’ drawing upon sources who worked there.

Cole wrote that the earliest UFO case that was linked to the secret listening post occurred in 1952 “when pilots from RAF Little Rissington were out on manoeuvres when in their sights, an object similar to the descriptions of a flying saucer came into view.” This was clearly the same incident described by Swiney and Crofts.

Coles’ knowledge of the case came from the person who typed the report on the case at GCHQ. At that time the listening station had no ‘UFO branch’ of its own but became involved by virtue of its critical role in the collection of ‘Signals Intelligence’ (SIGINT). Cole concluded his account of the incident by noting “that it appears that GCHQ picked up on the various messages passing back and forth from the aircrew and RAF Little Rissington. In other words, GCHQ intercepted the conversation.”

What’s more, there is now evidence that a second, independent civilian radar station had plotted the movements of the UFOs during the incident. During our research at the PRO we came upon an entry in the Operations Record Book of CFS Little Rissington, dated 21 October 1952. It read:

“Flight Lieutenant M.J.E. SWINEY, instructor, and Lieutenant D.CROFTS, R.N., student, sighted three mysterious, ‘saucer-shaped objects’ travelling at high speed at about 35,000’ whilst on a high level navigation exercise, in a Meteor VII. Later, A.T.C.C. Gloucester reported radar plots to confirm this, but Air Ministry discounted any possibility of ‘extra terrestrial objects.”

The ORB entry was the first contemporary official record we found that corroborated the accounts of the eye witnesses. What’s more it confirmed that Air Traffic Control radars, in addition to the RAF’s air defence radars, had detected unidentified flying objects at the same time as the visual sighting from the Meteor jet.

When we located the PRO record the first question that occurred to us was this: how could the Air Ministry “discount the possibility of extra terrestrial objects” so soon after the incident happened? Where is the file containing the final report? Maybe this is where the role of GCHQ – and its direct connections with the Security Services and US intelligence – played a crucial role in the investigation.

To officially admit the role played by these secret agencies in a UFO incident would expose the agency’s interest in a subject that has long been denied. This factor alone may explain why the authorities continue to claim they have no record of this case to this day.

The Air Ministry investigation;

David Crofts memory of what happened when they landed at Little Rissington after the experience are clear after 50 years.

“….[as soon as we disembarked] Wing Commander flying grabbed the pair of us, he came out to the aircraft if I remember rightly. I was told to go to my cabin, I was not to talk to anyone, all my meals would be brought to me, if I wanted anything to drink I would have to get in touch with someone to get them for me, I wasn’t to go in the bar.

Mick was to go home forthwith, and stay there until he reported to Wing Commander flying the next morning. I was to be there too at 9 o’clock and there were a couple of officers from the Air Ministry intelligence section who debriefed us separately. They interviewed us and got us to talk about it and to draw what we thought we saw.

“Thinking back I don’t think they asked the right questions. They didn’t give me the impression that they were very high powered, I wouldn’t have thought they were any higher than Squadron Leader in rank. I have an opinion now that they didn’t know much about what it was all about. They said yes we are looking into it, and gave me the impression that we had seen something unusual. But I got the impression that they were just going through a routine.”

We asked Lt Cdr Crofts what questions the intelligence officers asked.

“What did you see? What happened? Tell us your story?…Much the same as you’ve done now, but they didn’t go into the detail that you’ve gone into and they should have perhaps tried to locate where we were when we saw them. They told us, or he told me, that they had been in telecommunication with every country in the world that was likely to have that sort of aircraft in the vicinity at that time and they all agreed that they didn’t.

“The only thing that I could think of was that we happened to see three Bell X supersonic aircraft that at that time were doing that sort of thing in a loose formation over the UK all the way from the USA. But of course it was not possible with the aircraft we had, and it was not possible with the Bell X-100. The only other possibility I have considered were lenticular clouds.

But I remember going to the base Meteorological Officer afterwards and asking: ‘Is there any possibility that it could have been a lenticular cloud or any cloud at all?’ and he replied: ‘David, there was no possibility of there being any clouds above when you broke through the cloud base.”

When the officers left base, the incident was officially ‘closed.’ Neither Swiney nor Crofts recall being specifically warned not to discuss their sighting in public. However, a year later the Air Ministry felt it was necessary to issue new instructions to all RAF stations, warning all aircrew that reports of ‘aerial phenomena’ were classified as ‘Restricted.’

“Personnel are warned that they are not to communicate to anyone other than official persons any information about phenomena they have observed, unless officially authorised to do so.” (HQ No 11 Group letter ref 11G/0.2802/8/Int. 16 December 1953).

The reports produced by Swiney and Crofts, including drawings of the three UFOs were returned to London for scrutiny at the headquarters of the Deputy Directorate of Intelligence, or D.D.I. (Tech), on the 9th floor of the Hotel Metropole near Trafalgar Square. And there they disappeared into the same black hole that swallowed many other ‘classic’ UFO incidents reported to the MoD, never to be seen again.

In December 1953 the Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Intelligence) Air Marshal Sir Francis Fressanges delegated to D.D.I. (Tech) responsibility for the investigation of UFO reports made by radar stations and aircrew. Early in 1955 D.D.I. (Tech) produced a 10,000 word report on their study of reports received since 1950.


A security-cleared version of this ‘Secret’ report, at a quarter of the original length, was published in the Air Ministry’s ‘Secret Intelligence Summary’ available at the PRO. It concluded that 90 percent of the reports could be explained as “meteors, balloons, flares and many other objects” but 10 percent remained unexplained. These cases “need be attributed to nothing more sinister than lack of data.”

Group Captain Harold Collins was Deputy Director of Intelligence at Air Ministry from 1950-52. Now aged 95, he still recalls receiving “about a dozen so-called reports of aerial phenomena” as part of his duties: “..they ranged from one woman who reported on a man from outer space knocking on her door to two reports we were never able to explain as misidentifications,” he recalled. Significantly, Group Captain Collins confirmed that the two reports that remained “unexplained” were made by RAF aircrew. We believe one of these was the Little Rissington incident.

GCHQ and Whitehall: UFO cover-up?

Mick Swiney was to rise in rank to Air Commodore before retirement at the end of a long and eventful career in the RAF. During the course of his career, he heard nothing further about his ‘UFO’ experience. Although he was to have two further, but less dramatic “sightings” whilst piloting aircraft from bases in Germany during 1953-54, he was able to ‘explain’ one of these as a sighting of an escaped meteorological balloon.

But he was never able to account for his 1952 experience, and it continued to play upon his mind, particularly the official silence that continued to surround the circumstances. It was not until 1974, during a posting to the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall, that he decided to make some discreet inquiries of his own.

At that time, the MOD’s standard answer to all public and Parliamentary questions was that because UFO sightings had such mundane explanations all files were routinely destroyed at five yearly intervals. This practice, they said, had been halted in 1967, and as a result the earliest UFO records held in MoD archives dated from 1962.

Evidently, in public at least, someone was being economical with the truth, because about 1974 – long after the date at which the MoD claimed they had been destroyed – the reports made by Swiney and his co-pilot remained on file.

“I was then in a position to say that I wanted to see the report I had written in 1952. I simply said ‘I want to see it’ and the next thing was one of my staff (a RAF Group Captain) plonked it on my desk,” Swiney explained. The file was obtained from an Air Intelligence branch that had inherited D.D.I. (Tech)’s records, and the officer who recovered the file said it had been located “in the Blue Book.”

“So I had a look at it,” Swiney continued. “It was all there, and if I remember rightly I also saw David Croft’s report which was attached to it. I had a look at it and when I was satisfied I put it in the out-tray. I should have taken a copy there and then.”

In 2002 Michael Swiney, now in retirement, made a fresh attempt to recover his original report with our assistance. Firstly he wrote to the RAF’s Air Historical Branch, now based in the old Fighter Command HQ building at Bentley Priory. They said that UFO reports submitted to Air Ministry intelligence could have been preserved for transfer to the PRO, or alternatively marked for destruction.

If MoD record reviewers “did not consider it worthy of preservation then I am afraid it would have been destroyed, which [we] think is its most likely fate.”

Not satisfied with this response, Swiney wrote directly to the Director General of GCHQ to inquire if the station had retained a copy of his report. In reply, a civil servant said an archive search had failed to locate the file and his request had been passed to colleagues in London “who historically dealt with such matters.”

This was of course, the Air Staff secretariat at Whitehall, DAS 4 (formerly Sec(AS)2a during Nick Pope’s incumbency in 1991-93). In due course, the ‘UFO desk’ replied with a standard statement that returned the inquiry to square one. Swiney was advised that “…it was generally the case that before 1967 all UFO report files were destroyed after five years…[but] since 1967, following an increase in public interest in this subject ‘UFO’ files are now routinely preserved. Any files from the 1950s and early 1960s which did survive are available for examination at the Public Record Office.”

In reply, Swiney asked a pertinent question:

“If it was generally the case that before 1967 all UFO report files were destroyed after five years, how was it that I actually saw and read it in about 1974, some seventeen years later, when serving at the MoD?”

The veteran airman does not expect to receive an answer, because to admit that ‘secret’ files on dramatic UFO incidents exist that fall outside the scope of the public records system would lead to questions about the honesty of the Government’s official policy that UFOs are “of no defence significance.”

Now in his late 70s, Air Commodore Swiney is obliged to accept that he may never learn the truth about what it was he saw half a century ago. “I can’t believe it is an intentional cover-up,” he told us, but I don’t really understand why they are being so difficult.”

Although the official records relating to the Little Rissington incident are “missing presumed destroyed” Michael Swiney can still point to his own documentary evidence. In what is probably a unique in the in the history of RAF flying logbooks, there exists an entry, in Swiney’s handwriting, dated 21 October 1952, that reads:

“(SAUCERS!) 3 ‘Flying Saucers’ sighted at height. Confirmed by G.C.I.”

http://drdavidclarke.files.wordpress...pg?w=300&h=211





Michael Swiney’s final words on the UFO experience which made such a lasting impression on his life are these:



link; http://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-fi...ainbrace-ufos/

“I am completely open-minded. I don’t think there are little green men who are going to suddenly land and get out of peculiar-looking craft. But what I do know is that both David Crofts and I saw something, the like of which we had never seen before, and I have never seen since. I cannot explain it. But all I do know is that I did see, as did he, something which was most unusual.”

Acknowledgements:

This article is based upon transcripts of taped interviews with Air Commodore M.J.E. Swiney, April 2001 and May 2002 and with Lieutenant Commander D. Crofts in February 2002. We wish to thank both men for their assistance in our research. Thanks also to the late Sir Peter Horsley, Terry Lightfoot and to Nick Redfern.


“The radar station called up saying that three objects had entered our airspace, going at a fantastic speed, approximately 3,000 miles per hour. We had nothing that went that fast, and neither had the Russians or the Americans.” Mr Barefoot said the incident triggered a commotion in the control room, and led to an order to scramble a squadron to intercept the UFOs. Before the pilots could be vectored towards the fast-moving blips, they had disappeared from the plotting tables – still in formation – off the coast of Kent and out towards the English Channel.

THE WASHINGTON PRESS CONFERENCE November 12, 2007
THE WASHINGTON UFO PRESS CONFERENCE; MILITARY WITNESSES AND CREDIBLE STATEMENTS FROM CREDIBLE SOURCES;
November 12, 2007;


Below is the text relating Leslie Keens views and conclusions on the "THE WASHINGTON UFO PRESS CONFERENCE of 2007", the personnel involved and the testimony from credible military sources and witnesses;

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
On May 1, 2008, I received word from the FOIA officer at NASA that she had requested four new searches of the missing fragology files, without any success. On June 6th, I learned that NASA had searched 291 boxes so far, and still had a few more to go. As of this writing, I haven’t received any of the documents, but expect them within two weeks.

Even without the fragology files, there will likely be thousands of pages of documents retrieved.Results will be presented at the MUFON conference in July, 2008.
************************************************** *******
II. THE WASHINGTON PRESS CONFERENCE;
November 12, 2007;

About a month after the lawsuit was settled, another unprecedented, high-profile event took place in Washington DC, also calling for the release of information on unidentified flying objects by the US Government.

A distinguished panel of high-ranking government, aviation, and military officials from seven countries came forward at the National press Club to discuss close encounters and official investigations involving UFOs. Representatives from France, England, Belgium, Chile, Peru, Iran and the US called for the US Government to join in an international dialogged and re-open its investigation – which the Air Force shut down over 30 years ago;


– in cooperation with other governments already investigating the phenomenon. While on active duty, each of the panelists had either witnessed a UFO incident or had conducted an official investigation into UFO cases relevant to aviation safety and national security.

Organized by filmmaker James Fox and myself during the prior four months, the panel was moderated by former Arizona Governor Fife Symington.

The date was chosen partly to commemorate the first anniversary of the O’Hare Airport incident, referenced numerous times by our panelists. As reported by the Chicago Tribune, pilots, mechanics and managers from United Airlines witnessed a metallic disc hovering over their terminal, which then shot straight up leaving a “cookie cutter” hole through the cloud bank.

Despite the clear aviation safety issues involved, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) never investigated the incident and dismissed it as weather.

This event provided a glaring example of US Government denial and avoidance of responsibility, in stark contrast to the approach of the other countries and airlines represented by the panel.


France has had a government agency investigating UFO cases since the 1970’s, as part of it’s National Space Agency (the equivalent of our NASA) and it released it’s files last year.

The British MOD has investigated cases officially and is releasing all it’s files to the public. Chile has an official government agency investigating UFO incidents, particularly when they affect aviation safety, set up under our equivalent of the FAA, and the Peruvian Air Force set up its own agency to investigate UFO cases.

The Belgium Air Force was actively involved in investigating the 1989-90 UFO wave and made its results public. The officials, current and retired, representing these agencies from these countries attended the press conference, clearly contrasting the US position on UFO investigations with their own countries, and providing an example to our government of how these operations are conducted, and why, in other countries around the world.

The speakers included some of the most authoritative people in the world on UFO encounters, but this was the first time they had ever been brought together in one location. Most had not met the majority of their colleagues present. Especially important was the connection between Iranian General Jafari and Commandante Santa Maria of Peru.

Their encounters, both documented in U.S. Government records after the close of Project Blue Book, are among the most astonishing, dramatic and well-documented military cases ever, involving frightening cat-and-dog chases between Air Force jets, piloted by these two in 1976 and 1980, and attempts to shoot down the intruding UFOs, viewed at very close range.

Jafari and Santa Maria met while sitting down for dinner with a few of us shortly after arriving from different parts of the globe, and soon began describing their encounters to each other. Neither knew much about the others very similar experience, and the conversation was unplanned and spontaneous.

A Spanish-speaking gentleman sitting at a nearby table offered to be a translator for Santa Maria, and later each made a drawing of
his UFO on the sugar packs served with our coffee. Jafari spoke in English, and in his open and animated style, he described the brilliant object coming after him as he prepared to return to the base. Someone at our table asked him how he felt. “At that moment,” he replied, “I doubled my scare.”


That anyone could listen to these extraordinary, yet humble men and not accept their accounts – knowing about the numerous other military witnesses, radar data, and US Government documents which prove these occurrences beyond a shadow of a doubt - was inconceivable at that moment. The four days that our panel spent in Washington provided a unique opportunity for discussions such as this, and for the establishing of a group that will hopefully continue to meet and pool resources in the future, while continuing to
request participation from the U.S. Government. The panel included:

Fife Symington III, Former Arizona Governor, Moderator ;

Ray Bowyer, Captain, Aurigny Air Services, Channel Islands;

General Wilfried De Brouwer, former Deputy Chief of Staff, Belgian Air Force (Ret.);

John Callahan, Chief of Accidents and Investigations for the FAA, 1980’s (Ret.);

Dr. Anthony Choy, founder, 2001, OIFAA, Peruvian Air Force;

Jean-Claude Duboc, Captain, Air France (Ret.);

Rodrigo Bravo Garrido, Captain and Pilot for the Aviation Army of Chile;

Charles I. Halt, Col. USAF (Ret.), Former Director, Inspections Directorate, DOD I.G.

General Parviz Jafari, Iranian Air Force (Ret.);

Jim Penniston, TSgt USAF (Ret.);

Dr. Claude Poher, Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, founder, French GEPAN ;

Nick Pope, Ministry of Defence, UK, 1985-2006;

Dr. Jean-Claude Ribes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France, 1963-98 ;

Comandante Oscar Santa Maria, Commander, Peruvian Air Force (Ret).
************************************************** *******
We now come to the most astounding array,(in my opinion that is),of credible military sources that have commented on the reality of a real possible ET connection to SOME UFOs that have entered or left their respective countries restricted air space;
************************************************** ********

The following excerpts are from some of the presentations, one from each country:


“Hundreds of people saw a majestic triangular craft with a span of approximately 120 feet, powerful beaming spot lights, moving very slowly without making any significant noise but, in several cases, accelerating to very high speeds…I was confronted with numerous questions about the origin and nature of these craft. In the first instance, and in consultation with other NATO partners, I could confirm that no flights of stealth aircraft or any other experimental aircraft took place in the airspace of Belgium.”

-General Wilfried De Brouwer, Belgian Air Force;
************************************************** *******
“GEIPAN’s Steering Committee plays an important role, with representatives from the Army, Police, Civil Aviation, Meteorology and the scientific community. This Committee insures the best conditions for gathering reports by instructing the agencies involved in investigations, and by protecting any witnesses who request anonymity for fear of ridicule.”

-Dr. Jean-Claude Ribes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France;
************************************************** ********

“Both objects were of a flattened disk shape with a dark area to the right side. They were brilliant yellow with light emanating from them. I estimated them to be up to a mile across… I would have been shocked if I was told that the Civil Aviation Authority would obstruct an investigation, or if the CAA told me that what I had seen was something entirely different. But it seems that pilots in America are used to this kind of thing, as far as I can tell.”

-Captain Ray Bowyer, Aurigny Air Services, UK;
************************************************** ********

“I approached the object, which was flashing with intense red, green, orange and blue light so bright that I was not able to see its body. The sequence of flashes was extremely fast, like a strobe light. We locked on it with radar; it was at 30° left, at a range of 25 miles.

"The size on the radar scope was comparable to that of a 707 tanker. Four other objects with different shapes separated from the main one, at different times during this close encounter. Whenever they were close to me, my weapons were jammed and my radio communications were garbled.”

-General Parviz Jafari, Iranian Air Force;
************************************************** ********

“We now make the call to all the countries that are presently working on this issue in a serious and factual way, to unite their efforts. We would like this to include the United States of America. This cooperative effort would help all of us counteract the potentially unsafe effects of UFOs on air operations around the world.”;

-Rodrigo Bravo Garrido, Captain and Pilot for the Aviation Army of Chile;
************************************************** ******** “At this point, I came to within about 300 feet of the UFO. It was about 30 feet in diameter. It was an enamelled, cream-colored dome, with a wide, circular, metallic base. It had no engines, no exhausts, no windows, no wings or antennae. It lacked all the typical aircraft components, with no visible propulsion system. It was at that moment that I realized this was not a spying device, but that it was a UFO, something totally unknown.

I was almost out of fuel, so I couldn’t attack or maneuver my plane, or make a high speed escape. I was afraid. I thought I might be finished.”

-Comandante Oscar Santa Maria, Commander, Peruvian Air Force;
************************************************** ********
“I now know that I am not alone in witnessing something extraordinary. There are many high ranking military, aviation and government officials who share my concerns; some of them have joined me here today… We want the US government to stop putting out stories that perpetuate the myth that ALL UFOs can be explained away in down-to earth, conventional terms.

"Instead,our country needs to re-open its official investigation that it shut down in 1969.The US government can no longer shun an international
dialogue about this, and we invite the government to work in cooperation with the countries represented at this table.”

-Fife Symington III, Former Arizona Governor, USA;
************************************************** ********

THE INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION: A CALL-TO-ACTION;

The Coalition for Freedom of Information released an “International Declaration to the United States Government” on that day, signed by most of the panelists and others from additional countries, including five Generals. The document requests that the U.S.

Government join the international community in a cooperative venture to address the UFO problem by opening a new official investigation. It reads as follows:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
International Declaration to the United States Government;

Facilitated by the Coalition for Freedom of Information;
November 12, 2007;

Preamble:
We, the signatories below, with backgrounds and careers in government, aviation, or the military, hereby present this declaration as a result of our common experience and purpose. While on active duty, each of us has either been a witness to an incident involving an unidentified flying object or has conducted an official investigation into UFO cases relevant to aviation safety, national security, or for the benefit of science.

We use the term “unidentified flying objects” (UFOs) simply to mean any airborne phenomena that cannot be identified or explained, a definition first used by the U.S. Air Force in the 1950’s.We make no claim as to the nature or origin of these objects.

While most UFO sightings can be explained as misidentifications of known objects or natural phenomena, those governments that have studied them, including some with which these signatories have been on staff, have consistently found that a small percentage of sightings defy conventional explanation. Reports of these incidents often involve credible witnesses such as police officers, military personnel, pilots and air traffic controllers, and include solid, official documentation.

Therefore:
We believe that for reasons of both national security and flight safety, every country should make an effort to identify any object in its airspace. Especially after the attacks of 9/11 it is no longer satisfactory to ignore radar returns for which no transponder data are available and/or which
cannot be associated with performances of existing aircraft and helicopters. While civil aviation radars and air traffic controllers mainly rely on secondary radar, military air defense radars should be configured such as to detect and track any object in the air, even when static or operating at very slow or very high speeds.

In this regard, we refer to the incident that occurred at O’Hare International Airport in November, 2006 when a metallic disc was observed hovering over the United Airlines terminal for several minutes. Since it was not detected on radar, the Federal Aviation Administration declined to investigate.

The FAA also did not accept the many corroborating reports from United Airlines pilots and other personnel at face value, dismissing the sighting as “weather.” We suggest that prejudice against the term 'UFO' and against reports of unknowns could lead officials to dismiss sightings that involve unconventional aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles engaged in espionage or terrorist activity, especially when radar returns are not available.

However, important sightings have also been ignored when radar is not a factor. Even though hundreds of citizens witnessed a massive triangular object traveling over Arizona in 1997, the U.S. government ignored inquiries from state officials about the incident, and never offered the public
any explanation about this invasion of US airspace by a strange, unknown flying machine. We believe this kind of disengagement represents both a missed opportunity and a potential risk.

We maintain that a restive, concerned public has the right to be informed of the facts about UFO incidents that are well-documented and involve multiple witnesses. In addition, science lacks potentially important knowledge that may be gained by the study of these events involving objects
demonstrating speeds, maneuvers or other characteristics that challenge our current scientific paradigm.

Call-to-Action:
We, the undersigned, ask the United States to join in cooperation with those governments which, recognizing the reality of unidentified flying objects and related aviation safety concerns, have already set up their own investigative agencies.

Following in the footsteps of its now defunct Project Blue Book, we propose that the United States Air Force reopen its research effort, or that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration initiate such a research effort, to address the international concerns stated herein, provide needed reassurance and increase scientific understanding.


We call on the United States of America to engage with us and with currently active officials around the world to address this problem in an ongoing dialogue, beginning with the gathering of some of the signatories below in Washington, DC on this 12thof November, 2007.

Signed by the below;


Vasily Alexeyev - Major General, Russian Air Force, Space Communications Center in Russia;

Ricardo Bermudez S. - General, Brigada Aérea ( Ret.); Former President of the CEFAA, Chile;

Ray Bowyer - Captain, Aurigny Air Services, Channel Islands, UK;

Wilfried De Brouwer - Major General, (Ret.), Belgian Air Force;

John Callahan - Division Chief of Accidents, Evaluations and Investigations, FAA (Ret.);

Don C. Donderi, Ph.D. - McGill University; Researcher, Dept. of National Defence, Canada;

Julio Cesar Chamorro Flores - Comandante Peruvian Air Force (Ret.); Founder of OIFAA, 2001;

Rodrigo Bravo Garrido - Officer Chilean Army, Military Pilot, Associate with CEFAA;


Charles I. Halt - Col. USAF (Ret.), Former Director, Inspections Directorate, DOD I.G.;

Parviz Jafari – General, Iranian Air Force (Ret);

Denis Letty - Major General, French Air Force (Ret.); Chairman of COMETA;

Oscar Santa Maria - Commander and Fighter Pilot of the Peruvian Air Force (Ret).

Anthony Choy Montes - Lawyer, researcher with the OIFAA, Peruvian Air;

Force, 2001-2003 ;

James Penniston – TSgt, US Air Force (Ret.)

Nick Pope - Ministry of Defence, UK, 1985-2006;

Jean-Claude Ribes - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France, 1963-1998;

Yves Sillard - Chair of the Steering Committee, GEIPAN in France;

Fife Symington III - Governor of Arizona, 1991-1997;
************************************************** ********
No we cover the main stream medias coverage,its NATURE of its reporting and its own PERCEPTIONS of this historic conference it was giving to the people of this world;
************************************************** ********

MEDIA COVERAGE;

"Reuters released the first news story about the press conference that evening, with the headline “U.S. urged to reopen UFO investigations” and the media reports that followed stressed this theme as well. The Washington Times piece the next day, headlined “Panel: Reopen study of UFOs,” began this way: “An international panel of scientists, retired military personnel and former high-ranking officials called on the U.S. government yesterday to reopen investigations into UFO phenomena.” And ABC News posted the
headline: “Former pilots and officials call for a new U.S. UFO probe.”


Print coverage was extensive throughout all the major media in the US, much of it on websites if not on TV or in newspapers, and, once again, the story was the leading news on AOL’s homepage. It was picked up in 16 other countries, including India, South Africa, and Kuwait, mostly through the distribution of the Reuters or AFP wire story in different
languages. However, along with the U.S., Canada and Australia provided extensive additional coverage through their own reporters.

Our panelists did not provide the press with material that could be ridiculed, staying only with verifiable facts. Consistent with our successful approach to the Kecksburg case, we avoided making any reference to extraterrestrial spacecraft, in order not to distance policy makers and the scientific community. Throughout the press conference, we clearly defined
the acronym ‘UFO’ as simply meaning something unexplained of unknown origin.

Our strategy was not to accuse our government officials of a cover-up, or to demand “disclosure,” but to point out aviation safety and national security concerns at high levels, and invite our government to join in an international effort. We purposely kept the event under wraps until about a week before, to avoid any media misrepresentation that could
taint the event before it happened.

A Los Angeles Times editor spent a long time on the phone with me in preparing a lengthy piece for the editorial page, which appeared on Dec. 1. Unfortunately, Dennis Kucinich was the focus of ridicule in the editorial, and although it was written in a silly tongue-andcheek style, it did cover the O’Hare incident, press conference, the NASA lawsuit, CFi and John Podesta.

Three days before the event, CNN’s Larry King Live produced a show promoting the press conference and James Fox’s new film “Beyond the Blue,” which led to a media frenzy in the days approaching the event. CNN featured the press conference on that day’s evening news and on “Anderson Cooper 360,” reported by Gary Tuchman;


The coverage was greatly appreciated, and had many positive elements, but CNN still has a problem taking this subject seriously. As the news anchors made fun of UFOs, Tuchman did his best to counter the barbs, being the only one to have actually heard the speakers. “When you think of people saying ‘Oh hey, I saw a UFO,’ you kinda think of freaks; I’m not gonna lie to you,” CNN host Nicole Lapin opined to Tuchman during the broadcast.



The below text written by Researcher and UFO historian Richard Hall, editor of NICAP is bang on the money and deals with truths and realities that will not go away,media or no media, cover up or no cover up, ridiculing of witnesses or no ridiculing of witnesses;

************************************************** ********
Researcher and UFO historian Richard Hall, editor of NICAP’s landmark 1964 compendium “The UFO Evidence,” wrote a commentary for the CFi website, part of which deals with this coverage:

Serious testimony from highly credible witnesses whose reports are
confirmed by additional expert witnesses, radar, film, physical trace evidence, and official documentation establishes the bedrock basis for taking UFOs seriously and provides the fundamental reason why a large-scale international investigation is needed.The focus of inquiry should be on what the evidence shows, not on entirely speculative matters or political issues such as “why would the government cover it up?” or “why would extraterrestrial beings want to visit earth?”

Sadly, the news media gets fixated on unanswerable questions such as these
rather than simply looking at the documented facts of the phenomenon, as any journalist should. Often the TV pundits use such speculative puzzles to keep the whole business at arms length.

CNN’s November 12thcoverage of the press conference included Gary Tuchman telling Wolf Blitzer that “One thing we always tell the enthusiasts: If one of these craft came down on earth and did an interview with us, the debate would be over. But that hasn’t happened yet.”This is a version of the “Why don’t they land on the white house lawn?” syndrome.

The question should be “What?” not “Why?”

And the only way to explore the “what,” is to carefully examine the data at
hand.The media, which should be reporting the straightforward facts to the public, seems to have a hard time doing the job. CNN continuously infused its coverage with the terms “enthusiasts” and “believers” to describe the members of the distinguished panel, as if the facts the panelists were presenting -- real events that actually did occur -- are somehow due to either enjoyment or some kind of religion.


We have to ask “what” while being willing to drop the filters and
preconceived prejudice that contaminate a clear presentation of the subject.
As illustrated by these witnesses and the thousands more like them, totally
unexplained craft-like objects that display extraordinary performance have been observed repeatedly in our airspace and tracked on radar for decades. What are they?

Transcripts of all the press conference presentations and information about the panelists are posted at www.freedomofinfo.org. A DVD of the complete event, including much of
the media Q & A, is available at www.outofthebluethemovie.com.

link source;http://www.freedomofinfo.org/freedom.html

Pilot UFO sightings;1916 -2000;
Here we see a collection of very interesting cases of pilot UFO sightings documented in government reports containing and involving cases of radar confirmation or electromagnetic interference effects.That there are many cases out there and that some of these cases stretch way back way before 1947, is invaluable to the serious UFO investigator or researcher;

************************************************** ********
Catalogue of Military,Airliner and Private Pilots Sightings from 1916 -2000
(pdf):
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/f...lotCatalog.pdf

Official FAA cockpit recordings of pilot UFO sightings:

Black Box UFO Secrets: (my favorite),;


Catalogue of Australian observations of UFOS from Aircraft crew members and passengers:
http://www.project1947.com/kbcat/kbair0505.htm

Aircraft /UFO Encounters prior to 1942:
http://www.project1947.com/jan42.htm


quote;
"This chart lists over 100 UFO sightings by pilots (AL=Airline pilot; M=Military; P=Private), the majority of whom reported typical geometrical objects such as discs and ellipses. The resulting patterns of the observations, and their strong similarity to reports by other reliable witnesses are readily apparent".
link; http://www.nicap.org/ufoe/ufoe33_38.htm


Prologue;

In a span of less than two years, two of the most perplexing aircraft disappearances occurred. Each was a world away from the other. One off Australia; the other off Puerto Rico in the Bermuda Triangle. Yet both were strikingly similar. Both pilots were sober individuals, one was a US Marine. Both reported a strange object harassing or, at the very least, highly interested in their aircraft. Both could not describe exactly what it was. But in both cases, when it came in closer, it apparently caused a disruption of radio communication and cut out electro-magnetic power, causing the engine to sputter. Neither aircraft left any trace.

Both carried ELTs, automatic alarms that are jettisoned when the aircraft impacts. This triggers them to send their electronic SOS signals, guiding rescuers to the point of the incident. Yet in both these incidents they were hushed, for no signal was ever picked up.


The cases which will be placed in this section of the Web Site are not intended to explain the UFO phenomenon, only to document that it does indeed exist; and, most relevant to the subject at hand, that it is often associated with missing aircraft. Theories concerning how they may be associated with the Bermuda Triangle are dealt with in the Theories Section.

Case 1 -- October 21, 1978:

A young man boarded his Cessna 182L at Moorabbin, Australia. His name was Frederick Valentich. The weather was good. The time was 6:19 P.M. In a short time Valentich, presumably, would be dead. What passed before his eyes before he vanished was recorded by Melbourne Flight Service Unit and reproduced in a Summary Report issued by the Department of Transport of Australia. Since it is quite short, it follows in toto and verbatim in the thumbnails below.


The disappearance of Fred Valentich is quite well known to those in UFOlogy. However, the following report is completely obscur. In a sort of “if they don’t ask, don’t tell them” type of attitude, such reports are filed away in the US. I stumbled across it quite by accident. In the database search of those planes listed as missing by the National Transportation Safety Board, the “Brief” I received contained nothing remotely interesting. (A “Brief” is a little one page chit which gives pertinent but terse information which is later expounded in the Factual Aviation Report).

It held no narrative whatsoever. There was no indication this was any kind of special incident. Yet when the Factual Report arrived with so many others I had ordered, this shocking information was discovered. This report is much longer than the above, full of incidentals, copies, so forth. Only the relevant pages of the narrative and the in-flight recordings are given here for brevity sake. (Taken from: Factual Aviation Accident Report: Near Puerto Rico, June 28, 1980, Ercoupe 415-D, N3808H )


Case 2 -- June 28, 1980:


At 6:10 P.M., Jose Maldonado Torres and his friend, Jose Pagan Santos, left the Dominican Republic in an Ercoupe marked N3808H. They were bound for home in Puerto Rico. At 8:03 P.M. dialogue was picked up by several stations and aircraft. For a limited time only, the narrative in the icons below has been replaced by the actual audio of this strange Mayday. It is transcribed completely in Into The Bermuda Triangle By Gian J. Quasar.

Please give it time to load. It is 3.44 minutes long. You may have to listen several times to pick up all the dialogue clearly.

Page1;


http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/assets/images/Dsj-1.jpg

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/assets/images/Dsj-2.jpg

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/assets/images/Dsj-3.jpg

(If one notices the courses Torres claims to be flying, one notices how erratically he was trying to avoid the object, another indication of his panic than the tenor of his voice. If this is not the case, the drastically alternating compass readings he transmits may be indicative of a frequently reported phenomenon in the Bermuda Triangle: compasses going berserk--a phenomenon also noted during UFO encounters.)


Having the advantage of a last radar position, the search for this aircraft was quick and thorough, concentrating in its last known area. However, nothing was ever found. No ELT signal was ever picked up by any station, and no explanation was ever given for the “weird object.” Jose Pagan Jimenez, the owner of the plane (and the father of the passenger, Jose Santos), was an Aero Police Officer for Puerto Rico. He flew many over flights of the ocean, including the last and most poignant in his own helicopter in vain hopes of finding his son. The search was then discontinued with the typical “negative results.”


There is really no easy explanation for such incidents as the two above. Unlike the lurid and bogus press accounts by hucksters and grandstanders who describe in detail “Flying Saucer” encounters, when the real UFO thing happens, the pilots are incapable of describing what is really going on and exactly what kind of object it is. That something genuinely unusual happened seems proven by the tragic results of such encounters. The true incidents, because perhaps the grave results are not conducive to ratings, are quickly glossed over.

These encounters are hardly new. The words of Valentich or Torres strike a familiar chord with those last words on January 7, 1948, of Capt. Thomas Mantell when he, in hot pursuit of a radar object by Godman Field, Kentucky, last spoke of a silver object, huge, and making fast speed. His P51 Mustang was then next seen raining down from the clouds.

As time goes by, UFO sightings have become more scarce over land or near populated centers. However, more and more are being seen over water, away from populations and in inaccessible regions. Australia isn’t particularly noted for them off her east coast, but the area where Torres and Santos vanished has a quite a history. During the “flap” of UFO sightings off this area, (off Cabo Rojo and the eastern seaboard), in 1972, some derelict vessels were found off the coast throughout the peak times of the flap, between August and October.

Any further discussion of this phenomenon is reserved for Into the Bermuda Triangle. However, suffice it to say that such reports as these above keep “UFOs,” whatever they may be, in the forefront of the minds of those who seek to explain the Bermuda Triangle. The greatest mystery they pose is not just how they make a plane or crew vanish . . .but why . . .

link; Pilot Transmission Recording ; http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/ufo_incidents.html



http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/assets/images/Dsj-1.jpg


"There are some definite flight type characteristics that are seen now that I would say represent genuine UFOs...ie: instant acceleration; instant stop; vertical acceleration -up into the air and down to the ground; reverses in direction; right angle turns -all in silence -multiple objects sometimes separating and then going back into each other.

"They are classic,what I would call,genuine UFO characteristics -things that we can not do in a conventional sense".

British Detective Police Constable Gary Heseltine - Police UFO reporting organisation,link; http://www.prufospolicedatabase.co.uk/2.html

THE CONCLUSION OF THE NASA LAWSUITUFO case of 1965
THE CONCLUSION OF THE NASA LAWSUIT;
Concerning the Kecksburg, PA UFO case of 1965;
By Leslie Kean;

INTRODUCTION;
On December 9, 1965, an object landed near the small town of Kecksburg, PA. Moments earlier, a fireball was observed in the sky across several U.S. states and Canada.Four witnesses provided independent, corroborated descriptions of the object and its location in the Kecksburg woods. Dozens of others – including fire fighters, newspaper reporters, and a radio news director at WHJB (who was on the scene taping interviews) – describe the large
military presence at the crash site and the cordoning off of the area.

Some observed the retrieval of an object that was transported by an army truck. Many witnesses signed statements for investigator Stan Gordon of Greensburg, PA, who has been working on the case since it began.

At the scene, officials told residents a meteor crashed. But the next day, both local authorities and the U.S. government declared nothing fell that night and nothing was found. Project Blue Book Book - the official Air Force investigation into UFOs terminated in 1970 - says that no
space debris entered our atmosphere that day. Data from the U.S. Space Command and the Russian Space Agency indicates that whatever came down that day was not a Russian satellite or
space probe.

In 2002, I was asked to spearhead a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) initiative sponsored by SCI FI Channel, which attempted to acquire government documents on the Kecksburg case. The next year, I ended up as the plaintiff in a federal, FOIA lawsuit filed against NASA in Washington, DC. After previously promising to conduct an expedited search for files related to the 1965 Kecksburg UFO crash case, NASA had stonewalled and was withholding documents, leaving no recourse but this one. A settlement four years later, in October, 2007, required NASA to provide hundreds of new documents and pay my attorney’s legal fees. NASA’s resulting search, monitored by the court, was completed in August, 2009.

For a more detailed article - including background on the 1965 Kecksburg UFO case; why we focused on NASA during this FOIA initiative; and the interesting twists and turns of the lawsuit - please see my MUFON paper of July, 2008 “The Struggle for Government Openness” at http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/mufon_4.pdf. That paper was written before any of the documents were received after the settlement (others had been released previously at various stages), and it covers events up to the arrival of these NASA documents in the summer of 2008.




This paper completes the story, describing what we received (and didn’t receive) and offering final comments on the whole process.

I. THE SEARCH THROUGH NASA’S INVENTORY TO SELECT DOCUMENTS
Nov. ’07 – Jan. ‘08;
Two notebooks totaling 689 pages of SF-135 forms (inventory lists of files) were sent to me in late Nov. 2007. NASA marked the files it intended to locate and send, asking me to note any additional files I wanted, pertaining to the terms of the settlement agreement. I studied these detailed lists carefully and made numerous additional selections which were responsive to the search terms but had been overlooked by NASA.

In late January I sent a five- page list to NASA specifying these additional requested files, covering a broad range of relevant topics. I also asked for a new search for the files in form 68A2062 – “NASA Fragology Files” – which, as we were previously told, had been missing since 1987. The SF 135 for these files should have been included in the notebooks but was not. The two boxes of fragology files from 1962 to 1967 are described as “reports of space objects’ recovery, [and] analysis of fragments to determine national ownership and vehicle origin.”

They would therefore be of special interest to the Kecksburg case (see MUFON paper for more details).Other SF 135s that should have been included in the notebooks were not. (We knew this because we had previously worked with a professional archival research firm which had acquired some that should have been included.) For example, the form for two boxes "pertaining to NASA/DOD Liason, 1966-74” were not included. Box 1 included Orbital Debris; Policies & Procedures; Box 2 included DOD Army, DOD Air Force. Both of these were of interest to us.


II. NASA’s SEARCH Feb. ’08 – July ‘08;

NASA received my list in January, 2008 and began searching for the documents initially selected by the agency and the additional ones selected by me. In May, 2008, NASA informed me that three new searches had been conducted for the two missing boxes of fragology files, which were unsuccessful.

In addition, NASA Headquarters was searched, but that too failed to locate anything.In June, NASA informed me that 291 boxes had been searched so far, but no files were found pertinent to the 1965 event. Most of the documents so far were related to "fragments," "debris," and some correspondence.

In mid June, NASA sent a few hundred pages of responsive files to me after searching 297 boxes. All documents requested from other agencies for evaluation and processing were released
subsequently in July 18, 2008.

After reviewing the documents, I noted the following:
1. There was nothing at all related to Kecksburg here or in the many hundreds of pages released by NASA at earlier stages.

2. The documents included news stories and reports about other fireball meteors around the same time, but none on Kecksburg.

3. There were no policy or procedure manuals included, which were requested, related to rules or laws governing the collection of space debris from private property.

4. There were 20 boxes missing which we had requested, including four pertaining to NASA/DOD relationships and agreements.

5. Also missing were many attachments, appendices and photos, which were referred to in the files as being enclosed or attached, but weren’t.

6. Missing also were a lengthy series of letters written to NASA from citizens about UFO sightings and questions, some occurring in 1965. NASA sent form-letter replies to each person then forwarded copies of these letters to the Air Force’s Project Blue Book.

NASA sent me copies of both its reply to the citizen and each cover letter sent by the agency to Blue Book saying that the enclosed letter was being forwarded. However, none of these letters from citizens, referenced as enclosed, were in the files. It is quite possible that interested citizens could have written NASA about the fireball seen widely that night, or the landing of something in Kecksburg.To illustrate the complexity and detail of my attempts to acquire missing documents, and to address other issues, here is one email which I wrote to my NASA contact for the search, Judi Hollingsworth, in July 7, 2008:


for further study ect view link below for direct PDF format of the "THE CONCLUSION OF THE NASA LAWSUIT"; Concerning the Kecksburg, PA UFO case of 1965;

1957 CIA Memo Concerning UFO Report;
Interesting CIA memo concerning a UFO report from 1957;This is taken from the "The Military Related UFO Resource Guide" web site;The Military Related UFO Resource Guide is a treasure trove of information on this aspect of UFO studies. The site posts data generated by the US Army, the Air Force, the CIA, and the General Accounting Office, as well as data from other military and intelligence agencies.
************************************************** ********

1957 CIA Memo Concerning UFO Report;

INTRODUCTION;

27-September-1998 - The CIA memorandum, the text of which is reproduced below, was located in the 1979 microfiche set of The Declassified Documents Catalog, published by Research Publications, Inc., Woodbridge CT, available at Federal Deposit Libraries. It is an interesting document for several reasons:

* It mentions interest in UFO at a very high level of the intelligence community, the Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC)

* It mentions what is possibly electromagnetic interference with multiple radars coincident with detection of a UFO

* It mentions action by elements of the military and intelligence communities very quickly after a UFO report

COMMENT;
QUOTE;
"The memo, dated the 21st of September 1957, concerns the radar detection of a UFO over the state of New York the preceding day. An investigation by the Air Defense Command was begun, a briefing on the UFO was provided to members of the high level Intelligence Advisory Committee, and this memo was issued during the single day after the event. This very quick action is not only a testimonial to the efficiency of Cold War reporting systems, but also shows the amount of interest solid UFO detections generated at high levels of the military and intelligence community".

"Obviously, the major interest in unidentified airborne objects shown by the memo was whether or not the unidentified radar tracks were possibly Soviet in origin, and therefore represented a major advance in aircraft or missile design. The conclusion: not Soviet".

"We do have the results of the Air Defense Command investigation mentioned in the memo, but the statement, "... weather phenomena are increasingly likely explanations of the original reports..." probably indicate the conclusions of the ADC investigation. Interesting that the ADC, Air Force, CIA and (some members of) the IAC were excited about the radar detections of a UFO over the US, but accepted that the radar operators could be fooled by weather, the effects of which had been extensively studied".

"In an article which appeared in the unclassified issue of The Central Intelligence Agency's publication, Studies in Intelligence, (Semiannual Edition, No. 1, 1997), Gerald K. Haines, a historian with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), titled A Die-Hard Issue: CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90, asserted that, "over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance" utilizing U-2 and SR-71 aircraft.

Could this detection have been one of these? Even though the U-2 spy plane was operational in 1957, having made its first flight in August 1955, began operational service in 1956, and apparently could fly at the altitude given in the memo, we'd have to say no. The Acting Director of the CIA certainly would be aware of the U-2 surveillance program.

In the above mentioned article, Haines asserts that relatively low-level Air force Project Blue Book staff, "...by checking with the Agency's U-2 Project Staff in Washington, ...were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights. This implies coordination and disclosure of U-2 flight times and locations to the Air Force be the CIA, although Haines does not provide any examples of this coordination.

Additionally, it seems reasonable that The IAC, or at lease some members of it, would have been aware of the U-2 program, functioning as it did at the National Security Council level, and being charged with coordination of intelligence among the member agencies.

Electromagnetic effects coincident with the presence of UFOs, even at such high altitudes has been a feature of many UFO reports ever since the "Foo-Fighter" reports of the Second World War. In this memo the interference encountered was widespread and characterized as "jamming," something which should have been of great concern to the military.

In this case, an unidentified object is over the US, is detected by some radars and tracked, but cannot be identified, and several other radars which should have been able to provide more complete tracking were "jammed." Note that the implication is that more than one radar set over a large geographical area was rendered ineffective simultaneously. Furthermore, the term "jamming" implies an action performed by choice:

"To make the transmission of a radio unintelligible; to make a radio or radar set ineffective, either by use of countertransmissions or by the use of a confusion reflector." [1] The memo does mention that SAC B-47 aircraft were conducting Electronic counter Measures training flights at the time. Is this to imply that the transmissions from these aircraft affected our own radars and rendered them ineffective? This seems beyond belief.

Incidently, this sighting does not appear in the list of Project Blue Book unidentified sightings. We do not have access to the full Blue Book files, so we cannot say whether or not this UFO incident was reported to Blue Book or not. A sighting of an oval, glowing object by military personnel did, however, occur on September 20, but over the Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa; this sighting is one of the Blue book unidentified cases..

[1] The United States Air Force Dictionary, Woodford Agee Heflin, Editor, Research Studies Institute,
Air University Press, 1956.

THE DOCUMENT;




[- BLACKED -][--- BLACKED ---]

[BLACKED] Copy 5 of 30 cys
[--- BLACKED ---------] [- BLACKED-]




MEMORANDUM FOR: Acting Director, Central Intelligence;
SUBJECT: Unidentified flying Object Reported on 20 September 1957;

1. As reported by components of the US Air Defense Command, an unidentified flying object (UFO) was tracked by US radars on a relatively straight course from the eastern tip of Long Island to the vicinity of Buffalo.

The object was reportedly moving westward at an altitude of 50,000 feet and speed of 2,000 kts. "Jamming" was reported by several radars in this vicinity and westward as far as Chicago. In a subsequent briefing for representatives of the IAC, the US Air Force reported that the original reports had been degraded somewhat by information that:

* (a) there was an 11 minute break in the tracks;

*(b) weather conditions in the area were of the type which have in the past produced false radar pips and electronic interference;

* (c) B-47's of SAC were in the area near Chicago on an ECM training flight. The ADC has not completed its investigation of this incident, but in any event it now seems clear that the phenomena reported west of Buffalo were not related to the UFO.

2. We have no intelligence on Soviet activities (e.g. long-range air, submarine, or merchant shipping operations) which can be related specifically to this reported event. We believe it unlikely that a Soviet aircraft could conduct a mission at this speed and altitude and return to Bloc territory.

However, we credit the USSR with the capability to have a submarine-launched cruise-type missile of low subsonic [supersonic] performance and a range of about 500 n.m., but we have no specific evidence of the existence of such a missile.

3. We have examined possible Soviet motives for launching a one-way vehicle on an operation over the US, and consider that there would be little motivation at this time, except possibly a psychological or retaliatory motive, which we believe is marginal. One-way reconnaissance operations are largely ruled out by the likelihood that the results would be of small value, and the risk of compromise would be very great.


4. We conclude, therefore, that it is highly improbable that a Soviet operation is responsible for the UFO reports of 20 September.

5. Considering the fact that the ADC investigation is incomplete, and that weather phenomena are increasingly likely explanations of the original reports, we recommend that no IAC meeting be called on this subject at this time



/s/ HERBERT SCOVILLE, Jr.
HERBERT SCOVILLE, Jr.

Copies to IAC Agencies as follows:
AEC ONI FBI JIG ARM AIR FORCE STATE CIA


[- BLACKED -] [- BLACKED -]

Back to Top of this Page;To CUFON Main Page
C U F O NSM;
The Computer UFO Network;
http://www.cufon.org/
SYSOP - Jim Klotz;
Webmaster - Chris Lambright;
Information Director - Dale Goudie;

UFO Reporting and Information Service;
Director - Dale Goudie;
Mail service currently unavailableVoice Line - u;

link; http://www.cufon.org/cufon/1957cia.htm

THE STRUGGLE FOR GOVERNMENT OPENNESS;part one;
Following on from the highlighted case of the NASA lawsuit fought by Leslie Keen here is the text below showing that struggle and commitment she showed for her quest for NASA to come clean and release/reveal files it had on this extraordinary UFO crash case;
************************************************** ********
THE STRUGGLE FOR GOVERNMENT OPENNESS THE NASA LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT and THE WASHINGTON PRESS CONFERENCE
By Leslie Kean;

ABSTRACT: In 2003, investigative reporter Leslie Kean of the Coalition for Freedom of Information became the plaintiff in a landmark Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against NASA. After promising to conduct an expedited search for files related to the 1965 Kecksburg UFO crash case, NASA had stonewalled and withheld documents.

A settlement in October, 2007 requires NASA to provide hundreds of new documents and pay Kean’s legal fees. One month later, an international press conference was held in Washington, DC, organized by Kean and James Fox, calling for a new official investigation into UFOs by the U.S. Government. Moderated by former Arizona Governor Fife Symington, the event featured high level military, aviation and government officials from seven countries.
************************************************** ********
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
I. THE NASA LAWSUIT AND SETTLEMENT January 2003 – June 2008 THE LAUNCHING OF THE FOIA INITIATIVE;

In 2002, I was asked by Larrry Landsman, SCI FI Channel’s Director of Special Projects, to spearhead an effort seeking new government records on a well-documented, American UFO case which included the retrieval of physical evidence. We selected the Kecksburg case, partly because Stan Gordon had been investigating and documenting the event since it happened.

In summary, witness and local news reports show that on December 9, 1965, an object landed near the village of Kecksburg, PA, about forty miles Southeast of Pittsburgh, after a fireball was observed in the sky across several U.S. Northern states and Canada. Some Pennsylvania residents saw the object moving slowly in the sky; others saw it make turns; and still others saw smoke in the woods when it first crashed.

Five witnesses eventually provided independent, corroborated descriptions of the strange acorn-shaped object and its exact location in the woods. Dozens of others – including firefighters, newspaper reporters, and a radio news director (who was on the scene taping interviews) saw the
large military and police presence at the crash site and the cordoning off of the area. Observers provided detailed descriptions of an object being transported out on a flatbed truck. (For more details, see www.stangordonufo.com)


We also attempted to access files from the US Army, which denied us records as well. In a second attempt to the Army, we sent newspaper articles that clearly state the Army was on the scene, along with excerpts from a detailed radio broadcast revealing the same.

We included signed witness statements of encounters with army personnel, some stating that soldiers pointed weapons at civilians, and descriptions of clearly marked Army vehicles. A newspaper reporter from the Greensburg Tribune-Review, who wrote three stories on the incident, provided a statement that he saw ten or more Army personnel preventing reporters from entering the area where the object was believed to have landed, and that he even questioned some of them.

We documented all of this for the Army, but it made no difference. Army FOIA guidelines advise the public to provide “descriptive information” that “is event related and includes the circumstances that resulted in the record being created or the date and circumstances surrounding the event the record covers.” Our information established the participation of the Army, including military personnel from the U.S. Army Support Detachment in Oakdale, in a publicly acknowledged investigation of a landed object on December 9, 1965 at 4:45 pm near the town of Kecksburg.


Even so. the Army FOIA office told CFi that we had not described what we wanted with sufficient specificity to enable it even to begin a FOIA search! In this case, we didn’t have Army files to pprove the withholding of documents. Our focus remained with NASA since we had in our possession the proof of an inadequate search – the ammunition we needed to appeal the agency’s denial.


An artist’s conception of the Kecksburg object by Charles Hanna. Witnesses describe a fifteen foot object, with no rivets, seams, doors, or windows, and odd “hieroglyphics” along the bumper.

The next day, the Air Force stated that it sent out a three-man team to search for an object that started a fire, but that nothing was found. It announced that the object in the sky was simply a meteor, as documented in Project Blue Book. No other government agency has provided anything at all about the incident.

We assembled a team to engage in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) effort which would not accept the usual “no records” responses that are sent to citizens making FOIA requests.This included Lee Helfrich, an attorney with the Washington law firm Lobel, Novins & Lamont; a private investigator, formerly with the Congressional General Accounting Office; and the independent archival research firm History Associates, Inc.

Working with the Washington public relations firm Podesta/Mattoon, we founded the Coalition for Freedom of Information (CFi), with the broader mission of achieving scientific, congressional and media credibility for the study of unexplained aerial phenomena while working for the release of official information and physical evidence.

This initiative quickly won the support of John Podesta, one of our country’s strongest advocates for openness in government, who now heads the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. As President Clinton's former chief of staff, Podesta was instrumental in the declassification of 800 million pages of documents during the Clinton administration.

"This initiative will help keep the pressure on," he explained at the time. “I think it’s time to open the books on questions that have remained in the dark,
on the question of government investigations of UFOs,” Podesta told the media at CFi’s first press conference launching the Kecksburg initiative inOctober, 2002. “It’s time to find out what the truth really is that’s out there. We ought to do it because it’s right; we ought to do it because the American people quite frankly can handle the truth; and we ought to do it because it’s the law.”WHY TARGET NASA?

When we initially made a request for documents to NASA, it denied us records – previously released to other investigators - that we knew were in the agency’s files. We asked NASA for a range of documents pertaining to the Kecksburg case, including the two boxes of “Fragology Files” from 1962 to 1967, described as “reports of space objects’ recovery, [and] analysis of fragments to determine national ownership and vehicle origin.

”Previously, researcher Stan Gordon had received a copy of the “records transmittal and receipt” from NASA, listing the files by name. In the margin on that list was a handwritten note that the files were still at the Federal Records Center in 1994. However, NASA informed Gordon in January, 1996 that these files “were destroyed prior to their request.”

In another letter two months later, NASA stated that the fragology files had been missing since 1987. I was sent the same letter by NASA later in 2003, saying that the fragology files had been reported missing in 1987 and haven’t been located since then.

On my copy of the inventory list, the handwritten notation referring to 1994 had been removed. Other files should have been sent, such as those on Richard Schulherr, the custodian of the fragology files who went out in the field and collected unknown space debris for NASA at the time. Even though we asked specifically for files on Schulherr and PROJECT MOONDUST for which he worked,

I was told there were no such records. But there were – I had NASA’s own records in my files! In addition, I had documentation and news reports showing that one of NASA’s jobs in the 1960’s was to retrieve and analyze space debris that fell from the sky, often reported by civilians in remote locations. The fact that we had proof of NASA’s denying us responsive documents made the agency a logical focus for our FOIA effort.

We had direct evidence that could be used to counter the agency’s no-records response. We also had witness reports that NASA officials were on the scene on the evening of the Kecksburg “crash” and during the days following. One witness lived so close to the site that the military used his family’s home as a place to gather and use the phone.

John Hayes, ten years old at the time, remembers one military official telling another in his home that NASA was on the way. Within an hour, several men arrived in white protective suits, and Hayes saw a NASA patch on one of the uniforms. A second witness who also lived near the site, an adult at the time, spoke to a man who identified himself as a NASAemployee on a number of occasions during the days following the incident. A third witness reported seeing men in white “moon” suits heading into the woods towards the object,
carrying a large box.

FILING THE LAWSUIT;
We appealed NASA’s no-records response in May, 2003, sending copies of our previously released documents demonstrating that the agency had withheld the exact material we had requested, and had not conducted a reasonable search under the requirements of the FOIA.


In June, NASA granted the appeal – which was an unusual victory in itself - and remanded the request back to its FOIA office for a new search, at which time it committed to undertake responsive searches on an “expedited basis.” Its letter stated that it would look for the missing fragology files, and that the new search would include six additional categories which we added in the appeal request.

For many months, the archival research firm History Associates, Inc. conducted extensive searches at federal records centers and other government and military repositories outside the Washington, DC area. History Associates was able to provide us with specific accessionnumbers for files in various repositories that we then presented to NASA to aid in its
search.

We waited, and waited, for the results of this “expedited” search, but nothing happened. On October 15th, 2003 we provided NASA with notice of our intent to commence litigation. On October 21, the Coalition for Freedom of Information (CFi) announced at a second Washington press conference that we had no choice but to take legal action to force the release of these records due us under the law.

As had occurred the year before, this event was widely covered by national and international media. John Podesta joined us at the National Press Club, telling the media that “I think its fair to say that we have truly entered the realm of science fiction in Washington, D.C. when it’s fair game to disclose the identity of a clandestine CIA agent [reference to Valerie Plame] but not the records of an unexplained crash in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania that occurred thirty-eight years ago.”

part two to follow..............

link; http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/mufon_4.pdf

THE STRUGGLE FOR GOVERNMENT OPENNESS;
Here is parts two of the lawsuit filled against NASA concerning the UFO crash of Kecksburg USA in 1965;
************************************************** ********

QUOTE;
"The day after the press conference, a NASA official contacted Helfrich to say the agency had completed the required search and had mailed 36 pages of “responsive” documents the previous afternoon – within hours of the press conference. “I apology [sic] for the delay with your client’s FOIA request” wrote the FOIA officer in his letter to Helfrich. This appeared to be simply a hasty attempt to cover up for a negligent failure to abide by the terms of the June 2003 remand and to avert legal action.

The press went wild with the announcement that the documents were on the way; the New York Post ran its own hyped-up story that “classified” documents were being released, which was picked up by Fox News, much to my consternation. I was doing multiple radio interviews on a daily basis, and there was quite a buzz in anticipation of these hot documents. Little did anyone know how thoroughly useless they would be.

The results were almost laughable: NASA simply returned to us some of the documents we had sent to the agency with our appeal; it sent back a short list of accession numbers we had provided to aid in their search; and lastly, NASA sent us over 30 pages of “reference information” – a list of publications available to the public through the national archives.

In addition, NASA refused to "confirm or deny" that it had records on Schulherr, despite the fact that his name was on the fragology file list and that we had documented that he worked at NASA in 1965 by sending NASA some of its own records.

The lawsuit, with me as the plaintiff (Kean v. NASA) , was filed in U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia on December 9th, 2003, the 38th anniversary of the Kecksburg incident.NASA had stonewalled for nearly a year, offering only empty promises, despite being handed sample documents by us that had come from its own files, and we had no choice but to take legal action.

In her historic complaint, Helfrich made the case that ”the defendant’s actions were in bad faith, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.” (for complete text of the lawsuit, go to http://www.freedomofinfo.org/freedom.html) She asked the court to demand that NASA supply the requested records and also award attorneys fees incurred during the proceedings.
************************************************** ********

NEW DEVELOPMENTS;

The lawsut sat in federal court for the next two years, while both sides filed brief. On the 40thanniversary of the Kecksburg incident, CFi announced that on that day, attorney Lee Helfrich had gone to court once again to demand that NASA comply with our longstanding request for information.“We are not giving up the fight,” she said.

“NASA has been stonewalling for too long, and in the process has given us a great record to show that it’s recalcitrant and acting in bad faith. What is NASA trying to hide?” Two women take on NASA – Leslie Kean and Lee Helfrich in front of a model of the Kecksburg object at the 40th anniversary celebration in Kecksburg;


We also announced three new breakthroughs in the case investigation which supported CFi’s position that something highly unusual came down iKecksburg:


1; Dr. Ray Hicks, a Forestry expert from West Virginia University, discovered through taking core samples that dramatic damage to specific trees at the crash location, seen by witnesses after the incident, occurred in the year 1965;

2; Archaeologist J. Steven Kite determined that the object did not fall rapidly from the sky and crash, or it would have left a crater, detectable today, and impacted the surrounding area; this supports witness reports of a slow, gradual descent;

·3; Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at the NASA Johnson Space Center, Nicholas L. Johnson, a recognized international authority, eliminated the possibility of the object’s being a Russian satellite or, according to him, any manmade object from 7 any country. He examined orbital coordinates and other internal records at his disposal, and discovered that the disabled Russian satellite Cosmos 96 passed over Pennsylvania in the very early morning of 9 December, 1965.

“It was coming from the south, instead of the north. It would have been impossible for debris from Cosmos 96 to have fallen in Pennsylvania during the afternoon or early evening (local time) on 9 December,” he wrote in an email.

In a series of interviews with me, Johnson said that anything either American or Russian reentering the atmosphere was always reported and recorded, and the chances of this having been some completely unreported event involving any country are “virtually nil.”

The Cosmos 96 capsule which was being passed around by NASA to various researchers could not have landed in Kecksburg, nor could any other manmade object from any country, according to NASA’s leading authority on orbital debris.This capsule was only 3 feet in diameter.

A few days after the anniversary, we were all stunned by a brand new statement by NASA, quoted in an Associated Press story headlined “NASA under pressure over UFO.” The second paragraph stated that NASA spokesperson David Steitz said “the ‘UFO’ [Kecksburg object] was a Russian satellite, but government records documenting it have been lost.”

We had a lawsuit in the courts because NASA had never given any answers to questions about the Keckbsurg object; and now, suddenly, NASA says it was a Russian satellite? Even when NASA’s own orbital debris expert Nicholas Johnson said it couldn’t possibly be any satellite from any country? Even when the Air Force says it was meteor? We couldn’t believe what we were reading. The article went on to say:

The object appeared to be a Russian satellite that re-entered the atmosphere and broke up. NASA experts studied fragments from the object, but records of what they found were lost in the 1990s, Steitz said. "As a rule, we don't track UFOs. What we could do, and what we apparently did as experts in spacecraft in the 1960s, was to take a look at whatever it was and give our expert opinion," he said.

"We did that. We boxed (the case) up, and that was the end of it. Unfortunately, the documents supporting those findings were misplaced."
There were so many questions raised by this rather confused proclamation, including whether the boxed fragments still existed; what the lost records were; or what Russian satellite he was referring to.

But the most fundamental one was this: Since he was saying that NASA had no records about this incident, how did Mr. Steitz know that the Kecksburg object was a satellite and that fragments were collected and analyzed? Who told him this?

I called Mr. Steitz and he offered to answer my questions by email.I wrote them out to him on December 16th, but no reply was forthcoming. Beginning Jan 6th, I sent him repeated follow-up emails, and he wrote me on January 17th, 2006 - a month after my initial email - that “I will try and get you answers by COB tomorrow.”

A week later, after not hearing a word, I tried him one more time, and then gave up.This remains an interesting story for another journalist to follow up on, who may have better luck than the plaintiff in a lawsuit against NASA!
************************************************** ********

THE SETTLEMENT: VICTORY IN FEDERAL COURT;

Two more years passed. During the four years that the lawsuit remained in court, NASA conducted two additional searches, and repeated a previous search, in attempts to convince the judge of its compliance, arguing that these searches had been exhaustive and the case should be dismissed. I received about 1000 pages of documents during this process. Although many of them were responsive to our request, they did not cover all search terms and none shed any light on the Kecksburg incident.

From the beginning, adequate records describing NASA’s search process were never provided. Many offices simply checked a box on a form saying “no records” and the supervisor expected us to accept this as documentation of an adequate search. Another problem was that different documents were released when two different people searched the same files, depending on who did the search.

The briefs and legal arguments became increasingly complicated, and eventually even the honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, the presiding judge who was an expert in dealing with FOIA cases, had trouble keeping track of NASA’s co-called searches and grew increasingly frustrated.Judge Sullivan never accepted NASA’s claims that it had completed the required search or
its pleadings for dismissal. Our side repeatedly made the strong case, thanks to Helfrich’s brilliance and persistence,that NASA continuously:

1) did not conduct a reasonable search for documents;

2) withheld responsive documents;

3) acted in bad faith.

(WHAT OTHER POSSIBLE UFO CASES HOLDING CRUCIAL EVIDENCE ECT ARE NASA HIDING);


I attended what turned out to be the final hearing before Judge Sullivan on March 20th,2007, and was a witness to his outspoken exasperation with NASA when he reprimanded its attorney Marina Braswell. It was very clear he sympathized with our side. At various points he wondered out loud if he would be forced to implement the last resort: a FOIA trial - something which has never occurred before - and he repeatedly asked both attorneys, what do you think I should do?

Clearly at his wits end, he declared at one point that “heads should role” at NASA, and he called NASA’s case a “ball of yarn,”stating that he sensed my frustration, because he felt it too.

Of course Ms. Braswell, the recently appointed counsel from the US District Attorney’s office, was not responsible for the past actions of NASA in this case, and the judge graciously told her “it’s not your fault” as he carried on with his reprove.

I relished every word, of course, appreciative of what represented a moment of vindication for our team after a five year struggle against the US Government. It was an historical moment - particularly remarkable because we were dealing with a case involving the crash of an
unidentified flying object.


No harsh words were delivered to Helfrich when she approached the bench after Braswell, and tried to help the judge find a solution to the case, at his request.Following are some excerpts from the court transcript of Judge Sullivan’s words delivered to NASA during that momentous hearing:


ÿ THE COURT [JUDGE SULLIVAN]:
QUOTE;
"How can the public have any confidence in what NASA has been doing? I rarely schedule hearings in these FOIA cases. Normally the issues are fairly straightforward".

Normally there's a need for some in camera submission poring over documents to determine whether the government has properly invoked an exemption. But here this is analogous to a ball of yarn. I mean, the government keeps searching.

None of the affidavits are -- most are lacking, totally lacking in detail. There were four searches over the last several years.So how does anyone have any confidence that the government has done what it's supposed to do?

ÿ THE COURT [JUDGE SULLIVAN]:
QUOTE;
"After every effort to search there have been more revelations, more documents, and yet still as late as two weeks ago there's still more documents. I mean, how in the world could this plaintiff, or the Court for that matter, have any confidence that NASA at this point has fully discharged NASA's responsibility?"

THE COURT [JUDGE SULLIVAN]: I'm not quite sure what the remedy is.

"I was thinking about this last night. What is the remedy? Is the remedy one of these "the truly rare case" where summary judgment is denied and there's a trial in a FOIA case? I doubt that. I doubt it. But it's very frustrating. I can sense the plaintiff's frustration because I'm frustrated. It's totally frustrating. You didn't cause the problem."

If you were heading the search, you would probably have had the documents five years ago, but you weren't.

MS. BRASWELL: Well, Your Honor, I understand the Court's frustration and
plaintiff's frustration.

THE COURT: And the public's frustration. I mean, the public has the right to know what its government is doing. And I feel very strongly about that. And unless documents are protected, then the government has a right to turn them over and not to dilly dally around for three or four years or so.

ÿ THE COURT [JUDGE SULLIVAN]: Maybe the appropriate remedy is to tell the government, look, you have 30 days to go back and review all these documents and review all these sites and this is it. And heads are going to roll if detailed affidavits aren't filed that tell a reader what the government has done in an effort

to persuade a judge that the government has discharged its responsibilities. Maybe that's the remedy in this case. To tell the government, look, you've got 30 days, do it over again. And if not, then the head of NASA is going to come in here and tell me the reasons why. And if you think I'm kidding, try me.

MS. BRASWELL: Your Honor, of course I don't.

THE COURT: Maybe that's the remedy.It seems heavy-handed, but I'll bring him in here, or her, or whoever it is. MS. BRASWELL: Your Honor, you certainly obviously have the authority to order the agency to search again what it searched.

THE COURT: But I don't throw that power. I don't throw it around willy-nilly. But this is outrageous what's going on here. And it's not your fault. But it's a sad commentary to say the least.

This is NASA. I never heard of a FOIA trial. But what do you do? And this is not one of these cases where -- well, I'm not sure.I'll hear from plaintiff. It's not one of these cases where the government is really accused of hiding the ball and hiding documents. But maybe it is.

I'm not sure. That the plaintiffs have said, look, Judge, these documents we found as a result of our own investigation and they never turned these over. I don't hear that loudly being complained of, though, that the government is hiding the ball. It's just that the government hasn't done what it's supposed to do. And I'm not quite sure just what the remedy is.

I don't think it's an award of money just because the government hasn't done what it's supposed to do. I'm not quite sure what it is. That's the reason why we're here today.

The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan;

Judge Emmet Sullivan was well known for chiding Dick Cheney during hearings for a lawsuit filed just two years before ours. After Cheney developed our nation’s energy policy with industry executives and lobbyists in secret, he was sued in federal court by Judicial Watch for refusing to turn over documents about his “Energy Task Force.” Judge Sullivan chastised Cheney for showing contempt for a Court Order by refusing to produce documents as directed by the court. In 2002, Sullivan stated that the Bush Administration’s “stunning” arguments “fly in the face of precedent” and are a “problematic and unprecedented assertion...of Executive Power.” We were extremely
fortunate to have this powerful man overseeing our case.


Seven days after the hearing, Judge Sullivan issued an order stating that “Defendant has failed to demonstrate that its searches for responsive documents were adequate,” and directed both parties to confer and jointly set forth agreed upon procedures for a proper search.Finally, after a frustrating series of negotiations between our side and NASA, lasting almost seven months, the settlement terms were approved and signed by Judge Sullivan on October 16, 2007;


The settlement requires NASA to comb through hundreds, if not thousands, of pages in specified locations; to declassify relevant documents and explain any redactions; and to pay $50,000 in legal fees to my attorney. Many categories and search terms are specified in the settlement under which NASA is to retrieve files, covering anything that could possibly pertain to the Kecksburg incident or other similar events between 1962 and 1967.

The court will keep an eye on the process through a joint status report, filed by Helfrich and Braswell, every 60 days informing the court of what has transpired. (The full 7-page settlement is posted on http://www.freedomofinfo.org/freedom.html)



CFi’s strategy, in presenting our releases to the media, was never to suggest that the Kecksburg object was “extraterrestrial,” nor did we accuse NASA of involvement in a government cover-up. Despite our use of the acronym “UFO” in referring to the case, we clarified our position with the following: “CFi does not make any assumptions about the origin of the Kecksburg object, but defines UFOs simply as airborne phenomena that have not been identified or explained.” Coverage was always serious and respectful.
************************************************** ********

THE BEGINNING OF THE END;
In December, 2007, I received 689 pages of detailed file inventory lists, called Standard Form 135s, on which NASA marked the files that it was planning to retrieve for me. There were many additional boxes of files I marked, which corresponded to the search terms spelled out in our agreement, and which NASA had not marked, knowing that I would be going over these lists with a fine tooth comb. This process was extremely tedious and
time-consuming, involving additional research and difficult decisions;


Following the timeline spelled out in the settlement, I sent a 5-page list itemizing each of my selected file groups for NASA.
Following is a sampling of a few of the more interesting files from this list which could shed light on one or more of the many facets of the Kecksburg event, and will definitely inform us about interesting aspects of NASA’s space program related to the retrieval of unidentified objects:


· Navy/NASA Recovery Operations/ Trajectory and Orbits Panel;

· Scientific Evaluation Advisory Team Corres. , Dec. 65 – Aug. 66;

· Daily Activity Summary / Jan. 65 – Dec. 1965;

· Aero Astro July – Dec 65, 1966;

· Russ. Veh & Launch, 1964 -1965;

· DOD-NASA Relationships;

· Folder #3 Oct. thru Dec. 1965;

· Planetology Subcommittee Corres. July 65 – Oct. 66;

· Meteorological Program 10/26/65;

· Space Vehicles (Jan.-Dec. 1965);

· EXTRA VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA) – General;

· Recovery Sites / NASA/DOD FY 65 Facilities;

· ORBITING ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORY / General 3 files;

· Aeronautics & Astronautics /Exit and Reentry of Earth’s Atmosphere /Project Fire;

· Aeronautics & Astronautics 1-3-1/Trajectories –Orbit-Courses /(Space Vehicles);

· Air Space Vehicles 1964-67;

· Files (8) (12)(14) (15) – Orbital Debris, fragments; frag;

When the settlement was announced, John Podesta, had this to say: "The time to pull the curtain back on this incident is long overdue. Leslie Kean's victory is a triumph for open government and the spirit of inquiry." Media coverage of the settlement was once again extensive, and the AP story about it even appeared on the AOL home page as the lead story for a day.
link; http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/mufon_4.pdf
************************************************** ********

So in the end we see that judging by the conclusions reached and the way NASA had deliberately stonewalled any attempts at releasing these documents, not to mentioned the judges pure frustration,anger and suspecting NASA was not playing ball , we can come to this conclusion and cold reality that NASA do lie and they do cover up UFO related material;

THE WASHINGTON UFO PRESS CONFERENCE; MILITARY WITNESSES AND CREDIBLE STATEMENTS FROM CREDIBLE SOURCES;
November 12, 2007;


Below is the text relating Leslie Keens views and conclusions on the "THE WASHINGTON UFO PRESS CONFERENCE of 2007", the personnel involved and the testimony from credible military sources and witnesses;

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
On May 1, 2008, I received word from the FOIA officer at NASA that she had requested four new searches of the missing fragology files, without any success. On June 6th, I learned that NASA had searched 291 boxes so far, and still had a few more to go. As of this writing, I haven’t received any of the documents, but expect them within two weeks.

Even without the fragology files, there will likely be thousands of pages of documents retrieved.Results will be presented at the MUFON conference in July, 2008.
************************************************** *******
II. THE WASHINGTON PRESS CONFERENCE;
November 12, 2007;

About a month after the lawsuit was settled, another unprecedented, high-profile event took place in Washington DC, also calling for the release of information on unidentified flying objects by the US Government.

A distinguished panel of high-ranking government, aviation, and military officials from seven countries came forward at the National press Club to discuss close encounters and official investigations involving UFOs. Representatives from France, England, Belgium, Chile, Peru, Iran and the US called for the US Government to join in an international dialogged and re-open its investigation – which the Air Force shut down over 30 years ago;


– in cooperation with other governments already investigating the phenomenon. While on active duty, each of the panelists had either witnessed a UFO incident or had conducted an official investigation into UFO cases relevant to aviation safety and national security.

Organized by filmmaker James Fox and myself during the prior four months, the panel was moderated by former Arizona Governor Fife Symington.

The date was chosen partly to commemorate the first anniversary of the O’Hare Airport incident, referenced numerous times by our panelists. As reported by the Chicago Tribune, pilots, mechanics and managers from United Airlines witnessed a metallic disc hovering over their terminal, which then shot straight up leaving a “cookie cutter” hole through the cloud bank.

Despite the clear aviation safety issues involved, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) never investigated the incident and dismissed it as weather.

This event provided a glaring example of US Government denial and avoidance of responsibility, in stark contrast to the approach of the other countries and airlines represented by the panel.


France has had a government agency investigating UFO cases since the 1970’s, as part of it’s National Space Agency (the equivalent of our NASA) and it released it’s files last year.

The British MOD has investigated cases officially and is releasing all it’s files to the public. Chile has an official government agency investigating UFO incidents, particularly when they affect aviation safety, set up under our equivalent of the FAA, and the Peruvian Air Force set up its own agency to investigate UFO cases.

The Belgium Air Force was actively involved in investigating the 1989-90 UFO wave and made its results public. The officials, current and retired, representing these agencies from these countries attended the press conference, clearly contrasting the US position on UFO investigations with their own countries, and providing an example to our government of how these operations are conducted, and why, in other countries around the world.

The speakers included some of the most authoritative people in the world on UFO encounters, but this was the first time they had ever been brought together in one location. Most had not met the majority of their colleagues present. Especially important was the connection between Iranian General Jafari and Commandante Santa Maria of Peru.

Their encounters, both documented in U.S. Government records after the close of Project Blue Book, are among the most astonishing, dramatic and well-documented military cases ever, involving frightening cat-and-dog chases between Air Force jets, piloted by these two in 1976 and 1980, and attempts to shoot down the intruding UFOs, viewed at very close range.

Jafari and Santa Maria met while sitting down for dinner with a few of us shortly after arriving from different parts of the globe, and soon began describing their encounters to each other. Neither knew much about the others very similar experience, and the conversation was unplanned and spontaneous.

A Spanish-speaking gentleman sitting at a nearby table offered to be a translator for Santa Maria, and later each made a drawing of
his UFO on the sugar packs served with our coffee. Jafari spoke in English, and in his open and animated style, he described the brilliant object coming after him as he prepared to return to the base. Someone at our table asked him how he felt. “At that moment,” he replied, “I doubled my scare.”


That anyone could listen to these extraordinary, yet humble men and not accept their accounts – knowing about the numerous other military witnesses, radar data, and US Government documents which prove these occurrences beyond a shadow of a doubt - was inconceivable at that moment. The four days that our panel spent in Washington provided a unique opportunity for discussions such as this, and for the establishing of a group that will hopefully continue to meet and pool resources in the future, while continuing to
request participation from the U.S. Government. The panel included:

Fife Symington III, Former Arizona Governor, Moderator ;

Ray Bowyer, Captain, Aurigny Air Services, Channel Islands;

General Wilfried De Brouwer, former Deputy Chief of Staff, Belgian Air Force (Ret.);

John Callahan, Chief of Accidents and Investigations for the FAA, 1980’s (Ret.);

Dr. Anthony Choy, founder, 2001, OIFAA, Peruvian Air Force;

Jean-Claude Duboc, Captain, Air France (Ret.);

Rodrigo Bravo Garrido, Captain and Pilot for the Aviation Army of Chile;

Charles I. Halt, Col. USAF (Ret.), Former Director, Inspections Directorate, DOD I.G.

General Parviz Jafari, Iranian Air Force (Ret.);

Jim Penniston, TSgt USAF (Ret.);

Dr. Claude Poher, Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, founder, French GEPAN ;

Nick Pope, Ministry of Defence, UK, 1985-2006;

Dr. Jean-Claude Ribes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France, 1963-98 ;

Comandante Oscar Santa Maria, Commander, Peruvian Air Force (Ret).
************************************************** *******
We now come to the most astounding array,(in my opinion that is),of credible military sources that have commented on the reality of a real possible ET connection to SOME UFOs that have entered or left their respective countries restricted air space;
************************************************** ********

The following excerpts are from some of the presentations, one from each country:


“Hundreds of people saw a majestic triangular craft with a span of approximately 120 feet, powerful beaming spot lights, moving very slowly without making any significant noise but, in several cases, accelerating to very high speeds…I was confronted with numerous questions about the origin and nature of these craft. In the first instance, and in consultation with other NATO partners, I could confirm that no flights of stealth aircraft or any other experimental aircraft took place in the airspace of Belgium.”

-General Wilfried De Brouwer, Belgian Air Force;
************************************************** *******
“GEIPAN’s Steering Committee plays an important role, with representatives from the Army, Police, Civil Aviation, Meteorology and the scientific community. This Committee insures the best conditions for gathering reports by instructing the agencies involved in investigations, and by protecting any witnesses who request anonymity for fear of ridicule.”

-Dr. Jean-Claude Ribes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France;
************************************************** ********

“Both objects were of a flattened disk shape with a dark area to the right side. They were brilliant yellow with light emanating from them. I estimated them to be up to a mile across… I would have been shocked if I was told that the Civil Aviation Authority would obstruct an investigation, or if the CAA told me that what I had seen was something entirely different. But it seems that pilots in America are used to this kind of thing, as far as I can tell.”

-Captain Ray Bowyer, Aurigny Air Services, UK;
************************************************** ********

“I approached the object, which was flashing with intense red, green, orange and blue light so bright that I was not able to see its body. The sequence of flashes was extremely fast, like a strobe light. We locked on it with radar; it was at 30° left, at a range of 25 miles.

"The size on the radar scope was comparable to that of a 707 tanker. Four other objects with different shapes separated from the main one, at different times during this close encounter. Whenever they were close to me, my weapons were jammed and my radio communications were garbled.”

-General Parviz Jafari, Iranian Air Force;
************************************************** ********

“We now make the call to all the countries that are presently working on this issue in a serious and factual way, to unite their efforts. We would like this to include the United States of America. This cooperative effort would help all of us counteract the potentially unsafe effects of UFOs on air operations around the world.”;

-Rodrigo Bravo Garrido, Captain and Pilot for the Aviation Army of Chile;
************************************************** ******** “At this point, I came to within about 300 feet of the UFO. It was about 30 feet in diameter. It was an enamelled, cream-colored dome, with a wide, circular, metallic base. It had no engines, no exhausts, no windows, no wings or antennae. It lacked all the typical aircraft components, with no visible propulsion system. It was at that moment that I realized this was not a spying device, but that it was a UFO, something totally unknown.

I was almost out of fuel, so I couldn’t attack or maneuver my plane, or make a high speed escape. I was afraid. I thought I might be finished.”

-Comandante Oscar Santa Maria, Commander, Peruvian Air Force;
************************************************** ********
“I now know that I am not alone in witnessing something extraordinary. There are many high ranking military, aviation and government officials who share my concerns; some of them have joined me here today… We want the US government to stop putting out stories that perpetuate the myth that ALL UFOs can be explained away in down-to earth, conventional terms.

"Instead,our country needs to re-open its official investigation that it shut down in 1969.The US government can no longer shun an international
dialogue about this, and we invite the government to work in cooperation with the countries represented at this table.”

-Fife Symington III, Former Arizona Governor, USA;
************************************************** ********

THE INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION: A CALL-TO-ACTION;

The Coalition for Freedom of Information released an “International Declaration to the United States Government” on that day, signed by most of the panelists and others from additional countries, including five Generals. The document requests that the U.S.

Government join the international community in a cooperative venture to address the UFO problem by opening a new official investigation. It reads as follows:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
International Declaration to the United States Government;

Facilitated by the Coalition for Freedom of Information;
November 12, 2007;

Preamble:
We, the signatories below, with backgrounds and careers in government, aviation, or the military, hereby present this declaration as a result of our common experience and purpose. While on active duty, each of us has either been a witness to an incident involving an unidentified flying object or has conducted an official investigation into UFO cases relevant to aviation safety, national security, or for the benefit of science.

We use the term “unidentified flying objects” (UFOs) simply to mean any airborne phenomena that cannot be identified or explained, a definition first used by the U.S. Air Force in the 1950’s.We make no claim as to the nature or origin of these objects.

While most UFO sightings can be explained as misidentifications of known objects or natural phenomena, those governments that have studied them, including some with which these signatories have been on staff, have consistently found that a small percentage of sightings defy conventional explanation. Reports of these incidents often involve credible witnesses such as police officers, military personnel, pilots and air traffic controllers, and include solid, official documentation.

Therefore:
We believe that for reasons of both national security and flight safety, every country should make an effort to identify any object in its airspace. Especially after the attacks of 9/11 it is no longer satisfactory to ignore radar returns for which no transponder data are available and/or which
cannot be associated with performances of existing aircraft and helicopters. While civil aviation radars and air traffic controllers mainly rely on secondary radar, military air defense radars should be configured such as to detect and track any object in the air, even when static or operating at very slow or very high speeds.

In this regard, we refer to the incident that occurred at O’Hare International Airport in November, 2006 when a metallic disc was observed hovering over the United Airlines terminal for several minutes. Since it was not detected on radar, the Federal Aviation Administration declined to investigate.

The FAA also did not accept the many corroborating reports from United Airlines pilots and other personnel at face value, dismissing the sighting as “weather.” We suggest that prejudice against the term 'UFO' and against reports of unknowns could lead officials to dismiss sightings that involve unconventional aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles engaged in espionage or terrorist activity, especially when radar returns are not available.

However, important sightings have also been ignored when radar is not a factor. Even though hundreds of citizens witnessed a massive triangular object traveling over Arizona in 1997, the U.S. government ignored inquiries from state officials about the incident, and never offered the public
any explanation about this invasion of US airspace by a strange, unknown flying machine. We believe this kind of disengagement represents both a missed opportunity and a potential risk.

We maintain that a restive, concerned public has the right to be informed of the facts about UFO incidents that are well-documented and involve multiple witnesses. In addition, science lacks potentially important knowledge that may be gained by the study of these events involving objects
demonstrating speeds, maneuvers or other characteristics that challenge our current scientific paradigm.

Call-to-Action:
We, the undersigned, ask the United States to join in cooperation with those governments which, recognizing the reality of unidentified flying objects and related aviation safety concerns, have already set up their own investigative agencies.

Following in the footsteps of its now defunct Project Blue Book, we propose that the United States Air Force reopen its research effort, or that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration initiate such a research effort, to address the international concerns stated herein, provide needed reassurance and increase scientific understanding.


We call on the United States of America to engage with us and with currently active officials around the world to address this problem in an ongoing dialogue, beginning with the gathering of some of the signatories below in Washington, DC on this 12thof November, 2007.

Signed by the below;


Vasily Alexeyev - Major General, Russian Air Force, Space Communications Center in Russia;

Ricardo Bermudez S. - General, Brigada Aérea ( Ret.); Former President of the CEFAA, Chile;

Ray Bowyer - Captain, Aurigny Air Services, Channel Islands, UK;

Wilfried De Brouwer - Major General, (Ret.), Belgian Air Force;

John Callahan - Division Chief of Accidents, Evaluations and Investigations, FAA (Ret.);

Don C. Donderi, Ph.D. - McGill University; Researcher, Dept. of National Defence, Canada;

Julio Cesar Chamorro Flores - Comandante Peruvian Air Force (Ret.); Founder of OIFAA, 2001;

Rodrigo Bravo Garrido - Officer Chilean Army, Military Pilot, Associate with CEFAA;


Charles I. Halt - Col. USAF (Ret.), Former Director, Inspections Directorate, DOD I.G.;

Parviz Jafari – General, Iranian Air Force (Ret);

Denis Letty - Major General, French Air Force (Ret.); Chairman of COMETA;

Oscar Santa Maria - Commander and Fighter Pilot of the Peruvian Air Force (Ret).

Anthony Choy Montes - Lawyer, researcher with the OIFAA, Peruvian Air;

Force, 2001-2003 ;

James Penniston – TSgt, US Air Force (Ret.)

Nick Pope - Ministry of Defence, UK, 1985-2006;

Jean-Claude Ribes - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France, 1963-1998;

Yves Sillard - Chair of the Steering Committee, GEIPAN in France;

Fife Symington III - Governor of Arizona, 1991-1997;
************************************************** ********
No we cover the main stream medias coverage,its NATURE of its reporting and its own PERCEPTIONS of this historic conference it was giving to the people of this world;
************************************************** ********

MEDIA COVERAGE;

"Reuters released the first news story about the press conference that evening, with the headline “U.S. urged to reopen UFO investigations” and the media reports that followed stressed this theme as well. The Washington Times piece the next day, headlined “Panel: Reopen study of UFOs,” began this way: “An international panel of scientists, retired military personnel and former high-ranking officials called on the U.S. government yesterday to reopen investigations into UFO phenomena.” And ABC News posted the
headline: “Former pilots and officials call for a new U.S. UFO probe.”


Print coverage was extensive throughout all the major media in the US, much of it on websites if not on TV or in newspapers, and, once again, the story was the leading news on AOL’s homepage. It was picked up in 16 other countries, including India, South Africa, and Kuwait, mostly through the distribution of the Reuters or AFP wire story in different
languages. However, along with the U.S., Canada and Australia provided extensive additional coverage through their own reporters.

Our panelists did not provide the press with material that could be ridiculed, staying only with verifiable facts. Consistent with our successful approach to the Kecksburg case, we avoided making any reference to extraterrestrial spacecraft, in order not to distance policy makers and the scientific community. Throughout the press conference, we clearly defined
the acronym ‘UFO’ as simply meaning something unexplained of unknown origin.

Our strategy was not to accuse our government officials of a cover-up, or to demand “disclosure,” but to point out aviation safety and national security concerns at high levels, and invite our government to join in an international effort. We purposely kept the event under wraps until about a week before, to avoid any media misrepresentation that could
taint the event before it happened.

A Los Angeles Times editor spent a long time on the phone with me in preparing a lengthy piece for the editorial page, which appeared on Dec. 1. Unfortunately, Dennis Kucinich was the focus of ridicule in the editorial, and although it was written in a silly tongue-andcheek style, it did cover the O’Hare incident, press conference, the NASA lawsuit, CFi and John Podesta.

Three days before the event, CNN’s Larry King Live produced a show promoting the press conference and James Fox’s new film “Beyond the Blue,” which led to a media frenzy in the days approaching the event. CNN featured the press conference on that day’s evening news and on “Anderson Cooper 360,” reported by Gary Tuchman;


The coverage was greatly appreciated, and had many positive elements, but CNN still has a problem taking this subject seriously. As the news anchors made fun of UFOs, Tuchman did his best to counter the barbs, being the only one to have actually heard the speakers. “When you think of people saying ‘Oh hey, I saw a UFO,’ you kinda think of freaks; I’m not gonna lie to you,” CNN host Nicole Lapin opined to Tuchman during the broadcast.



The below text written by Researcher and UFO historian Richard Hall, editor of NICAP is bang on the money and deals with truths and realities that will not go away,media or no media, cover up or no cover up, ridiculing of witnesses or no ridiculing of witnesses;

************************************************** ********
Researcher and UFO historian Richard Hall, editor of NICAP’s landmark 1964 compendium “The UFO Evidence,” wrote a commentary for the CFi website, part of which deals with this coverage:

Serious testimony from highly credible witnesses whose reports are
confirmed by additional expert witnesses, radar, film, physical trace evidence, and official documentation establishes the bedrock basis for taking UFOs seriously and provides the fundamental reason why a large-scale international investigation is needed.The focus of inquiry should be on what the evidence shows, not on entirely speculative matters or political issues such as “why would the government cover it up?” or “why would extraterrestrial beings want to visit earth?”

Sadly, the news media gets fixated on unanswerable questions such as these
rather than simply looking at the documented facts of the phenomenon, as any journalist should. Often the TV pundits use such speculative puzzles to keep the whole business at arms length.

CNN’s November 12thcoverage of the press conference included Gary Tuchman telling Wolf Blitzer that “One thing we always tell the enthusiasts: If one of these craft came down on earth and did an interview with us, the debate would be over. But that hasn’t happened yet.”This is a version of the “Why don’t they land on the white house lawn?” syndrome.

The question should be “What?” not “Why?”

And the only way to explore the “what,” is to carefully examine the data at
hand.The media, which should be reporting the straightforward facts to the public, seems to have a hard time doing the job. CNN continuously infused its coverage with the terms “enthusiasts” and “believers” to describe the members of the distinguished panel, as if the facts the panelists were presenting -- real events that actually did occur -- are somehow due to either enjoyment or some kind of religion.


We have to ask “what” while being willing to drop the filters and
preconceived prejudice that contaminate a clear presentation of the subject.
As illustrated by these witnesses and the thousands more like them, totally
unexplained craft-like objects that display extraordinary performance have been observed repeatedly in our airspace and tracked on radar for decades. What are they?

Transcripts of all the press conference presentations and information about the panelists are posted at www.freedomofinfo.org. A DVD of the complete event, including much of
the media Q & A, is available at www.outofthebluethemovie.com.

link source;http://www.freedomofinfo.org/freedom.html

1975 - 1979 UFO reports;Part one;
Below is a compendium of UFO reports from the 1970s, some strange ,some that test the boundaries of perceptible beliefs that challenge the accepted norms;
************************************************** ********

This is the second part of a compendium of selected reports from the 1970s that were submitted to MUFON.

The links to the original reports on the MUFON site appear as underlined headings. I have not altered the submitters' reports except to break them down into paragraphs and insert spaces in some cases to facilitate easier reading. Full names of witnesses have been removed.

I hope that formatting these historical reports in this way will assist interested readers in appreciating this excellent resource that MUFON offers the public.

"BL" - accounts mentioning blue lights, often found in earlier reports.
"C" - accounts mentioning any of the following - entities, mysterious people, contact, no recall, lost time.
"HS" - accounts that have some degree of high strangeness.
"LE" - accounts mentioning law enforcement personnel.
"M" - accounts where military personnel or military facilities are mentioned.


************************************************** ********

CALIFORNIA - 1975 (M);
A giant cigar shaped object came down from the sky and the 5 smaller objects flew into it

I was 19 years old at the time, in the Marine Corps and worked on A-4 Skyhawk aircraft at the Alameda Naval Air Station. I was driving to Chino from Oakland on a Saturday afternoon in the summer of 1975. I had my windows rolled down, no ac and no radio. The sky was clear, no clouds at all and the temperature wasin the high 70s to low 80s. I was in the area of Pyramid Lake in the Grape Vine area on I-5 going south when these 5 bright red teardrop shaped objects caught my attention off to the west, moving east. The big end of the teardrop was the front with the point being the tail.

At first I thought they were helicopters or maybe a group of stunt aircraft. But, there were no rotor blades and no wings. They werent very high above the ground 1,000 to 1,500 feet is what Id guess. There was no deviation from their flight path and the distance between the objects never changed. They were flying in a V formation, and flying pretty slow maybe 100 mph or so. I was thinking that I should stop and watch, but I didnt. I guess I just wanted to get to my folks house. There were lots of other cars on the highway and nobody was stopping. I just kept driving and watching.

The next day I talked to my parents neighbor who had been in the San Bernardino Mts camping and when I told her what I had seen the day before, her eyes got big and she told me that she had seen the same objects, but she also saw something else a giant cigar shaped object came down from the sky and the 5 smaller objects flew into it and the cigar shaped object was gone just like that very quick. Ive never reported this and have only told a few friends about it.

************************************************** ********

CALIFORNIA - 1975 (C);
Over the cow was a disk hovering and then we saw 2 figures

i was hiking with freind in mts. at a retreat caled finegold, 20 miles west of fresno. we herd a strange noise and climbed up a ridge to see what it was and thats when we saw the cow standing there he could not move but was yelling. over the cow was a disk hovering. and then we saw 2 figures 1 by cow was taller and another 30 ft. away who was shorter. then we noticed we could not move and jason was scared as hell but i was ok. we could talk and that was it,next thing i remember we were running down a road back to camp.

we told people they thought us crazy since then ive saw them twice more, in santa barbara cal. and they were always freindly and said when the time is right all will know.

im not telling alot as i cant type worth a shit but im not 1 of those people fixated by them or need to get it out for my wellbeing, i simply remember more and have a message from them which all will know when time is right. jim and suzy ran the camp which is a new detail, i just want to relive it to bring out more info.

************************************************** ********

CALIFORNIA - 1975 (HS);
Several other craft that were all 'instantly' exchanging hovering type positions

I was on my way to Land Survey class after work. Noticed triangular shaped craft hovering above a nearby street intersection. When it changed position, instantly above another intersection, I observed that there were several other craft that were all 'instatly' exchanging hovering type positions above various street intersections. I, of course questioned what I had observed, until I noticed that there were several other people in vehicles, that had pulled off onto the shoulder of the freeway to observe the craft, just as I had done.


Sketch of locations of triangular craft;
************************************************** ********
CALIFORNIA - 1975 (C);
I had an overwhelming feeling that I was being watched

1975 800 p.m. La Habra, california. I was 13 years old and my father had converted our detatched garage into a bedroom. the garage was located appx. 20 yards from the house in our backyard. I was walking from the house to the garage with my head down just looking at the ground. about half way between thetwo structures I stopped dead in my tracks.

I had an overwhelming feeling that I was being watched. Never before or since this incident have I ever had such a strong feeling of dread. I lifted my head and looked out the corner of my eyes not wanting to turn my head and look directly toward who or what was watching me. I was frozen with fear. I saw a large house size orange sphere hovering over a large tree in my neighbors backyard. the instant I looked up at it, theobject emmitted a large plume of steam.

The object was totaly silent and began to ascend in a north east direction. Even at this young age of 13 I felt immediatly that this craft was under the control of intelligent beings. because of the strong feeling that I was being watched and also the feeling that I had scared them away. Just as the object began to rise I ran as fast as I could from my backyard, through the house, yelling to my family to come outside.

I ran out the front door and onto the lawn. This dash through the house could not have taken more than six seconds. but in that short time the object had risen to several thousand feet high. and now appeared to be more oval on shape and had what appeared to be windows across the middle of the object.

the object continued to rise as several members of my family and some neighbors watched. my brother and I looked at the object through a pair of binoculars and could see the windows in more detail. they seemed to be black indentations in the body of the object that ran from end to end and parallel to the ground. we observed the object for appx. 6-8 minutes until it seemed to enter the upper atmosphere if not outer space. It finally just became to faint to see even with the binoculars.

Today I am 40 years old, and can still recall the overwhelming feelings of fear, dread and excitement of that night. This incident did not seem to effect the other wittnesses as severely as it has me. they did not have the close one on one encounter that I had. If the object was a balloon as some have suggested to me. then why did I have such a strong feeling of being watched I dont know what this was but I will never forget that night.

************************************************** ********

CONNECTICUT - 1975 (HS)
It was still glowing and I could see some of the insides

This sighting took place in Madison, Connecticut. I was at a beach in Madison in the late evening. I was sitting on the beach with a friend about twenty feet from the water. While we were talking I noticed what I thought was a shooting star several miles east of us and traveling from south to north. At that time I thought it was quite odd to see a shooting star as we were under fully overcast skies. I didn't give it any more thought since I was more interested in the girl I was with.

Several minutes later I noticed the tops of distant trees being luminated much like a cars headlights light up trees on a distant mountain. Again I thought it was odd as there are no trees that tall in the direction I was looking. This still wasn't enough to distract me from the girl. Though I did mention both occurances to her.

Several minutes later as we talked we both noticed it getting lighter where we were sitting. We looked around and didn't see anything unusual until we looked up. Sitting at about 45 degrees above us and about 100 feet away was a glowing sphere about 3 feet in diameter. It was completely silent. It was slowly rotating and had a texture that looked very much like liquid crystal, the type used in LCD displays.

For several minutes it didn't move at all. Then it slowly started to follow the edge of the water coming toward us for several more minutes. It then instantly shot north just over the trees. It didn't appear to accelerate, it seemed to instantly be going at whatever speed it went leaving nothing more than a slight woosh sound. It was out of sight in less than one second.

We sat back down and needless to say THAT was the subject of conversation for the next 20 minutes. We then noticed the same light around us and when we looked up, it was back in almost the same position. Again it sat there for a minute and again started to follow the edge of the water. This time however, shortly after starting to move it very rapidly carved out a star shape, as you would draw a star on paper, but each leg was about 40 feet. On the last leg of the star it shot down into the water and crashed about 100 feet from where we were standing and only about 20 feet out in the water. The star pattern and the crash all happend in well under a second.

It went out of site for about 30 seconds under water. I ran to the edge of the water adjacent to the object. It then popped back up and was floating on the surface. It was broken with about an 18 inch hole that was pointing toward me. It was still glowing and I could see some of the insides. It was a hollow sphere with about a 1/2 inch wall thickness. There was a bundle of what appeared to be fiber optic type cable hanging over the edge of the hole that were also glowing. That was everything I could see.

I started to run into the water to grab it but about three steps into it I stopped, thinking that might not be a smart thing to do since I don't know what it is, and it's broken. The thought ran through my head "am I willing to die to have this thing?" The answer was no. I stood there for about 10 more minutes. It slowly started to dim and it finally sank right there.

Prior to this incident I never really gave UFO's much thought beyond entertainment value. But that was a convincer for me as it was for my friend. Thanks for letting me share my experience.
Andy

************************************************** ********

FLORIDA - 1975 (M)
It was followed by 2 military fighter jets...maybe 50 ft. behind

I was riding my bike down a street heading west in the town of gulfport fla.. The weather was clear and there was a large portion of open sky in front of me ,and a row of trees on my left. I saw a large cigar shaped object possibly 2 1/2 times the length of a fighter jet and maybe 20 ft tall fly over from north to south at about 200/300 miles an hour it was gray/silver in color and i dont know if it had any markings on it . It was followed by 2 military fighter jets that from what i remember were right behind it.Maybe 50 ft.behind .I only saw this for a couple of seconds as they passed maybe an eighth of a mile in front of me,and almost directly overhead.The only sound i remember is the sound of the jet engines.This all happened so quickly i just brushed it off as military vehicles,maybe experimental.MCDill air force base is not far from where i lived.

************************************************** ********

FLORIDA - 1975 (C/BL)
After a couple of minutes an "astronaut" was let down

My husband, Sam and my 5 yr. old daughter were returning to Miami after a visit to Sam's daughter in West Palm Beach. We got off the turnpike and headed toward hwy.441. Directly in front of the car we saw a bright light hovering about 40 feet above the road. We turned left onto 441 and the light followed our car for five minutes or so before it reached a clearing. The object then shifted into a disk shape. The lights around the center were alternating blue and white and seemed to going counter-clockwise. We pulled over and observed the craft for at least fifteen minutes. It let down a silvery, luminous rope or beam of light.

After a couple of minutes an "astronaut" was let down. All we were able to see of this creature was that it was very, very tall and had on a suit of some sort. The craft which made no noise slowly headed toward our car and passed over it at a distance above us of about 10 feet. I pulled myself halfway out of the window to get a better look at the underbelly which resembled the bottom of a turtle.

When the ufo crossed the street it changed into a ball of light once again then changed into a starlike object, zigzagged accross the road and then went straight up at an astronomical rate of speed and disappeared. I know this sounds fantastic, but my ex-husband and I were not drinking and are of sound mind. We were never able to forget or stop talking about this extraordinary event, From now on we will never be able to look at the stars in the same way. The heavens are filled with a distant mystery. We now know that UFOs, though not identified, are very real.

************************************************** ********

FLORIDA - 1975 (BL)
A bright blue light caught my eye moving left to right

Event took place in my hometown of Callahan Florida, where I have lived since I was about 12 yrs. old. The dates given above are aproximate, but I was around 15 yrs. old at the time of the sighting. We lived on 20 acres of mostly wooded land with neighbors on either side about eighty to one hundred yards away. Our house was about thirty yards off the small rural road with the front of the house facing the road. On the other side of the road at the time was just wooded land. ( Callahan is a small town with the population at the time of probably a thousand or less ). I'm pretty sure it was the mid 1970's as I was still in Jr. Hihg school.

I was sitting on the couch which was against the wall facing the front of the house watching television which was against the oposite wall with a window about three feet to the right of the T.V., when a bright blue light caught my eye moving left to right outside the window. It took a couple of seconds for me to realise this was not an airplane as I always see the blinking lights of planes comming and going from the jacksonville international airport which was only about twenty miles away.

I got up to go outside and get a better look from the front porch and it was vanishing behind the treeline on the other side of the road. It was sort of blimp shaped, with no blinking lights, just a bright glowing blue that seemed to move about the same speed as a cruising airplane. Please get back with me soon and let me know if anyone else saw something strange in Callahan or Jacksonville Florida in the mid 70's. This object or phenomenon looked so different from anything i've ever seen, it has stayed with me all these years.

************************************************** ********

INDIANA - 1975 (M)
Then it moved, it slowly rotated to a vertical position

I was sitting in the passenger side of a car in the parking lot of a very large tool and die company, it was the weekend, my uncle Rubin and I went there to use the WATTS line to call some friends, I was done and was just waiting for him to come out. It was early afternoon, full sunshine, not a cloud in the sky.

I heard a jet flying low overhead so I looked out the window.

I saw a very large cigar shaped object directly behind a B-52, it couldn't have been more than a 100 feet behind the aircraft. It was at least 4 time as long as the B-52, at first I thought it was some kind of baloon that the B-52 was dragging, I was trying to picture in my mind how it got off the ground pulling such a large object.

It had no markings of any kind, was a perfect cigar shape, and looked like brushed aluminum. I watched it follow the B-52 for at least 1 minute, and then it just stopped. At this point I knew something was not right, it didn't drift or pitch, it just stopped, directly overhead, about 2000 feet off the ground. The B-52 continued on it's course. After about 5 minutes the B-52 was completely out of site and this thing was still directly overhead, perfectly still and silent.

Then it moved, it slowly rotated to a vertical position, and sat there like that for about 30 seconds. Then it very slowly and somehow gracefully started to "fall" upwards. At this point I decided it was definitly a UFO. After I watched it slowly and smoothly accelerate upwards for about 2 or 3 seconds, suddenly a very loud noise appeared, very loud, sounded just like a rocket taking off at Satellite Beach in Flordia, which I had seen before. It sounded exactly like that, shook the ground very hard.

Very loud but nothing was coming out of it, it just kept rising very smoothly, straight up, until it could be seen no more. Even after I could not see it, the rumbling continued, like distant thunder. It got the very distinct impression that it didn't have to make that sound, it looked like it was trying to get everyones attention, first following the B-52, then stopping, then rotating, then accelerating upwards in broad daylight, and making such a loud noise.

After the object rotated, I made certain I didn't blink my eyes, because I didn't want to miss anything. After it was gone, I was very excited, it was my first "UFO", and I thought, "Holy shit! what a good first sighting!" My uncle came out and asked my what that noise was, I told him and he about shit, he told me he kept a camera in the glove box and I should have taken some pictures. Everyone that was outside in Richmond Indiana that day saw it. The next day the local paper said that over 19,000 people called the sighting into the Air Force, and the Air Force said they didn't see or hear anything.

It went straight up in the clear blue sky until it could be seen no more.

************************************************** ********

MASSACHUSETTS - 1975
(Report included due to incident involving seizure of video - ed.)

They took out the beta tape and kept it

In or around the fall of 1975 in front of the Boston Science Museum, Natalie Jacobson and her camera man were there filming a huge silver disc that had come up out of the Boston Harbor behind the Museum. I was there with three other friends and there were nearly 200 other people gathered around as well, not to mention all of the emergency vehicles.

Why am I having such a hard time finding anything a,t all about the sighting. The vessel hovered above the electrical poles for close to fifteen minutes or even better. It took off in a super speed "z" type pattern when it left, going in the direction of Reading. Men in suits approached Natalie and her camera man who were not more than ten feet from my right shoulder, they took out the beta tape and kept it.

I have been trying to contact Natalie in the hopes that she has something to say about the incident. ; I contacted OmonoSuns years ago, and they said the incident did happen, but that was all they had to say. Someone please contact me I would like to know if there is anyone else will to chat about the incident. [email protected]
(It was later determined that this case occurred in the spring of 1975 ad not the fall as noted here)

************************************************** ********

MICHIGAN - 1975 (M)
(Please note the reference to the signalling between
witness and craft i.e. "CE-5" as per CSETI - ed.)

The craft turned a cowling light that shone to the ground, on then off

I recieved a call to go to Alert Status. I was active Air Force as a Weapons Tech. I was trained in Nuclear and Stategic Muntions and delivery. I was trained in TAC but was Transfered to SAC after my return from SEA(South East Asia). I was called to Alert Status, which means I must leave my domicile (in Brilmey) and proceed to my duty station at Kinchloe AFB. I took the back roads to achieve better time. This short cut took me through farmland, in the middle of no subdivisions or close homes.

As I proceeded down this road I came across a saucer shaped object in the farm field. It hovered below tree top level. 30 feet or so off the ground. I stopped my vehicle and watched the Craft. It made no noise and was silver metallic. It was no aircraft that I was trained to recognize. I stopped my vehicle and got partically out the car. I had one foot in and one foot out the vehicle. I watched the craft. It was dark as you could be imagined at 3-4 am in the morning in the northeran latitudes.

I flashed my vehicle lights off then on. The craft turned a cowling light that shone to the ground, on then off. I repeated the same process, the hovering craft did the same. I waited several minutes. Then looking off to my right I notice two more craft just past a tree line perpendicular to me lifting off the ground beyond the tree line. There where three craft total. As the other two craft climbed to tree top level I realized that I could stay no longer as I would be AWOL if not there with in the time limit of Alert status. Very few people know of this.

************************************************** ********

NEBRASKA - 1975 (C/M)
I was petifried but heard or felt a voice say don't be scared

I have never seen a ufo that I can remember, but have had strange things happen to me as a child when I thought I was safe in my bed. What follows has been haunting me ever since.

I was a young boy, about 6 or 7 years old, living out in the country with my mom, dad and two brothers. My dad was in the Air Force and worked at Offutt A.F.B. in Bellvue, Nebr. We lived probably 15 miles west out in the country near Plattsmouth. I shared a room with my middle brother and was asleep in the top bunk while he was in the bottom bunk. I slept facing the wall on my right side, and still do, when all of the sudden I woke up, still facing the wall, and felt as if I was being watched.

I slowly turned over only to come face to face with something. Even though it was only 2 or 3 feet from my face, I could not make out its face. I could only see an outline of a head and what appeared to be part of a cape extending out from both sides of its head, reminded me of Dracula.

Needless to say, I was petifried but heard or felt a voice say dont be scared, turn back over. So i did. Facing the wall again, I was wide awake and scared shitless but dont know why I never called out for mom or dad. I dont know how much time passed, but I stayed looking at the wall and hoping whatever it was would just go away. Finally, getting enough courage to turn around and look, I seen that whatever was there was gone. Let me tell you, I never, ever made that trip to the bottom bunk faster than I did that night.

Flying through the air over my brother to get between him and the wall took seconds flat. He woke up wondering what the heck I was doing and I told him Dracula was in our room. Now both of us are awake and scared with the covers pulled up just below our chins. Our bed was located in a way that when we were sitting up with our backs against the headboard, we could see out into the hallway. We both heard something in the hall and then silence.

What happended next, I will never forget, a big green head with big eyes peered around the corner and looked at us and then was gone. We slowly looked at each other as if to say "Did you just see what I saw?". Needless to say we spent the rest of the night huddled there awake and waited till daylight. I know this happended during the winter, because we went outside the next day to look for footprints in the snow that was on the ground, but did not find any. To this day, I dont know why we didnt scream bloody murder for our parents as was the case when we would have a nightmare. I told our parents, but they said I dreaming. I wish I could remember more, if there is more, from that night.

I have one more weird thing that happened to me but wont go into that now. Growing up, I put these down as bad dreams but would always think about them from time to time. Gradually they faded from memory until I happened upon a book in the library when I was about 16 or 17. It was about ufos and aliens. As I read it, I became engrossed and couldnt put it down, until I came to an artists rendering of what is now the classic grey. Seeing that picture sent chills down my spine and scared me to where I put the book away only to get it out later because I couldnt stop thinking about it which brought me back to this night.

About ten years ago, I brought up that night to my brother. He remembers something happened that night but doesnt recall much. I showed him a picture of an alien from a book and he probably thought me to be crazy so I havent mentioned it since even though I think about it time to time. I dont know if what I saw was an extraterrestrial, but I pretty sure it wasnt Dracula and Frankenstein!

************************************************** ********

NEW JERSEY - 1975 (LE)
The officers made jokes about little green men

My 2 friends and I were driving west on Washington Valley Rd. We came to an open area where a new rd came down a hill to a stop. At that intersection, we saw an oval flat blimp-like object, enormous, larger than a football field. It emitted a low frequency pulsing vibration. We all got out of the car and stood behind it to look at this object. It was rimmed in weird lights (now I would call them LED-like) and we could feel it. We instinctively grabbed each other's hands, suddenly overcome with fright. All at once in a flash the thing took off heading east out over the valley towards Bound Brook.

We jumped back into the car and pulled a u-turn, determined to follow it. We drove a long way along the valley rd until it quickly became a speck in the sky. We went to the Warrenville Police office to report our experience. The officers made jokes about little green men, but we made them write down what we saw.. We then drove home where I told my mother the reason why I was so very late (my curfew was midnight) She was a scientist and a science teacher, but she believed us. Wr were all over wrought with fear, and that night rather than sleeping in my upstairs bed, I crept downstairs and slept on the floor of my parents bedroom.

I have never been as frightened as I was that night 33 years ago. The next day, she found out somehow where to get a form for us to fill out to make a formal report of our sighting to the US Gov't. We did so, and she mailed it off. Later we found out that our neighbor had seen this thing at the bottom of the street in the same place we had, and that another friend had seen it streak through the sky over the John's Manville factory in Manville NJ that same night.

************************************************** ********

NEW YORK STATE - mid 70s (C)
We noticed a strange object fly and hover close to or over Grumman Aerospace

I am not sure of the year or time of this sighting but it occurred in the mid to late 70’s. I was talking to a friend outside of my parent’s house one summer night. We noticed a strange object fly and hover close to or over Grumman Aerospace site in Bethpage NY. It was a disk shaped object with a rim of flashing lights around it border.

Both friend and I witnessed this object. As I said it hovered for some time over us. All at once a bright light came from the center of the craft and beemed down a pond us. I can remember that I felt that I was in a frozen state and unable to move. It felt as if my spine was frozen. I could look around but was unable to move. Then a strange thing happened it seemed that my friend was being lifted up towards the object. I myself felt that I was only a foot tall as I looked up at my friend. At this time strange enough my friend was looking down at me.

All of a sudden we were back to normal and ran as fast as we could to his mom’s house. Even though we are not sure of the time of night that this took place we are sure that several hours had passed before being able to move freely again. That is all I can remember. My friend’s mom was very upset and felt that we must have been drinking or doing something else. We were not drunk or on drugs at all. We actually were the exception of the time and were drug free.

************************************************** ********

NORTH DAKOTA - 1975 (M)
A flight of several triangular shaped objects each with 3 round white lights on the bottom

It was fall in a very rural part of south-western North Dakota. The USAF had been flying low level and high level missions in that part of the state most of the year and we became quite used to seeing aircraft doing bombing runs and refueling tracks. After I joined the AF I found that our barn had been used as a visual sighting aid during those runs.

During the month of October my church decided to have a hay ride on our farm and I was the elected driver of the small case tractor that would pull the hay rack. The ride lasted from just before dark to well after dark. In the pasture during the return to the yard my brother who was also riding on the tractor with me tapped me on the shoulder (it was too noisy from the exhaust of the tractor to talk) and pointed to the sky.

When I looked up I saw a flight of several triangular shaped objects each with 3 round white lights on the bottom with one light at each apex of the triangle. I believe there were 6 black triangles flying in formation of one in front then two behind then three behind that. On seeing them I turned off the tractor and started talking with my brother.

We were wondering what they were. I asked the people riding on the hay rack about them but none of them could see the objects. It was a very bright moonlit night with very light cloud cover. So light and the clouds so thin you could see the stars and moon thru the clouds and they left a shadow on the clouds. The Triangles were above the clouds but it appeared they were very close to us. They made no sound and were moving in a direction of WNW to ESE relative to us at about a speed of 10 to 15 knots.

Diagram of Formation;
My brother and I watched for a few minutes then as they were moving away I started the tractor. We never spoke of it again until almost 30 years later. My initial feelings were wonder at what they were that quickly turned to boredom. I got tired of watching them and then went about my business. My brother remembers this happening but is very reluctant to talk about it.

The odd thing is I will watch a known airplane for several minutes and I had better things to do that night and then never mentioned it to the person that was with me for that long. Thinking back on it now I don't remember anything after starting the tractor to drive away. That is the last of my memory of the evening. I remember events leading up to that very well.

************************************************** ********
PENNSYLVANIA - 1975 (C)
I could not move, speak or scream. I was terrified

i was living in a small trailor with my husband and two small children. my oldest son who was three at the time was in bed with me .i always kept the bathroom light on and left the door open therefore the light would shine in at the foot of my bed and you could see in the room very well. on this night i couldnt fall asleep and was laying on my back.my son was sleeping beside me it was about 12:00 at night. i happened to look down to the foot of my bed and thought i was seeing things or my eyes were playing tricks on me.

There was a small reptile like being with a very large head and hugh roundeyes staring at me and it looked very agressive. the eyes were not almond shaped but large and round. they looked like the eyes of an animal when light shines on them at night.i felt as though i was being held down against my will i could not move,speak or scream. i was terrified. i could not even call out to my husband it felt as though the force of gravity was holding me down on the bed.

this thing moved in a strange way not as a human but like when the picture changes on tv.extremely fast.it went from the foot of the bed to the side of the bed in about 2 seconds flat. finially i broke away from the bed and ran out of the room screaming for my husband there was no way that thing could of gotten out of the room yet it was gone.this incident happened to me back in 1975 and iv told this story many times over the years and to this day i still think about it and wonder what it was. however i am not obessed with this stuff. just thought id tell my story and im certain there are many more like mine out there thanks bonnie;

************************************************** ********

WASHINGTON - 1975 (C/M)
The little guy told me that he wanted me to show these children how to play

In 1975 september I was lying outside my mom and dads home searching the skies for any planets i could see with my dads bionoculars. there had been reports in the tacoma news tribune of alien ships being chased by usaf jets that were scrambled out of McCord AFB. I was in hopes of seeing these and how unlucky i became. If i had only known what would happen. i would have ran for my life and never look at the skies again. while earnestly searching the skies, I noticed some lites like a small planet moving form East to west. then another from west to East. and yet another from south to north.

all come close to each other. in front of our house they were about 150 feet off the ground. they made no noise and they were shaped like a boomjerang with wings that sloped like the wings of a c-141 plane however these were no airplanes. i became overjoyed and then began to use my lantern flashlite shuinning it at the ships while turniong it on and off a bunch of times. then two ships began to leave one to the right and one to the left. then one just floated to above our house and stopped.

under the ship there were walkways with rails and they were in a circle under but made to the craft then i noticed this small dome and i just starred at it and it was if a small window had opend and there was this being starring at me. I waved to him and he waved back to me. thats when it hit me i became very scarred and ran inside the house. where my mom was sewing at her sewing machine.

we had a big bay window where i yelled mom look help. run.... immediatly my mom looked at the craft and became wwhere she couldnt move but did lock the door. so i turned around and ran to the front door but before i could reach the door it began to open with a very intense light siloughting against the door while it was opening. So i stopped and ran to the living room . at this time my mom was already stiff as a board and floating towards the front door at about 3 feet off the ground. at seeing this I ran as fast as I could to my bedroom. and hid in my closet.

I pulled the clothes that were on hangers on top of me. In hopes that they wouldnt see me. But I was realloy trembling and then my closet door opend up i was so scarred that i felt like i was on fire. but then rhis Alien dressed in a black gown with this little guy with very big eyes touched my hand and pulled me to my feet

I couldnt resist them i tried but i couldnt. i went with them out the front door into this lite. i vagley remember being escorted into the ship. when we went into the ship we were in this room a metallic room with a surgical bed with 4 aliens surrouinding my mom. she was being examined by these people and then i noticed that this little guy was with me next to me. he was showing me this thing but i couldnt understand what it was used for.

i think i was to take a leak in it but i said no way thats nasty. i began to notice these aliens would come through this door so when i could i made my way to thuis passageway and went through i then saw stars abouve and below me i kept walking then i came to this room a bigger room where these aliens flew the ship. there were about 9 aliens with big asian like eyes and this one alien dressed in a black robe. i started to walk around this room i saw different kinds of symbolls on different things in this room . then the little guy came for me and then this alien dressed in the black robe became very irate angry with me beacuse i wasnt to be there He asked if i was a soldier i said no way im just a kid.

we then went to other parts of the ship down this long corridor there was a round table then the little guy began to explain to me how their movement was possible with no sound done with some kind of electro magnatism.

then we went to a room where ther were 2 boys and 2 girls. but these kids had no expressions they were for the most part normal lookingn for kids. the little guy told me that he wanted me to show these chioldren how to play. I told him where some of my toys were located one a army jeep another was a horse trailer and the last was a tonka truck. he left me with these kids and returned a short time later with my toys that i had since i was a kid. I began to make noises like a truck rrrr.... while pushing the truck around. then these kids began to laugh then i became scarred all these kids had sharp pointed teeth. we then left and continued walking around the ship. he showed me where they stay in their rooms.

I asked him if i could go with them to learn and explore he then said that they wouldnt be back for 33 years but that if i wanted i could go and that i wouldnt age at all. I thought about it but then realization set in and that i loved my mom and dad and must stay with my parents. after a little while we again went to the examining room but this time my mom wasnt here. i said wheres my mom he said tha shwe was being prepaered for the returna nd her mind would be erased of all memories of what had just happend to her. I then told him that i wanted to remember all that had happend to me and our friendship.

I was then led to this surgical bed. where there were three aliens checking me out one had this long tube that he began to shove into my abdoman i yelled and screamed but severe pain pursued me. they act like they dont know what pain is. i began to cry still they dont give me any thing for the pain it became so severe that i almost trey to pass out but i couldnt then this other alien came around to the back of my head and i felt as if somepthing was pushed in.

then i was out. i remember the last thing we talked about i was taken to this erase memory room of all that had happend to me i told this little guy that i wanted to have remember and he said where do you want to be taken to i said under my bed and so it was done. later i woke up underneath my bed. tryiing and recalling all that had happend to us...

************************************************** ********

CALIFORNIA - 1976 (M/C)
I was standing under the craft, frozen in fear and time

It was long ago when I was about seven... it seemed everything started to happen for me at that age. I never forgot that evening when my mother and I went for a walk. I didn't take many walks with her so this night seemed unusual already and I felt uneasy. I remember wondering why the neighborhood was so dark; it made the clear night sky seem closer since the stars were brighter but my observations were quickly interrupted when my mother grabbed my hand and pulled me toward the Sumner School Park, there in my hometown of Claremont California.

My confusion turned to fear when I saw a hovering black craft. I tried to stop my mom from taking me any further but her hand held on tight. She was very excited. She told me not to be scared. The lights of the park dimmed then flickered out completely. Then I noticed three spheres of light dancing in the north-west sky. Sometimes they darted, sometimes they hovered in place, one second they seemed very close while the next they seemed miles away. Their size would increase or decrease depending on the directions they took. They were beautiful balls of light that would subtly change color.

Before I knew it, I was standing under the craft, frozen in fear and time. There was no sound... none at all... not from the craft or from the crickets we would usually hear. Above me was a huge, triangular craft not unlike the F-117 Stealth we have today but this craft didn't have any seams that I could tell, its corners were rounded off while the sides were straight across. It had three large, bright lights... one at each corner of its underside.

The UFO just hung there at about the same height of a two-story house but it was so massive and I just a child that my size perception was no doubt off. Without warning, sound, or movement of air, the UFO darted straight up then moved slowly to the west. The three spheres met up with it then together they all darted west and then north to the mountains, disappearing into the stars. I had mixed emotions standing there in shock. I don't know how long we were gone but I think it was about 15-20 minutes.

Our neighborhood had lost its electricity not long after we had left, my father said, and we didn't gain it back for a good 5-10 minutes after we got back home. My father, who worked for JPL at the time, told my mom and I not to repeat our story to anyone so I didn't. I don't even know if my mother remembers our encounter. Though my fear went away, I continued to carry feelings of insecurity for a long time and I would have the same, strange, recurring dream, of aliens coming into my room, that still haunts me to this day.

I continue to suffer from seizures, as does my father, and I still have EEG brain waves that continue to baffle neurologists. I have a bump behind my ear that doctors can't identify but have told me to leave alone saying if it's not bothering me then why bother with it. I am still searching for answers. I just want the truth whether of this world or not, and I finally have this opportunity to tell others who might be able to piece the puzzle together.

************************************************** ********

FLORIDA - 1976 (C)
Show yourself you stinkers

as above i heard voices, they were near but i wasn't sure. all i know is that they were there to talk about me and i was the subject of the conversation. i was about 10 to 12 years old.

stangly enough over the years i have been mentally logging in numerous events where i have seen events befor they occured. some big some small. i won't mention the events for fear of you deleting this entry. it's wierd i have even seen events of my own life. as far as the incident i was in bed,the being's were colorful,and had character defining each one from the other,i literally screamed and they disappeared,the babysitter came running in the bedroom and i was screaming rather hysterically from my memory,she left and came back in a hurry with a plate of oreo cookies, i flung them aside in hysterics.

I VIVIDLY REMEMBER THESE EVENTS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE MORE THAN 30 YEARS OLD. IV'E TOLD THIS STORY DOZENS OF TIMES, HOPING TO FIND SOMEONE WHO CAN GIVE ME AN ANSWER.i'm tired,so this will probably be on of the few last times i will talk about it. they are here among us,with their infinite technologies,show yourself you stinkers.

************************************************** ********

GEORGIA - 1976
(Report included because of the mention of the "jumps" - ed.)

I only saw it at one point in it's "jump"

As I type this, I do not have an exact date and time, as the event occurred in 1976. I list it as 19 August 1976 at approximately 10 PM because I remember the moon phase (full) and the approximate position in the sky. It was either a Friday or Saturday evening. I was 11 years old, about to turn 12. My eyeglass prescription had recently been renewed, so my eyesight was excellent. At the time, I was an aviation enthusiast. Even at age 11, I would consider myself a competent observer. We lived near the flight path of Hartsfield-Atlanta airport, so I was exposed to many different viewings of civilian aircraft both in day and night conditions.

The sky was fully dark, except for the full moon over the Southwestern horizon. There were no clouds. My grandmother and I were sitting on her porch at their home in Lovejoy, Georgia (South of Atlanta). We were just talking about things in general, and watching light aircraft from a local airport, the now-demolished South Expressway Airport, travel on a standard flightpath from North to South (I always presumed from the Atlanta airspace to the Macon-Warner Robbins air hubs).

As the aircraft flew past, they were close enough that we could hear their reciprocating engines and easily spot their headlights and navigation lights. The flight path would have been between the I-75 and US Hwy 41 corridors as they moved South from the greater Atlanta, GA area.

After viewing the civilian traffic for a while, I spotted the object I am reporting emerge from behind the roof of my Grandmother's abode. It was a solid, white, luminescent oval. It was not a reflection of moonlight or other light source. I immediately noted that it was a solid light, not a combination of lights as would be expected from a normal light aircraft. I also noticed that the object emitted no discernible sound. The UFO was following the same flight path as the civilian aircraft we had been observing, and it was traveling at the same speed (possibly trying to be inconspicuous?).

I remember pointing at it and saying, "Granny, that's a UFO." It was obvious that it wasn't anything I had ever seen before. A moment after I pointed the object out, it proceeded to defy the known laws of physics. From my perspective, it seemed to vanish, and then instantaneously reappear about 3 degrees above and to the South of its previous position.

It then immediately vanished again and reappeared on the same flight path and maintained its previous speed (I have always assumed that it was just moving so fast that my eyes could not catch it as it "zig-zagged", and I only saw it at one point in it's "jump"). Needless to say, my young heart jumped when I saw the maneuver. I asked my Grandmother if she saw it do that, and she replied that she had, so I knew it wasn't just a trick of my own eyes.

As the UFO continued on its course, it was about to pass behind a cedar tree that was planted in my grandmother's front yard. I told her to keep an eye on it, and I jumped off the porch. I lost sight of the object as it moved behind the tree. I circled around the North side of the tree, but when I reached the other side, the UFO was gone. I asked my grandmother if she saw what happened, and she said that the UFO had emerged from behind the tree, and then suddenly shot off like a tracer bullet (she pointed in the direction of the full moon). Throughout the encounter, there was no sound whatsoever. Notably, throughout sub-sonic to apparent super-(perhaps hyper-)sonic maneuvers, there was no sonic boom.

Conclusions/Important facts/Observations:

- Whatever the object was, it was able to instaneously accelerate to absurd speeds and decelerate/change course with no noticible necessity to obey Newtonian laws concerning inertia.

- It was luminescent, and a constant brightness. The outline (oval, as pharmaceutical-capsule-shaped) of the object was clear and sharp.
- It made no discernible noise whatever (there was a housecat sitting on the bench with us, and it had no reaction whatever to the UFO).

- It was following a civilian aircraft flight path (as a side note, where the flight path passed over there is today a county jail. This is how I calculated the approximate distance).

- When my grandmother and I, ground-based observers, spotted it and reacted to its presence, it reacted as well (no way of knowing if there was a causal relationship there, could just be coincidence).

- Distance would have been probably about 2000 feet (less than a mile, but more than 1000 feet based on the size of the civilian aircraft we were previously observing).

- The UFO was about the same size as a civilian, single-engined light aircraft.
- My grandmother, the co-witness, has since passed on.

Thank you for giving us the venue to post this event for others to compare similarities. My perspective on the universe and our place in it has never been the same since this event.

************************************************** ********

ILLINOIS - 1976 (M)
The Lights! Spectacular almost hypnotic at times

We were coming back from dinner at a restaurant from a nearby town. (Dixon, IL.) at about 9 pm. I was with my fiance and future mother and father in-law. My future in-laws just took us out for our engagement dinner celebrating out marriage coming up in September.

About 5 or 6 miles from Sterling I saw a very bright light low to the south maybe 10 degrees above the horizon, and stationary. This interested me being an amateur astronomer (have a Questar 7) for about seven years, and being familiar with Venus, Jupiter and other bright objects in the night sky. The sun had set about an half hour earlier and just a faint glow of twilight was in the west, but basically it was dark.

Chicago being 100 miles to the east, it is not uncommon to see large commercial planes coming at you directly from the east with their landing lights still on slowly gaining altitude without any apparent motion, but as the craft comes closer motion can be finally detected and increases as they eventually pass overhead or therabouts. But this was different. It was motionless, and motionless. I kept quiet, being that I was the only one having seen it so far, and waited for it to move marking it in sky visually. It did not. I remarked then almost a minute later about this unusual motionless bright object. As we got closer it was apparent we were on a course to intercept this object.

By this time I was quite excited and captivated as we approached the main highway where this object was hovering. With the object just 100 yards or less my father in- law (pulled onto the highway trying to watch and drive at the same time. I told him to puill over aobut 3 times and finally he pulled off onto the shoulder behind several other cars with people already out of their cars and watching this object.

It was captivating. I have tried to find the drawings I made afterwards and notes I have yet to find them. Back then I told this story many times in detail to a point it became ingrained in me but now 32 years later the estimation in size may be slightly off but I believe well within the ballpark. But here goes. When we got out of the car the object was coming right at us slowly maybe 10-15 miles an hour. I When it became alarmingly close (70 yards?) and maybe 45 degrees up,

I then got a good look at the size and shape of this thing. I had been an airman in the Navy for 4 years, (66-70) working with the A-6A Intruder as a plane captain receiving many of these and other jet aircraft types as well on the flightline and on carrier parking them for post flight inspections, but I have have never received one of these babies and didn't really want to chalk this guy. It was approx. 65-75' in diameter, disk shaped, and about 10,and brilliantly lit up.

Before it broke out of its pattern, it made about 6or 7 rectanglar passes each time coming at us raising up to its' closest point and then banking slightly (tilted) to the direction (west) for about 75 yards, south for 100 yards, 75 yards to the east then at us (100 yards) to the north doing this 6-7 times. Being dark without the lights was impossible to tell the shape except for the lights.

The Lights! Spectacular almost hypnotic at times. The ten foot heighth of the craft was divided up into about 5'wide by 10 high panels side by side each fully lit. (from inside?) outlining the shape as disk shape. But each panel went on and off and synchronized, moving rotating completely around the craft all the time it made these passes. The motion was quite rapid as I recall and at times had a reverse movement.

It reminded me when as a boy I would turn my bicycle upside down, crank the pedal as fast as I could get it and watch the wheel and spokes make that reverse motion similar to some affects I've seen in the aurora borealis. Almost hynotic and quite spectacular. Anorher unsusal thing I noticed was that it made no sound. The only sound I heard an almost undetectable sound of the wind being cut as it rotated. A gentle cutting of the wind. In my mind I am gong over all the possible things this could be and I was coming up with a zero. Plane? moving too slow and no noise. Helicopter? No noise, too small. Balloon or dirigible? Don't think so.

So what was it. I mentioned to Linda I wanted to run across the highway before its next pass, lie down in the grass and wait for it to pass overhead to get even a closer look, but she would not let me. And to tell you the truth part of me wanted to go and part of me said stay put which I did.

Finally it slowly broke pattern and went off to the east. We were all getting into our vehicles when the person ahead said it was a helicopter but it could not have been. As we were coming into town still in sight I noticed it had now turned on colored maybe even blinking lights and then I lost sight of it. The next day I looked for headlines concerning this sighting especially being seen by scores, but I saw nothing in the newspapers.

It was said that it was a dirigible hired to make passes over a nearby residence in celebration of someones birthday and I always had a problem with that explanation being there was not a house close. Thank you for listening. It is unusual with such a spectacular, captivating and entertaining tool at our use it has never been seen again to my knowledge any where else

************************************************** ********


link; http://fierycelt.tripod.com/xposeufotruth/1970s02.html