-
Above BlueBook* - Ohio UFO Chase , Portage County April 17, 1966;
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/s...ge66news01.gif
Portage County, Ohio UFO Police Chase-1966|Alien-UFO-Research;
http://alien-ufo-research.com/portag...fopolicechase/
Portage County UFO Chase
One of the most dramatic encounters by police officers with an apparently structured, low-level UFO occurred in the early morning of April 17, 1966. Officers of the Portage County, Ohio, Sheriff's Department first saw the object rise up from near ground level, bathing them in light, near Ravenna, Ohio, about 5:00 A.M.
Ordered by the sergeant to pursue the object, they chased it for eighty-five miles across the border into Pennsylvania, as it seemed to play a cat-and-mouse game with them. Along the route, police officers from other jurisdictions saw the object and joined in the chase.
Deputy Sheriff Dale Spaur and Mounted Deputy Wilbur 'Barney’ Neff had left their scout car to investigate an apparently abandoned automobile on Route 224. Spaur described the sighting in these words:
“I always look behind me so no one can come up behind me. And when I looked in this wooded area behind us, I saw this thing. At this time it was coming up . . . to about tree top level. I'd say about one hundred feet. it started moving toward us...
http://www.ufocasebook.com/portage.html
The investigation by Major Quintanilla actually consisted in a two minutes and a half phone call to the sole Dale Spaur, starting with this question: "tell me about this mirage you saw." Then a second one minute and a half phone was passed again only to Dale Spaur. According to a written and signed testimony by Spaur, Quintanilla wanted him to sign a text specifying that the sighting lasted only a few minutes. When Spaur protested that it was at least a 60 miles car chase covering two states, Quintanilla put an end to the conversation. It required Congressional pressures to have Quintanilla make his way to Ravenna to meet and interview Spaur and Neff. This time, Weitzel was there because Spaur asked him to tape his interview with Quintanilla. A partial transcription of the tape reproduced in Dr. J. Allen Hynek's first book "The UFO Experience," is very telling of the ways and manner of Quintanilla when he interrogated UFO witnesses.
Police chief Gerald Buchert was on duty in Mantua when he heard over his radio that strange lights were headed east in his direction. He raced home for his camera, and with his wife at his side, took a single photograph of the object glowing in the sky. Buchert quickly developed his film and contacted the FBI, who referred him to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Major Hector Quintanilla, head of the UFO debunking Project Blue Book, asked Buchert to send the negatives to him. Later, Quintanilla issued a press release stating that his film was “severely fogged” and claimed that the UFO was a processing defect. He went on to say that the officers involved had chased the planet Venus.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/...Neff_UFO_chase
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/s...r1/portage.gif
click here for number id; http://www.nicap.org/raven6.htm
Police Chief Gerald Buchert of Mantua photographed the object from in front of his home. The Air Force told him not to release the photo, but The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the photo showed an object that was like two saucers put together, with a light upper saucer upside down over a dark lower saucer. The picture was only seen by a reporter and Mr. Weitzel, NICAP investigator, who was not convinced, but it was never available for analysis
http://ufologie.net/htm/portage66.htm
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/s...60618_f520.jpg
The sheriff’s office codenamed the UFO Floyd, Spaur’s middle name, to not tip off civilians listening to police bands. In June, while driving down I-80, Spaur saw it again. “Floyd’s here with me,” he radioed. He waited 10 to 15 minutes in the car, his head down, not wanting to see. When he finally looked up, Floyd was gone.
quote;
"The men who were involved in this incident suffered for it. They were hounded by the media and ridiculed by others. Buchert and Neff stopped talking about the incident to anyone. Panzenella received so many phone calls about the incident that he finally had his phone disconnected. Huston quit the police department and moved to Seattle, Washington, where he became a bus driver, changing his preferred name from Wayne to Harold. Spaur's life was ruined. He was hounded even worse than the others. He began to have personal problems that culminated in his arrest for the assault and battery of his wife. He turned in his badge and made a meager living as a painter. His wife divorced him."
Spaur said:
"If I could change all that I have done in my life, I would change just one thing. And that would be the night we chased that damn thing. That saucer."
"letter with Air Force title stating some witnesses did not want their name associated with the case because of the media harrasment they were receiving."
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/s...age66afl01.gif
click here clear print; http://www.nicap.org/raven1.htm
ufo - UFOS at close sight: 1966 Portage County UFO chase by policemen http://ufologie.net/htm/portage66.htm
The 1966 UFO Chronology http://www.nicap.org/waves/1966fullrep.htm
http://www.nicap.org/portage2.htm
Portage County UFO chase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portage_County_UFO_Chase
Police UFO .com - Advocating Officer UFO Disclosure http://www.policeufo.com/US.html
http://www.ufodigest.com/conway.html
http://hubpages.com/hub/Project-Blue...-County--Ohio-
www.eyepod.org...
http://www.eyepod.org/RP-Seven-Steps-to-Hell.html
Police testimony:
"I always look behind me so no one can come up behind me. And when I looked in this wooded area behind us, I saw this thing. At this time it was coming up...to about tree top level. I'd say about one hundred feet. it started moving toward us.... As it came over the trees, I looked at Barney and he was still watching the car...and he didn't say nothing and the thing kept getting brighter and the area started to get light...I told him to look over his shoulder, and he did.
He just stood there with his mouth open for a minute, as bright as it was, and he looked down. And I started looking down and I looked at my hands and my clothes weren't burning or anything, when it stopped right over on top of us.The only thing, the only sound in the whole area was a hum...like a transformer being loaded or an overloaded transformer when it changes....
I was petrified, and, uh, so I moved my right foot, and everything seemed to work all right. And evidently he made the same decision I did, to get something between me and it, or us and it, or whatever you would say. So we both went for the car, we got in the car and we sat there...."
As they watched, the UFO moved toward the east, and then stopped again. Spaur reported the movement to the dispatcher. The UFO was now about 250 feet away, and was brilliantly lighting up the area ("It was very bright; it'd make your eyes water," Spaur said.) Sergeant Schoenfelt, off duty at the station, told them to follow it and keep it under observation while they tried to get a photo unit to the scene.
Spear and Neff turned south on Route 183, then back east on Route 224, which placed the object to their right. "At this time," said Spaur. "it came straight south, just one motion, buddy, just a smooth glide..." and began moving east with them pacing it, just to their right at an estimated altitude of 300-500 feet, illuminating the ground beneath it. Once more the UFO darted to the north, now left of the car, when they had to speed up to over 100 mph to keep pace with it.
Police Officer Wayne Huston of East Palestine, Ohio, situated near the Pennsylvania border, had been monitoring the radio broadcasts and was parked at an intersection he knew the Portage County officers would be passing soon. Shortly afterward he saw the UFO pass by with the sheriff's cruiser in hot pursuit. He swung out and joined the chase. At Conway, Pennsylvania, Spaur spotted another parked police car and stopped to enlist his aid, since their Cruiser was almost out of gas. The Pennsylvania officer called his dispatcher.
According to Spaur, as the four officers stood and watched the UFO, which had stopped and was hovering, there was traffic on the radio about jets being scrambled to chase the UFO, and "...we could see these planes coming in...When they started talking about fighter planes, it was just as if that thing heard every word that was said; it went PSSSSSHHEW, straight up; and I mean when it went up, friend, it didn't play no games; it went straight up."
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...4d3b94d379.gif
-
Argentine Air Force announces committee to study UFO phenomenon;
The Air Force of Argentina on Dec. 23, 2010 formally announced the formation of a committee to study the UFO phenomenon.
The Argentinean Air Force’s action to form a UFO investigation unit was confirmed by Sylvia Perez Simondini of the CEFORA (Argentinean Republic Committee for UFO Phenomena Studies), "an organization formed by various UFOlogy groups in Argentina. The main purpose is the declassification of all related UFO phenomena in Argentina. It was formed by serious Argentinean UFOlogists in Victoria, Entre Rios during a conference.”
In a public statement, Ms. Perez Simondini says,
"The Argentinean Air Force has just announced the formation of a commission to investigate the UFO phenomenon.
"The Director of Institutional Relations of the Argentinean Air Force confirmed on Telefe Newscast that it has recorded two UFO sightings it cannot account for by normal explanations. The Argentinean Air Force further stated that the mission of the Air Force is to guard the security of Argentinean air space.
"This is a message that all UFO researchers hoped for, filling us with satisfaction to hear that this will occur.
"In our last congress, especially in the Uruguay, which was conducted fairly by the Uruguayan Air Force, at that time, I received greetings from Commodore Robert Muller, Head of the Unit II Air Brigade Paraná, from Colonel Ariel Rios Sanchez, Head of Ricardo Bermúdez CRIDOVNI of CEFAA, the sister republic of Chile, from Ademar Gevaerd Director of the Brazilian UFO Magazine, who is the coordinator of the declassification of UFO phenomenon in Brazil, in order to urge the Air Force of Argentina toward a common goal of UFO disclosure.
link; http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-...o-phenomenon-1
Statements:
"UFOs are real. I myself had an experience of this sort in 1951. It was a yellowish-silver disk with deep red edges, moving at high speed at an altitude of some 500 meters..."
Vicecommodore Oscar Bario. Argentinian Defense.
"At this state of events, and with the evidence available to us, it is hard to deny the existence of flying saucers."
Vicecommodore Dante La Roca. Argentinian Defense.
"I believe in the so-called flying saucer, and it is my understanding that the Air Force will pursue studies on this subject."
Commander Adolfo Alvarez, 1968. Argentinian Defence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Declarations:
The Seven Official declarations made by the Argentinian Government;
Argentinian Military/Government communique:
1962: At 19:20 hrs on May 22, a squadron of fighters in the vicinity of Bahía Blanca's Comandante Espora Naval Base, reports the presence of UFOs along its flight path. The interception lasted 35 minutes. Direct eyewitnesses to this incident were Lt. Rodolfo César Galdós and his student, Roberto Wilkinson. Report No. 02779 causes the first official acknowledgment by an Argentinean government.
1965: Between the months of June and July, a succession of UFO incidents occur in the Antarctic region, some of them producing electromagnetic disturbances, and witnessed by personnel from the British, Chilean and Argentine bases. A phenomenon on July 3rd at the Deception Island Naval Station generates the second official acknowledgment.
1973: On November 2nd, six members of the Comandante Espora Naval Air Base, close to Bahía Blanca, witness the maneuvers of a UFO, immediately producing the third official acknowledgment.
1978: On the evening of February 4 at the La Florida dam in San Luis, six persons report the presence of a UFO and the descent of an occupant from within, leaving ground marks. The Police Precinct of San Luis, through its chief, Lt.Col. Raul Benjamín López, issues a document which constitutes the fourth official acknowledgment.
1978: Toward midnight on July 12, a low-level UFO sighting causes a commotion in the Estación Ramblón region, located between the limits of San Juan and Mendoza. It was witnessed by police officers among many others. The San Juan chief of police, Col. Guillermo Voguel, prepares the fifth official acknowledgment.
1982: In the evening of August 13, a UFO causes a disturbance in the town of Londres, Catamarca, and its flyover produces strong winds and starts a conflagration. A police patrolman attests to the intruder's presence. The provincial police emits the sixth official acknowledgment.
1986: The appearance of a nocturnal UFO and the subsequent discovery of a gigantic indentation on El Pajarillo hill, Córdoba, on January 9th, prompt this city's municipal authorities to issue the seventh and final official acknowledgment
Argentinean Military's Role in UFO Research
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/offiarg.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPILOGUE:
"It is worth noting that almost all these communiqués took place when military governments were in power. Researchers are still expecting an official military communiqué, but issued by the current democratically-elected government. Who are we afraid of? What pressures exist? At this late stage, what is being concealed"?
In all truth, no one in Argentina expects an official recognition of "extraterrestrials", only of UFO phenomena.
"Even the 1960s-vintage questionnaire is clearer than ever, since its first paragraph reads: "A UFO is understood to be any object in flight whose operating and aerodynamic qualities or unusual features do not match known projectiles, airplanes, objects or known atmospheric phenomena."
"A simple "saucer" will serve as an example: in the recent and spectacular Bariloche case, the director of the airport in question, Major Jorge Oviedo, was handed an official reprimand for having provided information to the media"!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentinean authorities;
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...f987b32f5f.jpg
quote;
"On Thursday, May 13, 2010, Argentinean President Cristina Fernandez opened the bicentennial festivities in the city of Victoria. Researcher Silvia Perez Simondini took advantage of this opportunity to present the first executive with an envelope containing CEFORA documentation regarding UFO declassification efforts in other countries, as well as the list of researchers struggling for the declassification of the UFO archives.The President approached Ms. Simondini, who asked her to please read the contents of the envelope, which she promised to do".
"Two days later, during communications with Casa Rosada, it was confirmed that this documentation had been read and a promise of a reply was also confirmed. This is the first formal contact with Argentinean authorities regarding a request for declassification, in the hope that the desired goal can be achieved. Posted by Inexplicata".
Thanks to Ken Pfeifer MUFON New Jersey;
link; http://www.nationalufocenter.com/art...rticle_336.php
Article:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...002790ef38.jpg
Argentine Navy.
"In the 1960s, the Argentine Navy was charged with the official investigation of UFO sightings, particularly those reported by its own personnel. A 1965 "Official UFO Report" prepared by Captain Sánchez Moreno from the Naval Air Station Comandante Espora in Bahía Blanca, revealed that":
"Between 1950 and 1965, personnel of Argentina's Navy alone made 22 sightings of unidentified flying objects that were not airplanes, satellites, weather balloons or any type of known (aerial) vehicles. These 22 cases served as precedents for intensifying that investigation of the subject by the Navy. In the past two years, nine incidents have been recorded that are being studied by Captain Pagani and a team of military and civilian scientists and collaborators. Likewise, a meticulous questionnaire was drafted, printed and distributed to different bases".
"In a short time, the Service of Naval Intelligence was in possession of a stack of highly significant reports of testimonies. On the basis of this important documentation, it was possible to obtain a coherent overview of the problem." (Captain Sánchez Moreno, Informe Oficial O.V.N.I., Sumario S# A. 02778-DTO. OVNI, Naval Air Station Comandante Espora, in ICUFON Project World Authority for Spatial Affairs (W.A.S.A.), New York, 1979.)"
Link; http://www.greatdreams.com/ufos/kids_abducted.htm
Map/Interview:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...b37e05593f.jpg
-
Colares 1977:
In 1977, the Brazilian island of Colares and the area of the Amazon delta were visited by flying objects of an unknown nature. Nearly all kinds of UFOs were seen, some big, some small, saucer-shaped, cigar-shaped, barrel-shaped, luminous or not. They arrived generally from the North every day, from the sky and also sometimes from underwater, and it lasted for months. Regularly, some Island's inhabitants were targeted by the objects beaming strange lights at them, and many were badly hurt. The Air Force came, investigated, saw, reported. The weird rays hurt thirty-five people, and civilians fled from entire villages. You never heard this before? Well read ahead, then.
THE EVENTS OF COLARES, 1977:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...71373fdcf3.jpg
The events mainly concentrated on the city of Colares, about 2000 inhabitants, on Colares Island, which is in the region of Pará, the delta of the Amazon river on the north-eastern coast of Brazil. But the whole region was visited by the same phenomenon.
Beginning in August of 1977, in the island of Colares, strange phenomenon begun to occur, that the Brazilian call Chupa-Chupa. Strange luminous objects appeared over the few towns of the region. These objects were often projecting thin rays, seemingly of light, directed at the people. The touched people fainted and woke up with a strange anemia. They witnessed that they felt as if some of their blood was removed by the strange rays.
The fisherman Manoel João de Oliveira Filho, aged 44, married and residing at No. 64 rua Carneiro de Mendonça, was strolling towards the beach early one morning with some companions, to spend a day at sea fishing. Before they had got to their boats, they saw - above the Rio Novo beach - an object shaped "like an umbrella" stationary at about 4m from the ground. From its under-part came a vivid white light. No sound was detectable from it at where they were standing. The object then moved away equally silently towards Machadinho, switching off the light as it went.
A carpenter named João Dias Costa (aged 44) and a fisherman, João da Cruz Silva (aged 54), both of Colares town, saw the notorious "luminous spheres" so greatly feared on account of their "low skimming swoops".
Another man from Colares town, Sr. Zacarias dos Santos Barata (74) saw the glowing balls on two nights. The first time, the object came from the direction of the Bay of Marajó, and rapidly vanished towards the interior of Colares Island. On the second night another ball, blue in color, flew over the local football pitch. "It lit up all the trees around the field and then vanished towards the town centre", said Sr. Zacarias.
Sr. Sebastião Vernek "Zizi" Miranda described his experience as follows:
"I was there with my wife, Palmira, in front of the church on the sea-front, when at about 8.00pm, we saw an intensely vivid "orangeish" light coming in from the sea towards the town. As it approached, it climbed, and then, moving rapidly, vanished towards the inner part of the Island."
The barber Carlos Cardoso de Paula (aged 49), living at Travessa Deodoro da Fonseca No. 231, had a still closer encounter with the "lights", as he told:
"Everybody else was asleep. I was just still having my last smoke when suddenly a ball of fire entered our house up near the ridgepole of the gable. It started shooting round and round the room and then finally came right close to my hammock. It ran up my right leg as far as the knee (without touching my skin). I watched with much curiosity as it then moved across to the other leg. Then I started to feel feeble and sleepy. My cigarette fell from my hand and I came to and let out a yell. The fireball quickly vanished and everybody woke up. I think it had been searching for a vein in my body but didn’t manage to do so. As its brightness grew I felt a sort of heat coming from it."
Worker Raimundo Costa Leite, very well known in the town of Colares for his skill in making and repairing fishing-nets, described his own experience:
"At about 4.00 in the early morning, I went with my pal "Baixinho" (Orivaldo Malaquias Pinheiro) to fish off the beach at Cajueiro. As I recall it, "Baixinho" shouted "Look! There it is!" and took to his heels, leaving me alone on the beach. The craft was of the size and shape of a helicopter, made no noise, and was flying very high. I could have taken a pot-shot at it if I had had a gun with me. I was terrified when the machine shone a sort of searchlight down on the beach.
That light was sweeping the ground, illuminating everything! It was a bluish light (sort of ‘cold light’). It made it easier for me to see this because the craft had several small reddish lights beneath its front part.. The craft seemed to be seeking something on the ground. I was scared that it would touch me and, despite my poor physical condition I managed to run quite a distance, and then "Baixinho" returned and helped me. The object had come from the direction of the sea and it headed off into the inner part of the Island."
Actually, so many more people reported being attacked by beams of light from small UFOs in this area that only few of them are mentioned here.
On October 20, three women were hit in the breast by the beams of light: "All three were overcome by tremendous nervous tension and an unknown sort of lassitude "as though they were receiving constant electric shocks" wrote a newspaper.
On the evening of October 29, Benedito Campos and his 17-year old wife Silvia Mara were at home when "they spotted an oval, silvery object emitting a greenish beam like a searchlight towards the room where they were lying. Filled with curiosity, they approached a small window and, as they did so, the beam shot in through and made straight for Silvia, throwing her into a sort of benumbed trance-like state." Silvia, who was pregnant at the time, then fainted whereupon two entities apparently entered the house carrying something resembling a golden torch and "once again the beam struck Silvia, this time hitting her in the left arm at the level of the wrist.
Her veins seemed to 'rise up out of the body' so swollen were they by the beam striking them." Later, while at a neighbor's house, Benedito was also briefly paralyzed by a light beam. Fearing a miscarriage, husband and wife were taken at night by boat to the Mosqueiro Medical Clinic, followed all the way by the UFO, which made no further attempt to harm them. They remained there for three days where the wife recovered, but Benedito "was in a state of severe depression for some days, his motor functions disturbed and, as his mother reports, weeping frequently."
The UFO activity over Colares Island was so intense that the people began to think the "Chupa-Chupas" were trying to make some sort of contact with them. Such was the view expressed by Sr. Raimundo Ferreira "Mimi" Monteiro. He still believes the craft were coming up out of the sea or out of some under-water base located in the Bay of Marajó — maybe in the region of the Caldeirão.
Alfredo Bastos Filho, a former town mayor, confirmed this and said: "Yes, indeed I can tell you, there wasn’t a moment of peace. The people were terrified by that "Chupa-Chupa" affair. I even managed to see one of the injured victims myself - Dona Mirota, a lady who was receiving medical treatment at the Health Clinic."
The locals became so frightened that many of the women and children left town. The men that remained lit bonfires to mount guard at night, letting off fireworks and banging tins whenever they saw the Chupa-Chupas approaching. Other locked in their homes for fear of the phenomenon. It was mentioned later that the more noise people made and the more bonfires and fireworks, the closer the craft came.
INJURIES AND ONE DEATH:
By November 1977 doctor Wellaide Cecim Carvalho,the physician in charge of the health unit on Colares Island, took care of to some 35 people claiming to have been touched by the strange light. She took blood samples, and concluded that the victims suffered from generalized hypertermia, superficial chronic headache, burnings, intense heat, nauseas, tremors in the body, giddiness, asthenia and presented very small orifices in the skin where they were hit by the rays.
She wrote: "All of them had suffered lesions to the face or the thoracic area." The lesions, looking like radiation injuries, "began with intense reddening of the skin in the affected area. Later the hair would fall out and the skin would turn black. There was no pain, only a slight warmth. One also noticed small puncture marks in the skin. The victims were men and women of varying ages, without any pattern."
In describing their experiences with these light beams, most victims claimed that "They were immediately immobilized, as if a heavy weight pushed against their chest. The beam was about [seven or eight centimeters] in diameter and white in color. It never hunted for them but hit them suddenly. When they tried to scream no sound would come out, but their eyes remained open. The beam felt hot, "almost as hot as a cigarette burn," barely tolerable. After a few minutes the column of light would slowly retract and disappear." Most symptoms usually disappeared after seven days.
At Agulhas Fincadas, Mrs. Maria Lopes, inhabitant of Vila Gorete, to the margins of Rio Tapajós, in the neighborhoods of Santarém (Pará), tells her case involving " strange devices " that absorb energy human being, known as Chupa-Chupa. "I saw an object to settle quiet in the bushes here close... It they had left two men and a woman, who had started to move with two fishing ", counts Maria. Other people gifts in the place had been paralyzed when observing the scene. "When hit, the men died in identical circumstances. On each one's chest, there were little holes as if they had been poked with a dozen needles".
Many had hurt themselves when trying to escape one of the strange objects. In many cases, the marks left by the rays on the victims skin were marks that could have up to eight small holes. In these occurrences, the Chupa-Chupa term was proven right as many of them had lost up to approximately 300 ml of blood, from these wounds.
This was the case of Claudomira, resident in the Island of Colares. She claims that her family already did not sleep right with fear of the devices. "In one of these days, after midnight, I woke up because of a strong flash, a sort of focused bright green light ray that came down from the top roof to my left chest. I tried to shout, but my voice did not function. I felt an exquisite heat... Later, that beam of light diminished and I saw that I was burnt". Claudomira told that she sighted a strange object, much similar to an umbrella, from which a being of clear skin, oriental eyes and great ears. According to her, the creature was dressed in tight green clothes and had a sort of pistol in the hand, which emitted the luminous beam.
At this moment, Claudomira felt perforated as by needles on her breast. "After this, I felt migraine and a great weakness, that left me collapsed for several days." In the next day to the event, she had been directed to the Sanitary Unit of the town, where she was taken care of by Doctor Wellaide Cecim Carvalho, who sent her to the Medical Institute Renato Chaves, in Belém, for backup examinations.
Her ill-being and the constant migraines lasted many days, followed by fatigue and weakness. Years later, Claudomira still did not feel cured. "My health never came back to be the same since that night." She is not the only one to have passed for such situation. Some estimate that thousands of people, also men, had suffered the attacks of the Chupa-Chupa in the years between 1970 and 1980, and they still occur today, though less frequently.
"Emotional and physical sequels are very common in these cases," stated Dr. Wellaide Cecim Carvalho, the doctor who took care of Claudomira. Although she was skeptical and she believed that the occurrences of Chupa-Chupa were popular belief or some witchcraft, Dr. Wellaide ended up convinced of the veracity of the cases when she was confronted with their increasing frequency. "With the increase of hurt people, I started to give more attention each time in the existing injuries.
I saw things that do not exist in my medical books," she said. According to her, the victims of Chupa-Chupa presented strangest burnings, not as those provoked by fire or hot water, as she thought herself, but very similar to ones produced by cobalt irradiation. "The injuries varied in extension.
First it started with an intense reddishness in the hit area, known as hiperemia. Later, the skin of the affected region started to fall (alopecia) and days later the skin peeled off." In this period of development, said Wellaide, it was possible to note holes, similar to perforations by needles. One of the most interesting cases she took care of happened with a lady who had cardiac problems. She arrived at the doctor's office very nervous and immediately she showed her left breast, in which were two strange holes. She complained of giddiness, shortness of breath and weakness, characteristic symptoms already known by people hit by the phenomenon.
The doctor tried to calm her and she returned to her home. But at about 03:00 pm, however, Dr. Wellaide was called to urge to the residence of the woman, who had become very sick. Her whole body was still and she gaped for air but she did not have fever and did not vomit. Seeing the seriousness of the situation, the doctor took her to a hospital in Belém.
Hours later, she received the medical papers and the certificate of death forwarded by the Medical Institute Legal Renato Chaves, which stated a heart stroke as cause of the death. The intriguing fact is that at no time, doctors in Belém had mentioned something about the injuries on her body and did not even say if they had effected backing examinations.
ELECTRICITY:
Regarding the possible effects of the UFOs on the supply of electricity, Sr. Geraldo Aranha de Oliveira (aged 37) of the C.E.I.P.A. (Pará Electricity Plant) explained:
"In 1977 the C.E.I.P.A. sub-station consisted of three Scania 125 kw, engines supplying light to the city from 6pm till midnight. I don’t recall having ever seen a UFO over the plant. I merely remember that, at that period, lots of lightning conductor rods were burnt out and, at times, some fuses too."
AIR FORCE ALERTED:
COMAR (Comando Aéreo Regional, the Regional Air Command of the Brazilian Air Forces), arrived in Belém, and made a series of research in the region, under the project name "Operation Plate." Captain Uyrangê Bolivar Soares Nogueira de Hollanda Lima, head of information office, directed all the operations in the region. During the investigations, the Air Forces obtained four films and hundreds of photographs of flying disks in the basin of Marajó. They also were a great help to the population, providing psychologists assistance, to eliminate the panic that sized the entire region.
The beams of light from the craft were described as being so bright that they resembled those used to illuminate night sporting events. They were "always sharply defined, directed with perfect precision towards any target – houses, people, boats, trees, even the Brazilian Air Force's helicopters deployed over the island during the investigations. On one occasion one of these powerful beams is reported to have obliged one of the helicopters to land, although the exact technical reason is not given. (Giese, 1996)
According to a statement by Sr. Sebastião V. Miranda, former resident of Colares, "the Brazilian Air Force spent more than 35 days in the town, and installed various devices near the Bacurí beach.
Sra. Alba Câmara Vilhena, a married lady living at 683 rua 15 de Novembro, added: "At the time of the 'Chupa-Chupa' everybody was scared to sleep at night, and so almost every night we went away to be with relatives. On one occasion some people saw one of the craft. It was round, and all luminous. Just at that moment a helicopter of the F.A.B. (Brazilian Air Force) was flying quite near to our house. Then we saw the UFO direct a very powerful beam on to the helicopter, obliging it to land on the São Pedro Airfield. That happened at about 8.00 pm one evening."
Professor Raimundo Sebastião Aranha said: "At that period I was closely connected with some of the Air Force's enquiries. They were seeking more information about the "Chupa-Chupa."
He said the Air Force had with them masses of equipment: cars, helicopters, radio transmitters, cameras, powerful glasses, etc., etc., He recalls that, in addition to the rank and file Air Force recruits, there was a whole group of officers and he had the impression that there was a foreigner among them. The helicopters that appeared from time to time, bringing material and personnel, attempted to chase the UFOs but without much success. Indeed, on the contrary, it was the UFOs that chased them!"
One night several months later, on May 24 1978, a journalist and photographer, who had been sent to cover the local UFO encounters, were in their car when despite the heavy rain they were woken up "by a powerful beam of light which – however unbelievable it may seem – passed through the metallic structure of the roof of the vehicle."
Not surprisingly they leapt out of the car to see that "a tube-shaped light beam, about [twenty-five centimeters] in diameter, was coming down from above onto the roof of the car and passing through the metal paneling." On this and other occasions they managed to take numerous photographs which they claim that their newspaper later sold to "a North-American group".
On another night while trying to use flash equipment to photograph one of these craft "the UFO emitted such a vivid beam of light that it smashed the windscreen" of their car. (Giese, 1996)
Several newspaper started to write that the alleged UFOs were weather balloons, or secrets satellites, although there was no possible reason to think that. Local authorities were of course extremely angry because of such articles. Elói Santos, councilman of the old Enclosure for bullfighting stated: "It is not possible to deny that Belém is, today, a frightened city. We are not technician nor do we argue with the conclusion of the authorities. But we did surprise them with declarations of the witnesses who saw light crossing their roofs to penetrate in their skin, removing a little of blood and leaving visible marks of needles and burnings on their epidermis."
SEQUELS:
During the "Chupa-chupa" Wave many new "sighting zones" emerged, such as Pinheiro and São Bento in the State of Maranhão, and Viseu and Bragança in the State of Pará. Some areas indeed reached such a 'level of saturation' that rarely a single night passed without UFO sightings.
One of these "ufological epicenters" was over the bay called the Baía do Sol (Bay of the Sun) and had a direct effect upon the Island of Mosqueiro. Mosqueiro is one of the most important of the islands, and it is the biggest, belonging to the municipality of Belém.
Public concern was immense, all the men banding together at night to organize watches, with bonfires and fireworks, thinking these would deter the craft. But nothing seemed to stop the UFOs, not even the Air Force’s film men and their cameras - and even less the journalists from the Estado do Pará!
There were frequent and regular sightings of mother-ships and probes and flying saucers, all performing incredible manoeuvers over the Bay.
A 61-year-old widow, Elisa da Silva, residing on rua do Bacari, was one of the witnesses in that year (1977). One night, from her house, she saw a flying saucer appear. Vivid white light came from small windows or apertures on it. Seen from below, she said, it seemed quite dark and quite flat. It vanished towards the South, in total silence.
In the opinion of some of the members of the GUA (Amazonian Ufological Group) based in Belém, there exists, or there did exist for a considerable time, at some point beneath the Baía do Sol ("Bay of the Sun") a concealed base for extraterrestrial probe craft. Such an idea would account for the constant appearances, in recent years, of unidentified flying objects over the region.
In 1981, one woman who had been exposed to the UFOs beam in Colares died, although it is no clear that her death was clearly related to the attack.
In 1986, not far from Colares, two persons on Crab Island were discovered "badly decomposed by heat" amid numerous sightings of balls of fire in the sky; cause of death "not known" in either case. Same area, different time: a "ball of fire" seriously burned three men out cutting wood on Crab Island; one of the woodchoppers died. One of the two survivors, Edmundo, had a gaping electrical-type burn injury on the side of his chest, an almost perfect replica of the chest burn suffered by Jack Angel in Georgia in 1974.
In 1993, again in Colares, a 32-year-old missionary and a 40-year-old domestic worker died, a month apart, as a result of close encounters with UFO; according to ufologist Pratt, these women were "both burned on the throat and the chest, as were most of the other people the doctor treated."
Said Pratt: "I know of about ten deaths that have some connection with UFO close encounters."
According to the USAF, there is not one proof of the reality of UFOs, and there are no evidence that they can be a danger. According to the skeptics... According to the skeptics? To tell the truth, skeptics never express anything in such cases. And the larger public does simply not know about such cases.
link; http://www.ufologie.net/htm/colares.htm
Witness accounts (ufologie); http://www.ufologie.net/htm/colares.htm
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...3106883fc4.jpg
Ana Célia Oliveira (above) was only a young girl of six at the time;
quote;
"People and animals were attacked. There was no food. Terrible lack of food. No one was fishing. People would not go out to their vegetable gardens for crops. Everybody tried to go around in large groups. Nobody wanted to be left alone. All of Colares stopped.
At six o\'clock it got dark and we would go to sleep. Groups of as many as fifty to sixty women and children would get together in one house. The men would stay awake all night. They lit bonfires and banged on pots and pans to make noise to scare the UFOs away. People began to shoot into the sky to scare them away".
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...91f9a9cdf7.jpg
Three images taken by a witness (above);
quote from Doctor Carvalho who treated these witnesses;
"All of them had suffered lesions to the face or the thoracic area. [The lesions]… began with intense reddening of the skin in the affected area. Later the hair would fall out and the skin would turn black. There was no pain, only a slight warmth. One also noticed small puncture marks in the skin. The victims were men and women of varying ages, without any pattern…"
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...adcce82cf1.jpg
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...f000d8e51f.jpg
Two patients with the 'puncture marks' after claiming to be struck with the thin white beam (above(;
link; Doctor Carvalho (ufocasebook); http://www.ufocasebook.com/colares1977.html
More witness accounts;
"Sometimes the UFOs go into the water. I’ve seen blue lights moving around under the water, and I’ve seen them come out. It just goes up and away in a northern direction, up and down in a wavy motion toward the ocean…It began with lights all over Colares… sometimes in the shape of a hat, round, discs, like an umbrella… "
"They seemed to come from way high up from many places, one from the sky, one from the bay… They put out a strong light, too bright to see a shape. The light was blinding. One time we saw three or four objects come together into one big one. They seemed to come from different directions and then joined together. Many times we could see them going across the island toward Belém".
"They didn’t make any noise. Very silent. “One time we saw many UFOs coming out of the water at the same time, one, two, three, four… Many lights came out of the water. Huge objects went into the water, came down and went into the water".
Rosio Oliveira MUFON ; http://www.mufon.com/bob_pratt/colares.html
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...0366f3f257.jpg
Report from military investigator Sergeant Álvaro Pinto Santos and what became known as Project Prato (project plate/saucer) began.
Report document;SCANNED PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL;
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...4067335d4b.jpg
Brazilian Air Defense Command (Comdabra)released more documentation related to OPERAÇÃO PRATO;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Prato
50 pages document [.PDF, 10,6 Mb]
Download
OPERAÇÃO PRATO 1 – PART 3 –
http://www.ufo.com.br/op01parte1.zip
Third part of the document of Operation Prato, conducted by the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) in the Amazon, through the Regional Air Command I, of Bethlehem (PA) between September and December 1977. This is the final report on the secret of FAB, coordinated by the then capital Uyrangê Bolívar Soares Nogueira de Hollanda Lima, closed in December 1977 and sent to the Brazilian Air Defense Command (Comdabra) in Brasilia.
51 pages document [.PDF, 6,7 Mb]
Download
http://www.ufo.com.br/op01parte3.zip
OPERAÇÃO PRATO 2;
Additional document on Operation Prato, conducted by the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) in the Amazon, through the Regional Air Command I, of Bethlehem (PA) between September and December 1977. This is the final report of the secret of FAB, coordinated by Uyrangê Bolívar Soares Nogueira de Hollanda Lima, closed in December 1977 and sent to the Brazilian Air Defense Command (Comdabra) in Brasilia.
51 pages document [.PDF, 6,7 Mb]
Download
http://www.ufo.com.br/op02.zip
-
Israeli Mid-Air UFO explosion;
Actual still frame from video of this collision;
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3...avid01ipd2.jpg
By Barry Chamish;
"Yet another landmark event in the eleven year long Israeli UFO wave has taken place. In what appears to be a historical first, a mid-air crash between two UFOs has been video-taped".
Source:
http://ufologie.net/
quote;
"Last month I reported that I had acquired a video copy of a mid-air UFO explosion over the Israeli city of Rosh Haayin. I wrote that my impression was the video captured a profoundly important moment: the first mid-air UFO collision ever recorded. I requested that experts analyze the film scientifically. Within a day, Dwight Connelly of MUFON committed himself to having the video analyzed. The video is a compilation of two UFO events recorded by Spasso Maximovitch in 1995 and 1996. I sent Dwight both clips and he passed them on to MUFON's video expert Jeff Sanio for computer analysis. The following is his report".
"I will not comment on his conclusions. Jeff has no need of my analysis of his analysis. Let's just sum matters up like this: It's The Real Thing. Added to Israel's list of UFO firsts, is the first mid-air explosion between two unexplained aerial craft ever captured on videotape or any other media. Several film and TV producers asked me to release the clip for their programs but I had to turn them down".
"I am prevented by a copyright problem from reproducing the film, though I am permitted to display my copy. I am seeking a conference to premiere this remarkable event. In the meantime, I will publish MUFON's full report on members".http://members.tripod.com/~ufoisrael.
TEXT OF THE MUFON REPORT:
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:39:44 -0800
From: Jeff Sainio Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: my report
I left out the stills from the video, as you've already seen them.
The paper copy has already been sent.
Dwight Connelly
14026 Ridgelawn
Martinsville IL
62442
1-16-99
217-382-4502,4014
Videoanalysis
6/24/96
Rosh Haayin, central Israel
Spasso Maximovitch
Events as reported to me from Barry Chamish ([email protected]): `On 28/9/95, Spasso Maximovitch noticed an unexplainable object in the skies over Rosh Haayin in central Israel. He grabbed his video camera and captured a silvery, glowing object become, two, three and then four fiery orbs, in a near square formation, over a wide expanse of the northwestern sky. After this incident, Mr. Maximovitch became a constant skywatcher. His dilgence was rewarded on 24/6/96 when a similar silvery orb appeared in the lower western sky.
He trained his video camera on the orb... And then a glowing white oval-shaped object appeared some 20 degrees west of the object and streaked toward it at high speed. Within three seconds it struck the stationary orb, causing a huge explosion in the sky which must have destroyed both objects. Stunned, Maximovitch stopped filming immediately after capturing the explosion.`
The submitted video, which was in PAL format, was converted to NTSC format. It shows several events; a group of lights, one apparently dropped from another (the dropping is seen in the stills marked 28/9/1995 and 3:27:33); a stationary light which is apparently struck by a moving light, and a triangle of lights. The group of lights is interesting, but I could find no basis for investigating any form of anomalousness. The triangle of lights has no reference objects to indicate what or where it is.
The stationary light was much more interesting. Various lights, probably streetlights, in the video were used as reference objects, and showed that the light was stationary over some 30 seconds. An approaching airplane's landing lights will appear stationary, although motionlessness over this length of time seems unusual.
A vertical tower structure, apparently made of girders, is near the light. Some horizontal structure is atop the structure. It was not sufficiently defined for continuous measurements to be made from it.
Another bright object appears to the left and slightly below the stationary object. In 2.9 seconds, it moves toward the stationary object, apparently hitting and exploding. In 1/4 second, the explosion disappears with no trace of either object. The 5-frame sequence to the right illustrates the sequence.
The bright object can be seen to move between the girders of the vertical structure. This is useful in determining the relative size of the moving light. (The size of the light as seen on the video, is misleading; it is presumably much smaller than what is seen, due to extreme overexposure and glare.) The light disappears or reappears completely 6 times; in 3, the change is abrupt; completely bright-to-dark or vice versa.
In the other 3, the change is gradual, with a frame showing partial brightness. What can be learned from this? One must remember that the video is a sequence of 1/50 second time exposures. Assume the light is small, and that the moving object has only one light. If by chance, the disappearance coincides with the period between exposures, an abrupt disappearance will be seen. A large light, or several lights horizontally separated, will never disappear abruptly while moving slowly. Since 6 occurrences form a useful population of samples, the moving light can reliably be said to be quite small. This probably eliminates the flame from a missile as a source.
Although the vertical structure was not a reliable reference object, the two lights' relative position could be measured. Over 500 measurements of the two lights' position were made. The graph at right shows the distance between the 2 lights. Breaks in the data line are due to unreliable data from camera motion or the moving light going behind the girders. Reference straight lines show constant speed.
The slopes of the lines show that the moving light spent about a second at some speed, then sped up about 16% before the collision. The 16% is not due to a zoom change; the tower is sufficiently visible to verify that its size does not appreciably change. Although the graph shows noise and missing data, the acceleration certainly occurred in under a second. No reasonable object I know of is capable of a 16% acceleration in a second.
When the 2 objects apparently collide and explode, the apparent size of the light expands by a factor of roughly 2.5; this does not appear to be due to overexposure, but is the real size of the object. The last 2 frames of the video are NOT overexposed, but diffuse; since overexposure is not involved, this indicates the actual size of the explosion is shown. The real increase in size of the bright area is certainly much larger than 2.5.
In the video the explosion moves downward; this is probably due to camera motion of the startled videographer; the reference tower is too smeared to verify this conclusion.
The explosion is not due to any conventional method I am familiar with; conventional, large explosions require much more than 1/4 second to disappear, and usually generate flaming debris that falls from the explosion. Neither characteristic is seen here.
The acceleration, light size, and explosion are not explainable in any convention way that I know of, and this case remains unidentified.
Jeff Sainio
MUFON Staff Photoanalyst
7206 W. Wabash
Stills from video;
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/438/isravid01awx9.jpg
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2016/isravid01blv1.jpg
Sources:
http://ufologie.net/htm/isravid01f.htm
http://www.rense.com/ufo2/realthing.htm
http://greyhunter.blog.de/?tag=ufo-israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF SAINIO'S REPORT ON THE ISRAEL UFO VIDEO
Summary:
Two videos of similar (perhaps the same) objects over coastal
Israel, appear to show characteristics that are commonly
associated with UFOs; erratic motion, an amazing range of speeds,
and right angle turns. The most unusual characteristic is what
appears to be erratic motion; although the object size is
unknown, conservative estimates of the object size, result in
object accelerations that are not feasible with known technology,
and would probably destroy any known aircraft.
Like most videos,
the cameras are zoomed, leaving out terrestrial objects that would
be used as reference points to determine UFO motion. Fortunately,
the cameras were able to see background stars, making the
measurement of UFO motion possible.
Report:
On the evening of July 22, 1999, over the Israeli "Special"
(nuclear?) Air Force Base at Palmachim-Yavne (S. of Tel Aviv),
an object was reported to fly from the north to the coastal area
where it stopped and hovered above the base. No noise was
reported in the six hours the object hovered.
Over 100
witnesses reportedly saw the object; several are seen on the
video submitted. Planes were reported circling the object at a
distance, although none appear on video. The video was about
12 minutes long; the tape has gaps, and with no onscreen time,
the actual duration covered is unknown.
Generally, the video shows the camera zooming into the object,
giving extreme magnification. The camera is capable of digital
zoom, which mostly provides magnification and artifacts but no
true detail. When normal hand-holding jiggle causes the object
to be lost, the camera is fully de-zoomed, the object relocated,
and zooming reattempted.
This allows intermittent views of the
object position in the sky (compared with streetlight positions),
alternated with views of the object shape. The composite image
Fig. 1 shows the object position at the noted time in seconds
from the beginning of the video. Note the non-linear path of the
object. Also note that the object moves a considerable angular
distance in about a minute. (A witness face is obscured for
privacy.)
http://www.mnmufon.org/pic/figjs1.jpg
In close zooms, the object shows a wide variety of shapes. The
composite Fig. 2 shows some of those seen. None of these
images are "one-frame-wonders"; all shapes shown are visible in
numerous frames, and are therefore not merely due to random tape
noise or other intermittent artifacts. Equally important is to
recognize what is NOT "seen" (video artifacts as opposed to real
images). The horizontal and vertical lines are camera artifacts
of digital zoom and interlace, and should not be taken as actual
structure of the object.
Relative brightnesses of light are valid
data, taking overexposure into account. The actual colors of
small objects are not properly recorded onto videotape, due to
video bandwidth limitations. A bright overexposed object appears
white, regardless of actual color. A large blob should not be
taken as a true size, this usually indicates imperfect focus of
the camera. A bright area around a white light, fading with
distance from center, is probably glare. As the glare is often
not overexposed and is over a large area, its color is indicative
of the actual object's color, even if overexposed.
Click here for negative video of UFO; file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/My%20Documents/Downloads/ufo_negative.avi
Most camcorders will detect near infrared, in the range of 700-
1000nM (nanometers wavelength). For reference, the human eye sees
violet near 400nM, up to red near 700nM. Silicon photodetectors,
the usual heart of a camcorder video signal, typically have peak
response around 700nM, near infrared. A camcorder infrared response
can be tested by looking at a TV remote control through the camera
while pushing buttons on the remote; infrared response will be seen
as white flashes in the camera that can't be seen by eye. Infrared in
a video can be distinguished in three ways:
It will be seen though
the camera, but not by the naked eye (if excited witnesses take care
to note!); it appears white; and being a longer wavelength, will
focus differently. "Near infrared" should be distinguished from
"thermal infrared" which is a far longer wavelength not detectable
by ordinary camcorders, often used in night-vision equipment. For a
typical achromatic lens, infrared underfocuses; it is bent less, so
the lens-image distance must be greater than for visible light.
The result can be a ring shape, distinct from properly focussed,
visible light images in the same scene.
Note: The object typically shows two or three lights, sometimes
with one or two dimmer lights. The bright/dim distinction changes;
in one segment, an equilateral triangle arrangement slowly turns
counter-clockwise and flattening, with the lower left light dimming
until the object resembles a pair of lights with a dimmer light
between. It should be noted that the characteristic flash of
airplane anti-collision strobe lights are never seen in the video.
Note: In the 5th image down in Fig. 2, the appearance of a
"headphones" shape. The "headstrap" bridging the "earphones" is
not a segment of a circle, indicating merely a mis-focused point
of light. The aspect ratio (height/width ratio) is about 1.5/1,
clearly different than a circle. During the headstrap's
visibility, occasional twinkles are seen within it; it appears
to be a real object, not an artifact.
The 6th to 8th images in Fig. 2 show a ring of light. Particularly
in the 8th frame, the "earphones" are in fairly good focus but
the ring is quite evident. This would be consistent with a strong
infrared source, producing an under-focused ring image, while
visible wavelengths are in proper focus.
The images in Fig. 3, the result of digital zoom, are useful with
the repeated caveat that the vertical pattern is from digital
zoom, not a real attribute of the object. The uppermost frame
shows the right light extremely over-exposed, showing an orange
result in the non over-exposed glare. This orange result should
be interpreted with caution; even the best cameras produce poor
color at night. Note in your local nightly weather forecast, live
camera shots of city interstate intersections may be shown for
gauging traffic or weather.
The picture will appear quite red,
although any driver knows the scene is yellowish-white. This is
due to the sodium-yellow lights' wavelength registering on the
red channel of the camera. The true color could be yellower than
what is seen on the video. The important aspect of this image is
that the object has an extremely bright yellow/orange light,
with two much weaker white lights. This combination is
inconsistent with typical aircraft lighting; extremely bright
lights are typically landing lights, which are white. The last
three images in Fig. 3 show closeups of a three-light arrangement,
with the lower two lights in fairly sharp focus (although much
glare) but the upper light in very bad focus.
The difference
between glare and focus is obvious; the lower circles have an
clear source in the bright centers, but the upper ring has little
or no distinguishing center. This verifies the upper ring is the
result of poor focus of that wavelength, not glare. As the other
points are in fairly good focus, the mis-focus is apparently due
to a wavelength difference between the lower lights and the upper.
Infrared light appears to be the only candidate which would cause
this result; ultraviolet light penetrates glass poorly and
registers on silicon photoreceptors poorly.
At several points in closeups in the video, persistent points of
light (as opposed to random spots of video noise) appear in the
same, or at least in predictably different, positions on the
screen. This is consistent with a background star (example in
Fig. 4, circled) appearing in the video, appearing to bounce around
due to the unsteadiness of the videographer's hand. (I could not
find a weather report verifying clear skies that night; another
source of light, such as a plane running light, gives little
change in the conclusions so based.)
Such a reference star is very
useful in that it can be used to determine the true angular motion
of the object, as long as the object is far enough away that
positional movement of the camera generates no significant parallax
error. Given the numerous witnesses referring to a distant object,
and the degree of zoom making any significant lateral movement of
the camera difficult while maintaining aim, the possibility of
parallax seems doubtful for giving a significant apparent shift
between the star and the object. The results shown below, therefore,
appear to be true angular motion of the object rather than the
result of artifacts.
Shown, graphically in Fig. 5, is the X-difference (solid line with
square markers, in units of screen pixels on a 640-by-480 display)
and Y-difference (thick line) between the object and the star over
a 145-frame time period (almost five seconds). As a size reference,
the object is about 40 pixels wide center-to-center of its outermost
lights. The X-difference between the star and the camera aim is
shown as a dotted line with triangle markers. The star is often not
clearly visible, being smeared out by camera motion to obscurity
or simply off screen.
Such points are unmarked on the graph. Note:
The object made five reversals in direction in these five seconds -
an astonishing performance. The maximum lateral motion is about
six times the apparent width of the object. Assuming (as a probably
conservative guess - see below) that the object is 10 feet across,
the object went 60 feet back and forth in about 1 second. The
maximum acceleration is about 18G. This is consistent historically
with witness reports in which erratic UFO flight is reported, and
quite uncharacteristic with known aircraft performance. The
reference star does not appear to be a lens flare from any of the
numerous street lights in the area (or of the object itself).
Several lens flares ARE obvious during low-zoom conditions.
If a
lens flare, it would have the shape (perhaps reflected and/or
inverted) of the source light; instead, the star is small and
point-like. But, assuming the object to be motionless, and that the
apparent motion is totally camera motion, the "star" motion should
correlate to the camera motion. This is since a lens flare is merely
a reflection off some stray surface inside the lens, and moving the
"mirror" (lens/camera) will also move the reflection accordingly.
But no such correlation is found. All indications are that the star
is a distant point-like object, and a valid reference point.
The graph in Fig. 6 shows another segment of the video where a star
appeared useful as a reference point, with the same symbology as the
previous graph. Similarly, about 8 reversals are seen in about a
seven second period. The object width is about 60 pixels, so the
object moved laterally about six times its own width back and forth.
Near the end of the segment, extreme motion of the camera smeared
out the star image beyond recognizability, so this portion of the
graph is blank.
Extreme motion of the camera can be useful. The image in Fig. 7
shows a streak generated, presumably when the camera was bumped;
the previous frames are also disturbed as if bumped. The streak
shows a time exposure of the object during the 1/50 second exposure
of a single field. The brightness of the streak is representative
of the brightness times the duration the light spent at a particular
point on the image. Since the motion of the camera isn't known,
the time duration during the streak is not known. However, since
there are two lights, IF the lights are of constant brightness, one
would expect the brightnesses of the two treaks to correspond; a
bright region of one light's streak would correspond to a bright
region of the other.
This effect is not seen; corresponding parts
of the two streaks are obviously of different brightness. The
differing brightnesses could be explained by several phenomenon,
all resulting in an anomalous conclusion:
1. The lights are rapidly changing brightness. Standard tungsten
aircraft lights are incapable of doing this.
2. Atmospheric turbulence (twinkling) is causing the brightness
changes. This implies a considerable amount of air between the
object and camera; the amount depends on distance and the air
stability. A hot night will have more thermal action than a cold
still night. (A large amount of heat roiling off the object, such
as looking directly into a jet exhaust, will also cause turbulence.)
Assuming no object heat, I would guess at least several kilometers
of air between the object and camera to generate this amount of
twinkling.
Conservatively assuming one kilometer distance, and
100X digital zoom (which is a guess, but typical) and a pair of
lights 1/3 of the frame-width, the light spacing is 1000 meters /
100X zoom * 1/3, or about 3 meters apart. Often, three or more
lights at similar spacings are seen, so the object size is at least
twice this size.
In both graphs, the camera motion clearly lags the object motion by
about 1/3 second; this is what would be expected of a videographer
trying to "track" an erratically moving object. The 1/3 second
delay is what would be expected from studies of computer mouse and
trackball human response testing, and also is on the slow end of
TV cameramen's performance in tracking the football during
unexpected events (intercepts, fumbles, fake handoffs, etc.) during
NFL play. So the camera motion is quite typical of what would be
expected from normal human hand-eye coordination.
This is also
additional confirmation that the star is not simply a lens flare;
a lens flare's position would react instantly to camera motion,
not with a delay. A summary of the object characteristics:
1. No standard aircraft anti-collision strobes are ever seen.
2. The object path is atypical for a plane. A helicopter could
easily make such a path, although hovering silently for six hours
is a gas-guzzling challenge.
3. The arrangement of lights changes continuously, often assuming
a non-horizontal arrangement. Airplanes, unless viewed from
substantially below, appear as inherently horizontal objects.
4. A "headstrap" structure is seen which appears to be real, and
does not match any lighted airplane or helicopter structure I am
familiar with.
5. At one point, the object's brightest light, by far, is approx.
orange (perhaps yellow or red). An extremely bright light of this
color is not standard on any airplane I am familiar with.
6. At another point, the object appears to have a light source
that emits infrared (approximately 900nM) with little or no
corresponding visible light.
7. The object position, compared to reference stars, is erratic.
Although the object size is unknown, even conservative size
estimates yield astonishing acceleration results. The first six
characteristics might be achieved with a determined faker with an
incredible helicopter and a complex array of visible and infrared
lights, but the last characteristic is implausible for any known
aircraft.
On the evening of September 2, 1998, a 14 minute videotape was
recorded showing a similar strange triangle of lights, described
as red/yellow/blue, "patrolling the skies of Rishon Leziyon"
(sometimes translated as Le Zion or Letzion) on coastal Israel.
The camcorder is obviously handheld, with the usual shakiness of
a handhold with zoom. The zoom varies, showing perhaps 16X zoom
alternated with occasional shots of a crowd of onlookers. Not
surprisingly due to the limited ability of videotape to capture
the color of small objects, no color other than a slight pink was
detected.
The triangular array slowly turns clockwise, with lights
occasionally extinguishing, and being replaced with lights on
the opposite side. Figure 8 shows a collection of images of the
object, with timing information.
The on-screen time is shown where available; if not, the frame
number is given. Apparent size changes are presumably due to
zoom changes. The last image is that of an airplane; the center
bright light is an anti-collision strobe light.
The graph in Fig. 9 below shows the turning of the lights. Note
the object appears to make about 1.5 complete revolutions. The
turning is accomplished in slow turning, then bursts, both of
which slow during the video. After 150 seconds, the time is real
time as shown by the camcorder on-screen time display. Prior to
150 seconds, the time is estimated assuming the camcorder ran
continuously.
This is not true; there are breaks of unknown
duration in the video. Timing prior to 150 seconds should be
regarded as speculative. Note also that the time covered is longer
than the video length; this is due to breaks in the recording.
Several frames show smearing of the light images due to camera
motion. No interesting high speed brightness changes were
apparent in such frames.
At several portions of the video, background stars appear to be
visible (circled at right). These are very useful in that true
object motion is apparent using the star as a reference point.
(In the portion shown, two stars are visible, allowing a zoom
change to be compensated for. In this and another brief segment
where two stars are visible, they are motionless relative to each
other, corroborating the conclusion that these points are indeed
stars.) These portions are:
At 30 seconds, over 42 frames (8 points measured, although many
more visible), object moves leftward and downward at a 45 degree
angle, at a speed of 2.5 times its own length per second.
At 97 seconds, over 32 frames (but only 3 frames showed a star),
object moves right and upward at a 70 degree angle at a speed
of 7X its own length per second.
At 124 seconds, over 21 frames (but only 3 frames showed a star),
object moves rightward and downward at a 25 degree angle, at a
speed of 9X its own length per second.
At 164 seconds, at 18:38:35, over 86 frames (9 measured), object
left and down at a 40 degree angle at a speed of 2X its own
length per second.
At 18:40:04, over 225 frames (18 measured with 2 stars), object
right and down at a 17 degree angle at a speed of 6X its own
length per second.
At 18:45:45, over 31 frames (only 3 measured), object right and
upward at a 28 degree angle at a speed of 11X its own length per
second.
At 18:49:24, over 67 frames (7 measured), object right and upward
at a 14 degree angle at a speed of 13X its own length per second.
At 18:52:36, over 333 frames, (9 points measured using 2 stars)
rightward and upward at a 44 degree angle, at about 1.4 times
its own length per second. At 18:59:44, over 211 frames, (7
measured) leftward and upward at a 48 degree angle, at a speed
of about 0.8X its own length per second.
"Its own length" refers to the maximum distance between lights;
the size of a possible dark supporting structure is obviously
unknown. "Frames" are the 1/30 second NTSC frames studied,
although the original PAL video is recorded at 25FPS. In all
cases, the object motion was a straight line over all measured
intervals, within measurement error limits. Note that faster
speeds correspond to fewer data points.
As would be expected
in the case of high object speed, only a small number of samples
could be obtained before the star left the field of view. Also,
fast motion smears out and obscures a dim object, making a star
harder to find.
The variety of directions and speeds may be better understood by
looking at the series of lines in Fig. 10; the direction of each
arrow shows the direction of the object, and the length of the
lines represents the object speed. Note, THE LENGTH OF THE LINE
DOES NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL PATH OF THE OBJECT,
but rather its speed at the stated times. In summary, the description
of "patrolling" is corroborated; between 30 and 97 seconds, the
object turned almost completely around, turned right, down slow,
right, up fast, then slowed and turned left. Note the number of
near-right-angle turns.
OTHER TURNS (WITH NO STAR AS REFERENCE)
MAY HAVE OCCURRED. Remember this motion is apparent motion; the
object could be moving toward or away from the camera and this
motion would not be visible.
Conclusion:
The object is obviously not an airplane, or some device on an
airplane; ignoring the lack of standard lighting, the path, and
the 16:1 range of apparent speed, is impossible. A turnable set
of lights on a helicopter could make this video, but I doubt that
numerous witnesses would fail to recognize helicopter noise. A
helicopter would have particular difficulty making a 1 minute, 180
degree turn silently. I know of no known cause for this phenomenon.
Jeff Sainio
MUFON Staff Photoanalyst
7206 W. Wabash Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53223-2609
Jeff Sainio's Report and source; http://www.mnmufon.org/js1.htm
-
-
Gosford NSW multiple witness UFO sightings Dec 30/31 1995;
quote;
"The Gosford UFO incident from 1994 where several upstanding, credible townsfolk (including business owners, policemen, retired academics etc..) witnessed an unknown object taking up water from a lake".
"They describe a brightly lit object hovering over the lake "emitting five shafts of light whilst the water was frothing and bubbling beneath it".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical Influences of a UFO on Water;
quote;
"This page is dedicated to Lucius Farish and Dale Titler who, as pioneers in this field, began to recognize the physical effects of unidentified objects on water.
Physical Affects on Water - Tying It Together
By Carl Feindt © 2005
The following proposes a possible explanation for the observed interaction between unidentified flying objects and water. Wrested from seemingly divergent eyewitness accounts, it posits that the reaction of the water around an emerging craft implies the existence of a displacement field, one that exhibits electromagnetic tendencies. What at first seems like a series of unrelated accounts is shown to illustrate consistent behavior when the distance between the object and the body of water is considered.
My interest in water-related UFO sightings came long ago while reading the books that have interested all of us. However, those books usually had only one water-related case in them. The mystery to me was: How something so profound could be neglected? Why was there no book – or even a chapter – exploring the UFO’s ability to operate in and out of water? As time went by, books were published with short chapters on the subject.
Finally in 1970, Ivan T. Sanderson published Invisible Residents, which described water UFO cases from front to back. However, the idea of how they accomplished their penetration and emergence from water was once again overlooked in favor of the concept of another civilization residing underwater on our planet.
Scientists use repetitive results as proof of the conclusions of their experiments. Ted Phillips’ investigation into trace cases does a similar service to UFOs. Water, unfortunately, dissipates any physical evidence due to motion of the liquid or dilution of residual traces. However, could there be solid evidence in the form of repetitive verbal testimony? On starting the collection process of UFO cases I had no concept of what I might find. I only wanted to gather all the cases I could to see if they fit any physical pattern;
Why should we get excited about a few water-related reports scattered amongst our ever-popular UFO cases? Because in these cases we can see the path of what we must accomplish in order to actually travel to the stars. A new propulsion system… and a field surrounding the craft protecting it from micrometeorite hits, acidic climates, hostile gunfire, and whatever else the craft encounters. If we wanted to send men to Venus, material would have to be developed to withstand the heat and the acidic atmosphere of the planet. However, if we could design a vessel based on the “alien” craft we have experienced over the past fifty-plus years, no further modifications would be necessary.
An analogy to a light bulb can be drawn here: If we think of the filament as the functioning craft and the glass bulb representing the UFO field, we can see that this bulb protects the fragile filament from atmospheric intrusion and other damage. In the majority of UFO cases it is undoubtedly the function of the field to protect the UFO; the speeds that are recorded would cause a tremendous heating of the surface of the vehicle due to atmospheric friction, not to mention the possible collision with other aerial craft or life forms. The function of the field may not be limited to protection.
The field might also be a part of the propulsion source, although nothing has been proven or observed along this line. Paul Hill’s book Unconventional Flying Objects just about cinched the idea of how this craft could do what it does in water. In Chapter 13, “Silent Supersonic Operation,” he explains that the field moves the molecules of atmosphere it contacts to its rear. A molecule of water could be moved in the same way; in physics, our atmosphere and water are both governed by the one physical principal, that of “Fluid Dynamics.”
As I continued my collection of reports, the major problem was not the lack of incidents, but the lack of text on what the water was doing during those incidents. For the most part, the cases report UFOs going into or coming out of water and then go into detail about the craft or its travel. This is understandable as the craft is the unusual thing, not the water.
I eventually became frustrated that there was no clear correlation between what was occurring with the water in the different reports and began to think that perhaps all these disjointed cases were leading me nowhere. One night I sat at my drafting board and decided to draw each case group as a filament surrounded by a bulb. The resultant drafting work came as quite a shock to me.
It should be noted that this hypothesis is based on what could be considered a small percentage of the more than 850 cases contained on this site, and does not take into consideration any testimony concerning UFOs entering bodies of water.
The following sections will illustrate the various phases of UFO reaction with water.
The drawing at the beginning of each section represents a simplified idea of the UFO field -- which has many times been referred to as “electromagnetic,” and to that end I show the UFO as if a bar magnet had been inserted into its center. This concept was inspired by a sketch of a UFO with a surrounding magnetic field from an older addition of UFOs and Anti-Gravity by Leonard G. Cramp (See the full case with sketch at: 04-??-1958 on this website).
(Put a bar magnet into the water and it will NOT produce the results shown. So while it may have a similar flow of the surrounding field, it is not a simple magnet. )
Each drawing is followed by a description of that phase, along with a demonstrative excerpt from published eyewitness case testimony. (Additional supportive cases are mentioned at the head of each section; and full text can be found by clicking on the dates shown in blue.)
[Note: All of the text in green was highlighted by me for emphasis]
UFO COMING UP – “WATER BULGES”
Terms used in relevant cases:
09-LL-1954 “Elevated turmoil” and “the water had formed into a plateau”
03-LL-1959 “Water swelled”
06-03-1961 “the surface of the sea was bulging like an enormous ball”
09-24-1961 “The surface was rising in one spot”, “Looked like a round hill”
08-08-1967 “Wrinkled up or stirred up”
09-??-1971 “Producing the normal rise of water”
http://www.waterufo.net/images/image001.png
Figure 1 (Underwater)
Notice how if this idea is correct, the force is pushing upwards, causing a bulge.
****Description****
In this section we should visualize ourselves in a boat, leisurely enjoying the ocean view, when suddenly we notice a strange sight. A section of the water within our view appears disturbed. At first it is like the water is boiling, with bubbles coming to the surface, but within seconds the surface becomes more agitated and appears to be rising and flowing violently. Suddenly all this ceases as we are faced with a “craft.”
The following cases display this scenario with greater elegance:
09-LL-1954;
ENCOUNTER IN THE GULFSTREAM by Neil Deane as told to George Earley;
Some morning, I’ve forgotten which one, because I have long since lost the log book, I was rudely awakened in that dark, cold hour before dawn, realizing that my forward progress had stopped and that I was taking water. Great sheets of water flung over her forward deck, screaming down the sides of her cockpit foaming, some of it coming aboard. So in under shorts and barefoot, and the rest of me bare, I came suddenly awake, went into the cockpit and discovered she was dead on course, sails drawing. But she was not making any progress while over her forward deck was considerable depth of solid water and a great thrashing up ahead.
Looking in the direction of the thrashing, I perceived a great glow, like a big school of herring coming near the surface and disturbing luminous bacteria . . . only it was not the right Color. It was more deeply orange. In color it was like the annelids, which are common off Bermuda in certain seasons, but this was one continuous glow and not a collection of nickel-sized blobs of light. The glow seemed to come from a plateau of water, which was causing solid water to flow over my decks, hence impeding my forward progress.
So, thinking I had gone ashore, even though nothing was
grating under the keel, I charged up her auxiliary engine, slapped in reverse gear, and backed away. In a few yards astern I was in dead calm water so I took in her sails and when I was squared away with power-plant running nicely, I put her into forward gear and went back towards this plateau of glowing water and light...
On seeing this "windjammer" apparently bearing down on me, l had gone into reverse gear again, backing off once more into calm water . . . perhaps a hundred yards from the disturbance. Even as I realized my "windjammer" was something else, the splashing and sloshing of water stopped, and this vessel, or whatever it was, rose out of the water and the glow surrounding it subsided so that her running lights were much more highly visible. She had lifted off the water and was heading towards the now dimly visible continent of North America in a long, upward slant and going at what seemed to be a tremendous speed.
This reference (Original): BEYOND REALITY #18, January 1976, “Encounter in the Gulfstream” by Neil Deane as told to George Earley.
UFO JUST ABOVE THE SURFACE – “WATER DEPRESSION”
Terms used in relevant cases:
Indentation of waters surface
06-12-1958 France “see the water being whipped up all around it”, “making waves”
09-24-1961 Poland “hole in the waves”
03-29-1974 Africa “sea not flat but dug in the form of a depression.”
http://www.waterufo.net/images/image004.jpg
Figure 2
Notice that in this position the force upon the water is pushing downward.
****Description*****
In these cases the UFO is seen “just” above the water, its field acting as a plow while it invisibly moves water in the direction of the witness. In several cases where the UFO did not move in the direction of the witness, but simply continued upward, we find the terms “tunnel” or “hole” used to describe what was observed below the UFO. Indeed this tunnel idea was expressed in a story of an abduction where the witness saw “strange walls of the tunnel” as he traveled below an ocean (UFO Contact from Undersea by Dr. Sanchez-Ocejo and W. Stevens).
03-29-1974
A DEPRESSION AND A MINI-TIDAL WAVE
...They then were afraid of being dragged away in the water and not being able to regain the shore. A.W. succeeded in grabbing the trunk of a coconut palm. He held on with his right arm, holding on to the woman with the other. At their feet was now a continuous barrage of strong waves, so that one instant before the sea came within 50 m of the dune!
Suddenly, three bright lights showed on the object blinding the witnesses. It was like three projections pointed in their direction, other luminous beams coming from the sides of the object, perhaps also from its upper side or from the unseen side of it. Certain of the beams seemed oriented upward, but A.W. could not confirm this, so much did the three beams pointed toward shore blind him.
In all the light it was white that dominated, but there was also yellow, pink and blue-green. A.W. wore glasses that were lightly tinted. He was struck by the blue and green colors of the waves lighted by the object. The most interesting detail of his recount concerned the surface of the sea under the object. It was not flat but dug in the form of a depression. A.W. estimated its depth at a few meters, 5 or 6 perhaps. Its diameter was comparable to the length of the object, on the order of 25-30 meters.
SEA SURFACE DISRUPTION;
Two elements in the account of A.W. present an import interest for those who try to imagine the physical phenomena accompanying eventually, the UFO sightings:
These are the descriptions he made, on one hand, the depression dug in the sea under it and on the other hand, of the advancing waves on the beach up to the dune. It is not possible, given the condition of the observations to obtain a very precise description of the profile of the depression (cup), in particular of the bottom of it.
This reference: Phēnomēnes Spatiaux (Space Phenomena) a publication of GEPA, GROUPEMENT D’ĒTUDE PHĒNOMĒNES AĒRIENS (Group for the Study of Airborne Phenomena). Dated March 1976.
ABOVE THE SURFACE BUT CLOSE – “WATER MOUNDING”
Terms used in the text that follows:
04-??-1958 “beneath the saucer the sea water was turned up.
http://www.waterufo.net/images/image006.jpg
Figure 3
Notice here the water, assuming the shape of the upward flow of the field apparently entering the UFO.
****Description*****
This is probably the single most important witness sighting in terms of understanding the total effect of the UFO upon water. There have been similar descriptions in other accounts, but they are usually tempered by terms like “upward swelling” or “raised water,” language that does not clearly show a mounding or mountainous form. We have here a fixed view of an effect, but also the beginning of what might occur when the craft moves farther up vertically.
04-??-1958
Between Maceió and Parapueira, Brasil, April 1958.
On the north-east Atlantic coast a business man and several fishers were witnesses of a saucer-shaped-object, which came down from the sky and hovered above the water in about 40 meters distance from them. Beneath the saucer the seawater was turned up (see picture) and bubbled, as if it was cooking or drawn up by an invisible power. The object was as big as the tent of a touring circus and was about 15 meters above the water's surface. (Cramp 1966)
This reference: Piece For a Jig-Saw, by Leonard G. Cramp, p. 133, London, 1966.
ABOVE THE SURFACE – “WATER SPOUT”
Terms used in relevant cases:
08-LL-1914 “then rose from the bay surface sucking with it a heavy upsurge of water”
08-27-1917 “it was as if the water was being drawn up to it”
02-??-1955 “a huge geyser of water”
09-24-1961 “a whirlpool of water rushing upward with a loud sucking and gurgling noise”
??-??-1964 “it was like a funnel sucking up water” “It brought the water up with it due to
the fact that it was whirling so fast”
08-??-1965 “ a gigantic pillar of water rose as the sphere emerged” “Collapsed – later”
03-26-1966 “greenish volume of light, water or vapor, extended from the underside of the
object down to the surface of the water”
08-04-1971 “Three vortexes came out from the sea and from inside them an object
appeared”
07-??-1977 “could see the water of the lake surging upward” “as if being sucked into the
machine”
10-23-1978a Column of water “hovered 100 feet high by 15 feet wide before falling fanlike
into the sea”
07-17-1992 same as 10-23-1978a “sucking up a column of water almost as wide as the
UFO”
04-26-1994 A center plume of water shot up to the bottom of the UFO
http://www.waterufo.net/images/image008.jpg
****Description*****
This type of case involves a UFO hovering over water. The witness describes a column of fog, mist, haze or water reaching from the surface to the object. The terminology generally used in the description is “sucking up water”. This column, I believe, is caused by the rotation of a field in a vertical plane that encompasses of the UFO. This is best visualized by going back to Physics 101: Imagine a bar magnet running vertically through the center of the UFO, iron filings sprinkled on it so as to observe the magnetic lines of force going up from the top (North Pole), arcing to the sides and down, then back up through the bottom (South Pole) – see figure 4.
As this field rotates it causes a friction on the abutting atmosphere, causing an updraft at the bottom. This, in addition to an oft-observed horizontal rotation of one part of the UFO, causes a swirling vortex to be formed below the UFO. This can be similar to a person rotating a finger through still waters in a pot of water at a rapid rate – eventually causing a maelstrom to occur. Could this not be the cause of waterspouts?
Waterspout: 1. a moving, whirling column of spray and mist, with masses of water in the lower parts, accumulated because of a tornado at sea or on other large bodies of water.
Definition – New Illustrated Webster’s Dictionary, 1992
In Ted Phillips’ book Delphos he presents the following from a case from October 10, 1957:
“Witness heard a whistling sound and saw a circular object descend to within 6 feet of the ground. It hovered 2 minutes, sucking up leaves, grass, and dirt. White material was found at the site, covering the grass in the disturbed area.”
Let’s get heavier:
From IUR Winter 2002-2003, p. 9, “Timmermania: A step too far into the Timmerman Files?” by Michael D. Swords; a case in the early 1970s:
After four or five minutes of waiting, the ball backed away. Across the road, it began creating a vortex at the base of the mountain.
The rocks started rising into the air.... They would shake from side to side. There were hundreds of them [the largest about the size of melons]. They started going around in a circle, like it had complete control over them... Then the thing went way up in the air and it looked kind of like a tornado and it was all red.... The only noise you could hear was this clickety-clack, clickety-clack when the rocks hit together. Then the light blinked out, and everything crashed down the mountainside and onto the road. The ball blinked back on again at the top of the mountain and meandered away.
And heavier yet:
In Bob Pratt’s book UFO Danger Zone the dresses of a few women are pulled up and over their heads; also in another case, a man dangles below the UFO, without the aid of the usual truncated beam of light that is so prominent in abductee literature.
And more non-water cases:
08-13-1947
Snake River Canyon at Twin Falls, Idaho... On each side there was a tubular-shaped fiery glow, like some sort of exhaust. He said that when it went over trees, they didn't sway back and forth but rather the treetops twisted around, which suggests that the air under the object was being swirled into a vortex.
This reference: UFO FBI Connection by Bruce Maccabee, pp. 13-14, © 2000
02-01-1948
He noticed what seemed to be propeller-like lights running around the concave bottom of the saucer.
"One detail in connection with the silver-bottom section I noticed very clearly. There was something whirling around the bottom section, sort of like a big propeller or a series of propellers might do. The movement was clear; the bottom part did not turn. Something kept whirling around the whole thing," he told, the Circleville Herald.
This reference: MUFON Journal #432, April 2004, “Farmer’s report of UFO hovering over buildings still believed 56 years later” By Joel Barrett The Circleville, OH, Herald, 02/02/2004 plus many UFOCAT references.
06-??-1963
Costa Rica... The second object moved towards the far side of the crater and, having crossed the column of ashes, performed similar manoeuvres before disappearing behind the volcano, in full view of the principal engineer, who was some distance away from Castillo and his colleague. Both craft seemed to induce a kind of whirlwind effect, as though 'produced by a propeller rotating at high speed', Castillo reported.
This reference: Unearthly Disclosure by Timothy Good, pp. 58-59, © 2000
05-20-1967
The Steven Michalak Incident at Falcon Lake, Manitoba, Canada.
Paragraph 6. The attached photographs were taken at the site.
No 1. Taken from approximately 12 feet up in a tree facing in a south-westerly direction, showing the outline of an approximate 15 foot diameter circle on the rock surface where the moss and earth covering has been cleared to the rock surface by a force such as made by air at very high velocity. For comparison, the prospectors ax and Beta counter were left in the approximate circle center.
This reference: From documents of the Canadian Department of National Defence, Training Command Headquarters, Westwin, Manitoba. Dated: 1 Sep 1967. With Thanks to researcher Don Ledger, for forwarding to me.
09-02-1967
England. Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, bentilee... it flew low overhead and apparently landed in a field about 400 yards away. No sound was heard, but one witness felt "wind" as it passed overhead.
Reference: Alien Invasion or Human Fantasy? The 1966-67 UFO Wave by Richard H Hall, p. 107 © 2004
This “suction” on the surface of the water is exactly the same as if a tornado was to pass from land over a body of water. The bottom part would be viewed as a mounding of water; as we look vertically up the column, the water is more molecular and appears as fog, mist or a continuation of the water itself. The vertical movement of this water or water vapor gives the impression of water being sucked into the UFO. An example of this column can be seen in a photo by Ed Walters from Gulf Breeze, Florida, which was published in a book by him and Dr. Bruce Maccabee, entitled UFOs Are Real and Here’s the Proof.
One has to look closely to see the column, but it is there, silhouetted against the darker water (See 04-26-1994 on my website for sketch and photo kindly provided by Dr. Maccabee).
As the UFO gains altitude, the column of water is seen to collapse, or in the case of night sightings – disappear.
Separation of this column is almost predictable, as the height of the UFO above the water and the size of the UFO (governing the width of the field) itself, probably determines how much water weight the vortex can sustain. It would be interesting to compose a table with these figures, however due to fright or awe on the part of witnesses, most of the time these details are lost:
07-17-1992
Taking on Water
They pulled their sail down to slow their boat to avoid a collision, but when the ship approached their boat they realized it wasn't a ship. It was a UFO with a lot of lights on it. It was sucking water up into it and passed slowly within twenty meters of the boat, but the fishermen don't think the UFO saw them. It just went by them about six meters above the water, sucking up a column of water almost as wide as the UFO. The water didn't fall back into the ocean. The UFO went past them and disappeared in the distance.”
This reference: UFO Danger Zone, by Bob Pratt, Published 1996, pp. 231-232.
04-26-1994
UFO "TAKES A DRINK
Below the UFO the water began to chum. Mist swirled into the air. A center plume of water shot up to the bottom of the UFO. It was a waterspout. The UFO moved slowly to the left and I aimed the camera and took Photo 49. (See case 04-26-1994 –CF-) Ten to fifteen seconds passed while I stared at this amazing scene. Suddenly the waterspout collapsed. The UFO angled off to the left, climbed at a sharp angle, and disappeared into the hazy sky.
This reference: UFOs Are Real And Here's The Proof by Edward Walters and Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D., pp 56-57, 100-105 © 1997. Reprinted on my website with Dr. Maccabee’s permission.
A FUNCTION OF HEIGHT?
http://www.waterufo.net/images/image010.jpg
Figure 5
These cases of witnessed effects on water inspired the idea that these effects might be tied together in relation to each other. Some of the cases are of a UFO apparently “taking on water” not by means of tubes, pipes or hoses (as is the case in several reports), but by a column of water lifted by an unseen force directly to the craft. In the other scenario the UFO causes an observed “indentation” of the water. It would appear that these reports are contradictory of each other because of the differences in the effects; however, I believe that the differences are only the result of distances between the field of the UFO and the water.
In figure 5, we have what could be an illustration of the complete steps of the UFO’s exit from a body of water, and the water’s reaction as it does so.
These craft operate by physical principles! Though the details behind their operations are unknown to us, they should not be considered beyond our understanding. Excusing the craft’s functions as paranormal, or that of holographic projections, or the result of some other impenetrable obfuscation is not the way to understand the physical principles governing its technology. We should concentrate on the craft’s mechanics – because it is clearly a machine.
source link for all above info and diagrams; http://www.waterufo.net/PIufoW.php
-
UFO w/official 911 tapes. Centerville, OH, 2004;
Explosive Visitation or Uncanny Abnormality?
QUESTIONS LINGER AFTER STRANGE EPISODE;
CONCERNS FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY SQUASHED;
By Kenny Young;
"Those few residents of Centerville, Ohio who were up and about around 5:30 a.m. on Saturday morning, March 6, 2004 were going about their normal routines, waiting for daylight to break. Activity at police dispatch headquarters, meanwhile, was anything but routine.
Phone lines began to light up with citizen complaints of bizarre 'flashing in the sky' and electrical disruptions that seized a large area from Lakeview Drive to Bethel Road, Stone Lake and Linden. One after another the calls came in.
"Centerville Police?" said the flustered police dispatcher to yet another caller.
"Has the whole street called?" came the voice on the other line.
"Oh my God…" the caller could be heard exclaiming. "I saw it, it was right over my house and it hovered down… I can't believe I'm saying this! It looked like an ALIEN SHIP…!"
SOURCE; http://kenny.anomalyresponse.org/centervillereport.html
911 calls with a map to the callers locations;
A cleaned up version of the 911 calls (basically the same);
Media coverage;
05-08-04
Centerville couple convinced UFO appeared in sky
DP&L, neighbor say transformer exploded
By Katherine Ullmer
CENTERVILLE -- A full moon shone over Centerville when a young
mother nursing her 3-week-old baby at 5:30 a.m. saw the
electricity go off and on, the tops of trees glow, and bright
lights arcing outside.
Numerous 911 calls streamed into the Centerville Police
Department from Lakeview Drive residents near Stingley
Elementary School about explosions and electrical disruptions.
The couple, who asked that only their first names be used, said
they saw an alien spacecraft hovering in the sky.
The March 8 event has an area UFO researcher claiming a cover-up
by city officials who have shown disinterest in investigating.
SOURCE; http://www.ufoevidence.org/news/article72.htm
quote;
"Telephone greetings to the Centerville Fire Department's "Station 41" about this issue were not warmly received, and the simple phone call requesting some basic information on the March 6 dispatch was rejected".
"Lieutenant Sarah Lee, handling the inquiry to her department, advised that (oh joy!) she could not be of any help. To the contrary, the wagons were circling, the mote was being filled and hatches were being battened down as it was announced that any incoming inquiry must be made via "written request."
"Why don't you call Wright Patterson Air Force Base?" she said after listening briefly to the weird 9-1-1 tape by telephone."
"Wright Pat can help you more than I can. Unfortunately, I cannot answer any of your questions," then advised Lt. Lee of the Centerville Fire Department. "It is routine procedure and policy for us to not 'give out' information without proper authorization." 7
"Like sheesh, you'd think this was an inquiry to Ft. Knox about their security methods".
"Suddenly the operations and practices of this basic public agency seemed to be operating like the Freedom of Information Office of the super-secret "Blue Room" of Wright Patterson Air Force Base, the very base the inquiry was referred to. 8"
"A friendly letter was then penned to Fire Chief Parks, basically begging to be put in contact with the emergency responders who were on the scene of the UFO incident on March 6."
"I am not sure who gave you your information but it appears they were aware of something we did not see or share in," said Fire Chief Kenneth C. Parks in response to the plea. 9
"Apparently, The Chief also did not take kindly to the request for contact info with the emergency responders who were dispatched to the scene on March 6: "Our people are required by policy to refrain from discussing fire department actions without proper authorization. By policy, their reports are their response to any questions, outside of court action."
"Chief Parks speaks and the specter of court action is now vocalized. Courtesy, begging and pleading did no good, it seems, as the firemen at the scene will continue to remain anonymous and, interestingly, a friendly chat with a UFO investigator has been averted. One for officialdom".
"But before the curious reader might find refreshing the idea of friendly openness and neighborly cooperation from the City of Centerville and her hirelings, there is also the attitude of Centerville's Assistant City Manager, Judy Gilleland".
"Gilleland was unaware of the mass confusion of March 6 despite assuring that she 'would be' aware of any such report as was described to her. This assistant City Manager seemed to take little interest or concern in the report of an object hovering over Stingley Elementary School. 10 "
"I believe I would know about downed power lines and trees and again, have heard nothing of the sort.
"Good news for us," she said before curiously adding: "perhaps bad news for you?"
"Assistant City Manager Gilleland, Fire Chief Parks and Lietenant Lee were all advised that there should be some concern of radioactivity near the site of Stingley Elementary School. These public employees clearly expressed a lethargic lack of motivation for the nature of the event described by witness on March 6. Is this a dangerous complacency that reeks of ultimate disregard for public safety in an uncertain time? Could Homeland Security be any more proud? 11"
source; http://kenny.anomalyresponse.org/centervillereport.html
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...7d332b7648.jpg
-
UFO involving NORAD North American Air Defence;
Tue Jan 04 2011 07:10;
quote;
"A west bound America West B-757 airliner encountered a UFO with flashing lights along its length on May 25, 1995. The passenger jet was flying over the panhandle of Texas when it observed the unknown object. Thanks be to investigator Walter N. Webb, of the UFO Research Coalition for his thorough investigation of the case. Webb was able to get copies of the FAA voice tapes of chatter between the plane and ground. He also interviewed the crew and air traffic controllers".
"Row of White Lights: The plane was designated as America West Flight 564, and was at 39,000 feet near Bovina, Texas, when First Officer John J. Waller and a flight attendant observed a row of white lights which flashed from left to right. The lights were below their flying altitude. Waller immediately made radio contact with the Albuquerque FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center during the observation. Nothing could be found that should be flying in that space at that time".
"NORAD Confirms UFO:
The next day, the controller made another check with NORAD, and he was told that they had indeed tracked another unknown target the night before that was at first stationary, then accelerated and stopped again very rapidly. These quick darts were estimated at somewhere between 1,000 and 1,400 mph".
Conclusions:"
There was nothing that could explain the sighting of America West Flight 564, and until another explanation can be found for the unusual object, we must assume that a UFO was seen that night.
The case of America West 564 is a good example of a confirmed UFO by an experienced crew, with confirmation by radar".
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/338/6...r_Defense.html
-
The Lubbock lights.
Photographs;
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...4bffab86b4.jpg
quotes;
"If a group had been hand-picked to observe a UFO, we couldn't have picked a more technically qualified group of people. They were":
Dr. W. I. Robinson, Professor of Geology.
Dr. A. G. Oberg, Professor of Chemical Engineering.
Professor W. L. Ducker, Head of the Petroleum Engineering Department.
Dr. George, Professor of Physics.
quote;
"On the evening of August 25 the four men were sitting in Dr. Robinson's back yard. They were discussing micrometeorites and drinking tea. They jokingly stressed this point. At nine-twenty a formation of lights streaked across the sky directly over their heads. It all happened so fast that none of them had a chance to get a good look."
"One of the men mentioned that he had always admonished his students for not being more observant; now he was in that spot. He and his colleagues realized they could remember only a few details of what they had seen.
The lights were a weird bluish-green color and they were in a semicircular formation. They estimated that there were from fifteen to thirty separate lights and that they were moving from north to south".
"Their one wish at this time was that the lights would reappear. They did; about an hour later the lights went over again.
This time the professors were a little better prepared. With the initial shock worn off, they had time to get a better look. The details they had remembered from the first flight checked. There was one difference; in this flight the lights were not in any orderly formation, they were just in a group".
"The professors reasoned that if the UFO's appeared twice they might come back. Come back they did. The next night and apparently many times later, as the professors made twelve more observations during the next few weeks. For these later sightings they added two more people to their observing team".
"Being methodical, as college professors are, they made every attempt to get a good set of data. They measured the angle through which the objects traveled and timed them. The several flights they checked traveled through 90 degrees of sky in three seconds, or 30 degrees per second. The lights usually suddenly appeared 45 degrees above the northern horizon, and abruptly went out 45 degrees above the southern horizon".
"They always traveled in this north-to-south direction. Outside of the first flight, in which the objects were in a roughly semicircular formation, in none of the rest of the flights did they note any regular pattern. Two or three flights were often seen in one night".
Other witnesses:
"Armed with a list of names of other observers of the mysterious lights, an intelligence officer started out to try to get a cross-section account of the other UFO sightings in the Lubbock area. All the stories about the UFO's were the same; various types of formations of dull bluish-green lights, generally moving north to south".
"We talked to observers in nearby towns. Their stories were the same.
Two of them, tower operators at an airport, reported that they had seen the lights on several occasions".
August 31st:
"Two ladies, a mother and her daughter, had left their home in Matador, Texas, 70 miles northeast of Lubbock, about twelve-thirty P.M. on August 31.
They were driving along in their car when they suddenly noticed "a pear-shaped" object about 150 yards ahead of them".
"It was just off the side of the road, about 120 feet in the air. It was drifting slowly to the east, "less than the speed required to take off in a Cub airplane.
"They drove on down the road about 50 more yards, stopped, and got out of the car. The object, which they estimated to be the size of a B-29 fuselage, was still drifting along slowly. There was no sign of any exhaust blast and they heard no noise, but they did see a "porthole" in the side of the object. In a few seconds the object began to pick up speed and rapidly climb out of sight. As it climbed it seemed to have a tight spiraling motion".
"The investigation showed that the two ladies were "solid citizens," with absolutely no talents, or reasons, for fabricating such a story. The daughter was fairly familiar with aircraft. Her husband was an Air Force officer then in Korea, and she had been living near air bases for several years. The ladies had said that the object was "drifting" to the east, which possibly indicated that it was moving with the wind, but on further investigation it was found that it was moving into the wind".
Radar:
"Did a huge flying wing pass over Albuquerque and travel 250 miles to Lubbock in about fifteen minutes? This would be about 900 miles per hour. Did the radar station in Washington pick up the same thing? I'd checked the distances on the big wall map in flight operations just before leaving Reese AFB. It was 1,300 miles from Lubbock to the radar site".
"From talking to people, we decided that the lights were apparently still around Lubbock at 11:20 P.M. and the radar picked them up just after midnight. They would have had to be traveling about 780 miles per hour. This was fairly close to the 900-mile-per-hour speed clocked by the two radars. The photos of the Lubbock Lights checked with the description of what the AEC employee and his wife had seen in Albuquerque".
Other reports:
"Witnesses said they saw "dots" of lights flying in "U" and "V" shapes, passing in two and three-second intervals. The number of dots reported in the formations ranged from eight to nine to 20 to 30. The lights appeared in the northeastern part of the sky and proceeded in a straight line to the southwest".
"The color of the lights was "about like the stars, only brighter," while others said they were either a blue or white with a slight yellow tinge to them. Others described them as appearing "as a string of beads," moving roughly in a semi-circle, and were "soft, glowing, bluish-green."
"Dr. J.C. Cross, head of Tech’s Department of Biology, examined the 35mm photographs, and asserted, "It definitely wasn’t caused by birds."
In Matador, reports were made of a "noiseless aircraft flying at a low altitude, without aid of propellers or wings." They said it was different from any aircraft they had ever seen".
Links:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/lubbocklights.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubbock_Lights
First report from Grudge is this one BELOW;
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/file...87e1d461c5.jpg
scan of one them BELOW;
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/file...39a15b1f64.jpg
Professors at Texas Tech who saw Lubbock Lights (left to right):
Dr. Oberg, Prof. Ducker, and Dr. Robinson, discuss them with Dr. E. L. George
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/file...ccc1d97d29.jpg
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/file...4eae307be8.png
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/file...049b56046b.jpg
quote;
"The observations have been too numerous and too similar to be doubted. In addition the Air Force, after the closest examination, has found nothing fraudulent about Hart's pictures. The lights are much too bright to be reflections, and therefore bodies containing sources of light. Since Professors Ducker, Oberg, and Robinson could not measure the size and distance of the formations, they could form no precise estimate of their speed. However they calculated that if the lights were flying at an altitude of 5,000 feet they must then have been traveling about 1,800 mph".
"The professors, along with other scientists, agree that in order to explain the silence of the objects, it must be assumed that they were at 50,000 feet in the air; in which case they were going not 1,800 but 18,000 mph."
Link; http://roswellproof.com/life_1952.html
================================================== =======
Unknown object tracked on radar same time as Lubbock lights.
"This incident is of interest because it was observed during the same period as the objects over Lubbock, Texas".
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...07f63abba9.gif
LARSON AFB. WASHINGTON - 26 August 1951
"On 26 August 1951 at O836 PST, an unidentified flying object was detected
by an AN/CPS-4 and AN/CPS-l radar sets. The object was tracked continuously for a period of six minutes and made a timed ground speed of 950 mph. The object was on a course of 340 degrees with only slight deviations enroute. An altitude reading of 13,000 feet was obtained but the accuracy of the measurement is questionable due to brief length of time the object was detected".
"The F-86 aircraft were scrambled but radar contact with the object was
lost before the aircraft were airborne, A visual search was conducted from
17,000 to 25,000 feet with negative results".
"The operator of the radar set, an Air Force Captain, is considered to
be an expert operator".
Interference;
Status of Investigation.
"Review of this incident by the Electronics Section of ATIC concludes
that the return was possibly due to interference. This was concluded be-
cause of the apparent path of the object, directly approaching the station,
and the fact that the target was observed on only the low beam of the AN/CPS-l radar set".
Brad Sparks:
"If it was tracked on two different radars, a CPS-4 as well as the CPS-1, then it couldn't be interference because they are on two different radio frequencies, interference could only affect one radar and could not possibly affect two radars and coordinate an identical target blip on both".
Link; http://www.nicap.org/docs/lubbock/510825ufois.htm
Article below published in 'The Lubbock Morning Avalanche' newspaper, September 1, 1951.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...fbd2f4b7ee.jpg
'Strange Aircraft' Seen at Matador.
quote from article;
"MATADOR, Aug. 31. (Special) -- A "noiseless aircraft, flying at low altitude without aid of propellers and wings," was reported seen early this afternoon by two Matador district women and a 5-year-old child".
"Mrs. Tom Tilsom, her daughter Mrs. M. G. Bethard and little Noilene Bethard were driving on State Highway 70, one and one half-miles north of here about 12:45 p.m. when the wingless craft passed 150 feet in front of their car".
"The slow-moving machine "shaped somewhat like a helicopter," began circling as Mrs. Bethard stopped the car. As the craft rose "it gained speed and was out of sight within a few minutes."
"The women were near enough to spot one door, or porthole, in the side of the gleaming metal, they said. When first seen, it was moving at the rate of a commercial airliner taking off, they said. It had no exhaust showing".
"Mrs Bethard, whose husband sailed for Korea recently, has lived near several Air Force bases, and reported the machine she saw today was different from any she had seen before".
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...e147ee5f94.gif
quote;
"On 31 August 1951 at approximately 1245 CST two ladies were driving in an automobile several miles north of Matador, Texas. The object was described as a pear-shaped object, aluminum or silver in color, which readily reflected the sunlight. The object had a port or some type of aperture in the side. It moved through the air with the small end forward. They judged the size to be about that of a B-29 fuselage. There was no sign of any axhaust and no nois was heard".
"As the two ladies were driving north from Matadir, Texas, the driver of the automobile first noticed the object about 150 yards ahead of the automobile. They stopped and both ladies got out to observe the object. It was drifting slowly in an eastward direction at a speed they judged to be "less than the speed required to take off in a cub aircraft" and an altitude of abot 120 ft. Seconds later the object began to ascend rapidly and in a few seconds it moved out of sight to the east in a circular ascent. (The wind at this time was from the NE at about 5-7 knots.)"
"A background investigation showed that both women were of excellent character".
"This incident is of interest because it was observed during the same period as the objects over Lubbock, Texas.
Link; http://ufologie.net/bb/grudgesr01-16.htm
-
“UNUSUAL AERIAL SIGHTINGS”
A SEARCH THROUGH THE
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S
RECORDS SYSTEMS;
Introduction;
Between Jun 2003 and Jun 2008 a major search was undertaken to locate and examine Australian Government files relating to “Unusual Aerial Sightings” (otherwise known as “Unidentified Flying Objects” - UFOs.) Although the search was as thorough as possible, there is no doubt it is incomplete. To begin with, the electronic RecordSearch system of the National Archives of Australia (NAA) indexes only about 10% of their collection.
Secondly, the search was undertaken using both the Archives Act and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, where the expense of the latter precluded broad spectrum requests such as “for all material held on UFOs.” In addition, unlike the detailed and indexed UFO fact sheet available for the UK Government Archives which guides researchers through file numbers; searching the NAA’s RecordSearch is a very hit and miss affair. Quite often, a slight adjustment of words, or even letters, would reveal yet other files.
Nomenclature;
The first issue was one of nomenclature. Was the search simply for files on “UAS?” Various key word searches eventually lead not only to such files, but also files where the title included the terms “flying saucers,” “aerial objects,” “unidentified flying objects,” “unusual sighting,” “strange sky lights,” “unusual occurrences,” and “strange occurrences.”
A second issue arose because the search was utilising both the Archive and FOI Acts. At times it was not clear which Act applied. For example, at one time, it was found that the Department of Defence held files inside the time frame of the Archive Act; and the NAA held files which could only be made available under the FOI! This meant asking Government authorities to transfer files to other authorities in order that they could be accessed under the correct Act.
In addition, the status of some files held by the NAA was shown as “not yet examined.” This meant that the file had to go from the NAA back to the controlling authority who originated the file, to be examined and cleared for release. This clearance could take quite some time; in fact over twelve months in some instances.
Despite the issues related above, the staff of the NAA could not have been more helpful in their efforts to assist. Thanks must also go to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)’s FOI staff, and staff at Edinburgh RAAF base, for their professional approach to what, to them, must have seemed a trivial topic of enquiry.
In the end, it is believed that a representative collection of files has been uncovered which allows researchers to gain insight into how the Australian Government viewed the UFO phenomenon.
Government agencies with files on UAS;
The search eventually found records of 151 files which are, or were, in whole or part, about UAS/UFOs or UFO organisations, originating with:
The former Department of Supply
The former Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) and the current Department of Transport & Regional Services (DOTRS)
The former Department of Territories (DOT)
The former Department of External Affairs
The Attorney General’s Department – Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)
The current Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
The current Department of Defence (DOD):
- Australian Army
- Royal Australian Navy
- Royal Australian Air Force
- Former areas such as the Air Board; Department of Air (DOA) (1939-1973); and the Joint Intelligence Bureau/Joint Intelligence Organisation (JIB/JIO); Joint Intelligence Committee
- Ministerial files.
- Office of Air Force History.
Questions
The main questions which arose before examination of Government files were:
“What did these Government Departments do with the material they gathered, and why?”
“Did any Government Agency conduct scientific research into the subject?”
Were there any interesting “unknowns” found in Government files?
Firstly though, a look at each area of the Government where files were located.
Former Department of Supply 1952-1972
According to the “Agency notes for agency CA 57” on the NAA web site, the Department of Supply came into being on 17 Mar 1950. The Department was responsible for a diverse range of functions which included:
The control of materials used in producing atomic energy (1950-1953)
Building of merchant ships (1950-1951)
Promotion and production of liquid fuels
Manufacture, acquisition, provision and supply of war materials
Responsibility for operation and management of space tracking stations (from 1959)
Participation in firing of European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO) rockets at Woomera (from 1962)
The operation of the Joint United Kingdom-Australia Weapons Research project;
Operation and management of space tracking stations and certain other facilities on behalf of the Government of the USA.
The Department’s Central Office was located in Melbourne between 1950 and 1969, and then moved to Canberra. The Department was abolished on 12 Jun 1974. Most of its functions passed to the Department of Manufacturing Industry.
File search;
To date, three Department of Supply files dealing with the topic of “flying saucers” or UFOs have been located. Two files were commenced in the year 1952. The earliest file so far located is from series D174, control symbol SA5281 titled “Unusual Occurrences Flying Saucer at Woomera” with a date range of 1952-1955. It was originally classified “Secret.”
It is a 25 page file, located at the Adelaide Office of the NAA and belonged to the Long Range Weapons Establishment (LRWE), Salisbury, South Australia. NAA agency notes for agency 3038 indicate that the LRWE was established in 1947 with the object of building a test range at Woomera, South Australia. The file contained details of a number of interesting observations from this early period. A summary of each report follows.
28 Apr 1952 Woomera West SA 0345hrs 15secs 3 wits;
Three men waiting for transport, noticed at 45 degrees SE, a light in the sky. This light was moving WNW parallel to the ground, lighting up clouds and the surrounding terrain. It was visible through breaks in the clouds. The bus driver remarked, “They are firing rockets early today.” One witness replied: “It was not a rocket.” The light had an estimated size of one third that of the full Moon.
27 Sep 1952 Woomera SA ca2050hrs 5 secs 5 wits;
Five witnesses were at the Woomera West Open Air Theatre. They sighted an object, variously described as a “cigar,” an “airship,” and “cylindrical” with an “exhaust” at the rear. It travelled horizontally from west to east, possibly NW to SE. One witness reported “…two portholes with internal lighting.” It was moving quickly, with no noise noted.
8 Oct 1952 Woomera SA 1345hrs 44 minutes 1 wit 3;
While tracking an aircraft, a target was acquired by radar. However, no visual object could be seen by the radar operator. “The signal to noise ratio was at least 5 to 1 which is similar to that obtained from a large aircraft.” At one stage between 1345 and 1400hrs the target approached to within one mile. Between 1405 and 1429hrs the operator tracked the invisible target at heights between 1500 and 5600 feet.
“At times during the movement of the target smaller targets seemed to detach themselves from the main target and drift away.” Weather was fine, 5/8 high cloud at 25000 feet-84 degrees F, north wind at 25-30 mph. Comments by the Security Officer included (note it snowed briefly at 0900hrs the next day): “…it was most probably that the snow cloud had some connection. However, the possibility of a neutron cloud is not ruled out…” (1) A ground plot of the radar target was located on the file.
14 Nov 1953 Woomera SA 0145hrs 1 wit;
Sighting of a “glare” believed to be an aircraft.
5 May 1954 Woomera SA app1630hrs 5 mins 3 wits;
Three relevant documents were found, being statements by the two men involved and a covering letter forwarding the statements, from the Superintendent Long Range Weapons Establishment Range, Woomera, to the “Chief Superintendent”. This letter included the statement: “The persons reporting were separated by a distance of approximately three hundred yards and give corroborative accounts of what each observed.” (2)
One statement, dated 6 May 1954, read:
Post “R”
RE: UNIDENTIFIED TARGET OBSERVED ON RADAR 5TH MAY, 1954
Sir,
At about 1600 on 5th May, an unidentified Target was observed on radar AA Number 4 Mk. 6.
The target appeared on High Beam at a range of about 60,000 yards Brg 355degrees approaching ‘R’, described a Hyperbols (sic) over ‘R’ and went out at a bearing of approx. 90 degrees. On its way out it passed behind Spotting Tower, “S2”. I timed it over 15,000 yards 10 seconds which would make its speed approximately 3600 M.P.H. Cfn. KEANE observed this occurrence with me. Since the target was followed to 70,000 yards on High Beam the height would be greater than 60,000 feet. See Diagram on next page.
The diagram referred to was not located in the file examined.
The other statement, dated 7 May 1954, which under the man’s name had an entry: “Vickers-Armstrong,” read:
REPORT ON A FLYING OBJECT SIGHTED ON 5TH MAY, 1954;
I was at Range R1 (Post R1), the Radar Post, standing by the Security Officer’s Hut, and looking towards the radar Post at approximately 1645 hours, observing one of our trials through binoculars.
This object appeared to be travelling towards me or directly across a path of the approaching Canberra. When it got to the path of the Canberra it turned to my right and was going in the direction from which the Canberra had just come.
When it got directly over the Canberra it slowed down. During this time I found it very hard to believe what I was seeing, so I shut my eyes and then looked again through the binoculars and the object was still stationary over the flight path of the Canberra.
Since it appeared to be the same relative size as the Canberra through the binoculars, I thought it would be possible to see it with the naked eye. However, when I looked over the top of the binoculars the object had either gone or I could not see it with the naked eye, and when I looked again through the binoculars I could not pick it up.
The object appeared to be travelling about three times as fast as the Canberra, but of course it is impossible to estimate, since I did not know what height it was. It was perfectly circular all the time and a dark grey colour, and gave the appearance of being translucent. It did not glisten at all when it turned or was it shiny.
21 Oct 1954 Woomera SA 2125hrs 6 mins 3 wits;
Observations of what witnesses described as a “dancing light,” from adjacent to launcher apron number 1 range. Azimuth 215 degrees T at approximately 3 degrees elevation. The light’s colour varied from deep orange to a deep yellow. Described as three times the size of Venus. The planet Venus was at 238 degrees T 1 degree elevation at the time. The light was seen to move around in a small area. Weather 70F, wind NNE 10 mph. 3/8 cloud at 15000 feet. Scattered ice crystals at 30000 feet. No noise heard from light. Interestingly, a copy of this report was forwarded to the University of Adelaide, and a copy was actually located and obtained from that University for this Project.
Missing from the first file;
There were at least four other 1953-1954 observations from Woomera on RAAF files.
24 Jul 1953 Woomera. 0145hrs. A white oval light detected by Doppler seen by one witness overhead. Moving NW then SE at a speed greater than 80 degrees per minute. Estimated to be 10-12 feet in size. (3)
29 Jul 1953. Woomera. 1030-1530hrs at intervals. White round objects seen through 10x binoculars and said to have been thistles. (4)
22 Nov1953SE of Woomera. Green & red lights were reported on four separate occasions. The green lights were travelling north. (5)
6 Oct 1954 Woomera. The Wing Commander Provost Marshal wrote to DAFI on 28 Oct 1954 “Enclosed is a report…observed by…Gnr WILLIS, R J kinetheodolite observer at Woomera…Gnr Willis claims to have photographed the object for approximately three seconds with a kinetheodolite…this photograph has been handed to the Director.” (6)
The enclosed report form stated that Willis had been at site K5 on range A1 at the time. A 1952 map showing K1 to K5 indicates this placed the observation near “Shell Lagoon.” The object had been first sighted overhead while Willis was looking at a Jindivik pilotless aircraft. The object was silver white in colour and of a half Moon shape. No sound had been heard and there had been no vapour trail. The structure less object had travelled from SW to NW in a straight line. The weather at the time was described as very clear.
Second file;
The previous file’s date range was 1952 to 1955. The second file found had a date range of 1952-1968. File series D250 control symbol 56/483 “Reports on unidentified aircraft, strange occurrences etc” was found in the Sydney office of the NAA and came from the Weapons Research Establishment (WRE) area of Supply. According to NAA agency notes for agency CA3039, the WRE was created in 1955 by the amalgamation of the LRWE and two laboratories. The file is 139 folios in length and contains copies of documents relating to observations dated 28 Apr 52; 27 Sep 52; 8 Oct 52; 14 Nov 53 & 5 May 54.
It also contains the tracking plot of the object on 5 May 1954 which was not on file SA5281. An undated Memo from Group Captain Superintendent LRWE Range was sent to the Chief Superintendent with copies of various papers on recent “strange occurrences” at Woomera. The originals were forwarded by the Security organisation in Melbourne to the RAAF’s Directorate of Air Force Intelligence (DAFI.)
On 29 Jul 1953 a number of unusual objects were reported over the range and were seen by the Range Operations Security Officer himself. At 1400 hrs using binoculars he saw spherical objects moving rapidly across the sky. One earlier observer thought he had seen a round or flattened disc. Elsewhere a round object was mistaken for a bomb being released and a series of photos were taken. The official explanation was “…It is believed that the objects seen were balls of thistle seeds and vegetation…” (7)
Other papers on this file relate to a number of instances where unidentified aircraft had been reported over the Woomera prohibited area. Sometimes identifications were later made, but others remained unknown and were of concern to security staff.
The rest of the file from 1957-1968 consists of reports from the general public of what are regarded on the file as satellites. Any reported UFO observations from Woomera, between 1958 and 1966, were not on this file.
Missing from this second file;
There are two high profile reports made to UFO organisations which are not mentioned on this file.
At 2130hrs on the 28 Jun 1963 at Sandy Creek, near Gawler, South Australia a man was travelling on the Lyndoch-Gawler road going to Gawler, when upon rounding a corner, in his vehicle, the anonymous Willaston man came upon a blood-red coloured object extending across the roadway. This was close to the Sandy Creek Hotel. The man applied the vehicle’s brakes and was within three metres of the object when it rose suddenly from the road.
After rising one hundred meters or so, it turned on its side and sped off, streaming vapour. Described as eight metres across and four high, with a concave top and a flat base, it glowed blood-red when close to the ground and appeared to change to a light red yellow as it gathered speed and flew off towards Two Wells. Hervey (8) (cites the date as during the period 1955-1958) states that the sighting was reported to police and that a CIB Special Branch officer interviewed the witness.
The Adelaide Advertiser Newspaper reports “…He later reported the incident to the Weapons Research Establishment which arranged for him to be interviewed by a member of the CIB Special Branch.” (9) An inquiry directed to the South Australian Police failed to provide any leads to any such Special Branch report.
The UFO literature provides us with details of a purported photograph of a UFO taken at Woomera on 5 Jun 1964. The English UFO magazine, Flying Saucer Review in its Sep/Oct 1964 issue on page 4 shows a photograph taken at the launching of a Blue Streak rocket, which shows an oval blob of light near the rocket. This black and white print in the FSR was apparently from a colour movie. There is nothing concerning this photograph on the second file. Efforts were made to track down this picture.
On the NAA web site we located “Series notes for series D897 Unknown objects –DSTO WRE{A-K 1948-1957] –Australian Archives.” The notes state that the “…series contains approximately 4800 colour and black and white slides. Controlling records for this series (D896) indicate there are some 6220 slides registered between 1947 and 1971. The whereabouts of the missing 1400 slides is currently unknown…
There are slides of Skylark launches, Jindivik trials, Blue Streak movements and some unidentified objects…” We located a register for some of these slides in the Adelaide Office of the NAA. NAA staff produced two bound volumes which contained dates, reference numbers and details of the photographs. A close examination of the details of hundreds of pictures listed there revealed none of an unidentified or unknown nature.
Third file;
File number SA5644/2/1 is a Department of Supply file “Sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects” registered to the WRE, Salisbury with a date range of 1966 -1974. This file contains a number of inquiries from the general public and other quarters about unidentified objects in the sky. As an example, the file actually opens in Jul 1966 with an inquiry from a person living in Victor Harbor, South Australia, concerning an object which traversed the sky. Interestingly, the letter commences with “I understand that you have a section on unidentified objects etc…” The WRE response advised that they had a “…satellite tracking section…” but was “…unable to identify the object…” (10) even though they suspected it was a satellite.
Other requests for assistance with identification came from the RAAF. For example, in Oct 1966 RAAF Richmond requested the Department to identify an object seen at Kurrajong NSW on 20 Jul 1966. An internal Departmental Minute headed “UFO Policy” states that inquiries of this nature would be referred directly to S/APD (Superintendent, American Projects Division) for reply by the PRO (Public Relations Officer). In this instance the Satellite Tracking Operations Group was “…unable to correlate the sighting reported on folio 4a with transits of the brighter satellites…” (11)
A 23 Jun 1967 Memo from Director WRE M W Woods to the DD/Trials advised Trials that the Director had, through Security channels, learnt that “…kine operators at Woomera sighted an alleged UFO during a Skylark firing on Apr 27th…” (12) and called for a report. A follow-up telex dated 18 Jul 1967 from Dep. Sec/R & Supply Melbourne asked why no report had yet been forthcoming and stated that the report involved positions K9, K12, K8, site 3, site 4 and X11 and asked “…Have you had the films examined as discussed…” (13) The subsequent investigation revealed two series of observations, the first on 27 Apr 1967 (some forms showed the date as 28 Apr 1967) and the second on 30 Jun 1967. Details follow:
27 Apr 1967
1. 28 Apr 67 1402hrs About 0.5-1secs K Simmons. Optical tracker. “Object appeared round and white, as large as the Moon and passed to the right of the Skylark at approx +55s in sequence, no elevations angle noted-no further details.”
2. 27 Apr 67. 1402hrs 2 secs Position K8 L. Davis. Optical instrument – tracking telescope. Skylark in sky. “Between +55s and 60s a dull white object appeared high in the tracking telescope for approx 2 secs. Being high in the telescope the object was distorted but appeared to be long and wider in the centre than at the ends, the top piece being a slightly darker shade.”
3. 28 Apr 67. 1402hrs +60s. 2/5 secs. I J Davis Site 4. Watch Skylark. Trial 23 A3. “85 degree el. The object appeared to be moving very fast, was white in colour and saucer shaped sighted in FOV for approx 2/5 secs. Flying in roughly the opposite direction to the vehicle-object appeared to be twice the size of the vehicle.”
4. 27 Apr 67. Site K12 A2 operator. ¾ sec at +55 and =60 1402hrs. Using optical instrument watching Skylark. Sky-fine, slight wispy cloud. White object passed below vehicle in camera FOV.
5. 27 Apr 67. Site K9. 1402hrs 6mins. Through kino theodelite. Az 220 degrees el 70 degrees. “Object acquired at +1m30s in sequence and lost at +8 to +9m in sequence. Bright object fell away from dull white object. Two objects kept coming back to larger object and flashing past. “ “Large object was fast moving in az when picked up then slowed down in az and gained speed in el. Small objects were fast in az.” Larger object dull white. 2 smaller were bright yellowish white.
6. 28 Apr 67. L Fox at site 3. +60s in sequence. 1402hrs. Kinetheodelite. Watching sky saw a silver white coloured object.
7. 28 Apr 67. Site 3. 1402hrs. 6 mins. Optical-kine. Object acquired at approx +1m30s in sequence at 90 degrees elevation. Lost at +8m10s to+8m30s at an az of 220.2 and el of 7-10. Moved from 90 degrees el to 7/10 degrees el. And at 15 degrees el was at 220.2 az. Watching Skylark. The object flashed past the Skylark-was dull in colour. Dull round object with two (undecipherable) 2 small shot past and buzzing round elongated. Disappeared 8m10 to 8m30. Round just moved out and others with it and went away 220.2az 15 degrees el when lost 7-10 degrees.
30 Jun 1967
1. “Report on Aerial Object Observed” form. R Hodge Photographer. 3 secs. Overhead. One white round object. 60 to 90 degree very fast NNW to SSE straight line. Lost in mid-air. Blue sky. Target aircraft on dummy run.
2. Harvey. Asst Photog. Approx 1100 till 1200. Tracked at K12. Operator V34 drew attention. White objects. “No definite formation but most appeared to be within 10 degrees az of each other at times.” White. “Most were spherical while others were appeared similar to meteorites.” Lost. “Mostly due size, distance and haze.” L D East. Asst Photog. 1100hrs to 1140hrs intermittent. 165 degrees az 45 degrees el. Crossing path of missile in trail EC 23. Overhead. Silver white like aircraft without wings. 45 degrees el slightly arced path. “Did not track long as trial imminent.” Clear blue sky.
3. P Howard. Asst Photog. 1135hrs Fraction of a sec. Through 12x tracking scope of Congreves camera from site 6 K35. Travelling across path of a Jindivik aircraft. Ap 40-45 degree el very fast. Northerly direction gaining height. Went out of FOV. Clear blue sky. Object appeared to be closer to K35 than Jindivik.
4. M Randel. Asst Photog. 11 to 1140 Intermittent. 165az 45 degree el at 1100 cross path of missile in trial. Overhead. Intercom talk alerted. 45 degree slow to very fast. Went towards range head. Trial EC23.
5. M Wallbanks. Asst Photog. 1100-1145hrs. Site 2. Congreaves K14 kinetheodelite. App in tracking telescope. 40 degrees el. Travelling to 145 degrees az. Path on curve, others circled and disappeared. Disappeared over horizon. Clear blue sky. Jindivick trial.
6. I Neill. Asst Photog. 1100-1130hrs. Site 4. K16. Kinetheodelite. Overhead. Six objects white some appeared to have red others are rocket shaped. First sighted 80 degrees el. Lost over horizon. Jindivick trial,
7. Asst Photog. 1100-1115hrs. 10-15mins. K15. Overhead. Six to 12 objects white. All shaped. Travelled in all directions. Straight path. First sighted 80 degrees el. Faded into distance. Photographed at K15 for approx 5 seconds.
8. 1100-1130hrs. 10-15mins. K15. J Windner. Asst Photog. 6-12 objects in no apparent formation. White. First seen at 80 degrees el. Irregular cigar shapes-oblong. Appeared to fade in distance.
9. P Ratcliffe. Assist Photog. 1105-1130hrs. V34 at site 3. Gooney Bird. Approx 55 degree el az 120 degrees. Several white objects through binoculars. Some circular some cylindrical .NW to SE. Went over horizon. Jindivick dummy trial. Tracked three objects to just on horizon. Az 155-165 degrees.
What did “the powers that be” think caused these observations?
Given that the Woomera range was heavily instrumented and “secret”, observations of unusual objects at this location should have received critical analysis.
In a Memo dated 17 Jul 67 to Supt Trials from PO/Ranges it is noted that three to four such sightings occur each year usually in late autumn months. “The “objects” are almost certainly wind-borne spider webs…The fact that attempts to photograph these “objects” have always been unsuccessful tend to support the theory that they are in fact extremely tenuous body at no great distance from the observer.” (14) A file note of 19 Jul 67 from the D/D Trials to S/TRD adds “I wouldn’t give the operators very high marks as observers.” (15)
A further Memo two days later to the Supt Trials Division from the PO Ranges re the UFO sightings of 27 Apr 67 enclosed the original reports from various operators and concludes that “It is however, quite possible that multiple sightings of wind carried webs could provide reasonable explanation.” (16)
Finally, in a teleprinter message of the 25 Jul 67 from Woods Weapons to DS/R&E Supply Melbourne. Re alleged UFO sighting. “No, repeat, no films were exposed.” (17) Reports came from kine operators and “…did not correlate with each other except in time.” “Sightings of wind carried webs are possible explanations.” (18) An amended teleprinter message on the next day from Woods Director Weapons to DS/R&E Supply Melbourne stated “Further to my W8476 about alleged UFO sightings.
The sentence in my message saying no films were exposed may be misleading. In fact the normal trial kinetheodelite films were exposed during the trial. These should have shown the UFO crossing the field of view close to Skylark but nothing was recorded.” (19)
Project Moon Dust?
The USAF had a Project called “Moon Dust.” A check with the authoritative “The UFO Encyclopaedia” written by US Researcher Jerry Clark, indicated that “In 1961 the U.S. Air Force established the classified Project Moon Dust to “locate, recover and deliver descended foreign space vehicles.”” (20)
A Memo on this file, originally from file SA5492/1/1 Part 1 and originally dated 16 Aug 1962 was to the Supt/Woomera from Controller WRE re identification of space vehicle fragments. It reported that a letter received from the Department of External Affairs relayed that the US Embassy was informally seeking assistance in “…obtaining information which might be used in the identification of space vehicle fragments.” (21) It asked for details of sightings of “luminous objects” and “Observations of Impact(s) and/or recovery of fragment(s).” Observations were requested from members of staff.
In a Memo dated 4 Sep 67 the American Projects Division asked the Assistant Sec (Projects) if the 1962 processes regarding the reporting of space vehicle fragments were still needed? This was followed up in a minute from APD to S/APD, reporting that two avenues of reporting UFOs existed. Firstly, one for sightings at the ranges had the steps PO/Ranges to Supt/Trials to DD/Trials to Regional Security Officer Adelaide to Chief Security Officer to Dept of Air to? The second was for all other sightings. The route was observer to Supt/APD to Head Office to Dept of External Affairs to US Embassy. The Memo was trying to delete input to US Embassy.
A further Memo dated 13 Dec 67 from a/g Supt American Projects Division to Asst Sec Projects again asked for clarification if instructions contained in memo of 8 Aug 62 were still in effect. The 1962 memo stated that the US Embassy. “…had informally sought the assistance of the Department of External Affairs in obtaining information which might be used in the identification of space vehicle fragments…” (22) Subsequently, arrangements were made for Woomera staff to report sightings in that area. Reports outside Woomera details were sent to Head Office for transmission through Dept of External Affairs to the US Embassy as per memo of 8 Aug 62. Reports from WRE would go to the RAAF. It suggested changes to refer all reports to RAAF.
Scientific, Technical & Astronomical Research Society (STARS);
The powers that be were upset that the observations of the 27 Apr had been reported using an unofficial report form designed by a Woomera UFO group titled the Scientific, Technical & Astronomical Research Society (STARS). A Memo dated 7 Aug 67 to Director WRE Salisbury and WRE Woomera from the Superintendent about the UFO club, set out conditions under which STARS was officially allowed to operate. STARS created its own report form but the reports system was ordered to be discontinued.
A further Memo dated 10 Aug 67 to Captain F E Irvine (RAN) Supt/Woomera from M W Woods, Director, WRE Salisbury again concerned the UFO club and stated in part “I am glad to hear that the “sighting report” to the STARS organisation have been discontinued. There are obviously security dangers in permitting unofficial reports of this kind.” (23)
Finally, a Minute dated 18 Sep 67 to the Director from the Trials Wing HQ., subject: UFO club at Woomera includes the words “I have noted that the activities of the Woomera club have declined markedly in recent months…” (24)
This is where the matter rested until 2008 when a re-check of the NAA Record Search for any recently released UFO files led to the discovery of a 100 page file, series D250, control symbol 56/3568 Part 1, titled “Scientific, Technical and Astronomical Research Society.” This file covers the period 1966-1968. (See appendix ten.)
Entries during the period 1968 to 1974 on file SA5644/2/1 refer to queries about sightings and their possible explanations, although almost all seem to have been satellites. The last active entry was dated 5 Aug 74.
More Department of Supply UFO papers on other Government files
An examination of RAAF files reveals several items which are not on any of the three files located and examined. The first four relate to raw reports and are summarised below.
(1) 30 Jul 1965 70mls W of Cook SA 0835hrs 10mins 5Men
A gang of railway workers looking to the south of the railway line reported watching for ten minutes, a hovering silver coloured object apparently reflecting the rays of the Sun. It disappeared with a flash. (25)
(2) 20 Jul 1967 Karoonda SA 1537hrs 1M Seeholm
Object reported falling to earth. Seen travelling E to S. (26)
(3) 28 Oct 1971. Woomera SA 1315hrs 15secs 1M Murphy
Murphy was tracking a pre-launch meteorological balloon through an optical theodolite. Balloon was situated almost due East of range E (? Difficult to read document) at 6900m and bearing 088.4 True and 37.7 deg el. The balloon and its attached target were backgrounded by thin lines of cloud. As the balloon moved slowly to the left side of the lens Murphy noted an object moving away from the balloon to the right of the lens.
He initially thought that the target had separated from the balloon. He then tracked this object for 15 seconds. It was moving at a constant speed in a shallow upward curve. It was shaped like a cross. He concluded it was an aircraft. Light bluish grey in colour. Outline was reasonably well defined. Small image size. Image was twice the size of the balloon target and similar in size to the balloon (which was 10-15 feet diameter). Its ‘fuselage’ and “wings” appeared to be of uniform thickness and length. No evidence of engines or tail. DCA reported there was a BOAC 707 at 37000 feet at 150-200 miles SE of Leigh Creek at the time. (27)
“Further to telephoned advice forwarded herewith is a copy of report 5/126/5 of 8th Nov 1971, together with attachment, from the ESO Woomera reporting the alleged sighting of an unidentified aircraft over the Woomera Prohibited Area at 1315hrs on 28.10.71 25 minutes prior to the launch of the Black Arrow missile.” (28) Range instrumentation at Parakylia Station 20 miles SE of range and Red Lake radar post R38 did not sight or hear an aircraft, nor at Roxby Downs 15 miles East, or Purple Downs (20 miles SE).
In respect of R38 any object within 100,000 feet and height of no more than 5-10,000 feet should have been registered. “In spite of all enquiries no confirmation of the alleged sighting has been obtained and the possibility that the object was a bird of the eagle variety, wedge tailed eagles are plentiful at Woomera cannot be entirely discounted without any prejudice to Murphy.” (29)
“Two most likely explanations of this incident are:
(a) A mistaken identification of the object seen by Murphy through his theodolite
(b) A flight across the prohibited area by an aircraft for which a flight plan had not been submitted to DCA” (30)
A telex dated 21 Dec 71 to DOA SUPDEP Canberra read “For Morrison CSO. Reference your Y10/5/1 dated 20 Dec, no military aircraft in vicinity of Nurrungar prohibited area within one hour of 200659. DAFI unable to provide any assessment of sighting on 28 Oct 71 at this time.” (31)
(4) 20 Dec 71 Woomera 0650hrs 1M Sketcher
A meteorological observer at Woomera reported seeing an aircraft with the naked eye as a tiny silver dot ahead of a vapour trail. It was heading NE, and checks revealed that there were no known aircraft in the area. A Memo dated 7 Jan 72 from the Dept of Supply to DAFI ( Ref Y10/5/1. Unidentified Aircraft –Woomera) in part read “This sighting appears to be sufficiently authenticated, yet there is no official knowledge of any military or civil aircraft that could have intruded into the Woomera air space.”
(32) DAFI responded to the Chief Security Oficer, Dept of Supply on 13 Jan 1972 “Although the known facts concerning this incident could lend themselves to speculation regarding the presence of a foreign aircraft in Woomera airspace on the 20th Dec, the Directorate of Air Force Intelligence considers this most unlikely. The Directorate believes that a more plausible explanation involves the re-entry of space debris into the earth’s atmosphere but is unable to confirm this possibility.” (33)
(5) In a Memo dated 6 Sep 72 the Defence Standards Laboratories, Dept of Supply, wrote to the Department of Air re an Unidentified Fallen Object. The Memo stated that a preliminary exam revealed that the object submitted was probably a bit off a satellite. (34)
(6) However, perhaps the most interesting piece of paper in the RAAF files relating to the Department of Supply was a short Memo dated 27 Jul 1971 from DAFI to S/AIR/SS (whoever this is!) which stated in part “You spoke to me recently on the matter of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and you mentioned that the Department of Supply may be interested in investigating this subject. This minute provides a brief historical sketch of this subject and my reaction to the proposal.” (35) This issue will be reported upon later.
Missing at the moment;
Looking at Department of Supply file reference numbers on various files, there are some files not yet located. For example there would appear to be UAS related correspondence on files numbered Y111/12/1 Part 4; Y121/1/1; Y123/3/17; YA26/9/2, Y10/5/1, A12/3/2. and A12/3/3. Some of these would appear to be Department of Supply Head Office files which have not surfaced on RecordSearch. Further research indicates the possibility that these files might be located at the Melbourne office of the NAA under series B6136.
The former Department of Civil Aviation 1952-1973 and the current Department of Transport and Regional Services 1973-2005
The Department of Civil Aviation;
On 16 Jan 1951 the Federal Government Air Board issued a standard pro forma titled “Report on Aerial Object Observed’ for the reporting of ‘flying saucers’ within Australia. (1) This form was replaced in Jan 1952, and again in Nov 1953. (2) These pro formas were utilised by all RAAF units and were part of one reporting system. However, there was at least one other Government agency, the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA), which was active in collecting and collating reports.
As will be seen below, yet other more secretive agencies seemed to also want to get into the act. How interested was the DCA in this era? Two references were found which bear on this question.
Firstly, in one of the earliest Australian books written about Flying Saucers:
“Officers of the Civil Aviation Department wanted to establish a special bureau to collect and collate facts about flying saucers. From Cabinet itself, however, came instructions that it was more properly a matter for the security services.” (3).
Secondly, a May 1952 news paper report titled “Hush ban on saucers” advised that:
“Australian Security Intelligence Officers have refused the Civil Aviation Department permission to investigate reports of ‘flying saucers’ Mr R M Seymour said tonight. Mr Seymour is Superintendent of Air Traffic Control. He said his department had planned to set up a special section to collate facts on “flying saucer” reports. Intelligence officials had told him that “flying saucers” were “security matters.” Mr Seymour said “saucer” reports which he had collected followed the pattern of similar reports in the United States.” (4)
In 1953, one of the Department’s own high level staff filmed an unknown object. At 1200hrs on 23 Aug 1953 Mr T. Drury, the then Deputy Director of the DCA for Papua New Guinea, was in Port Moresby. In the cloudless south-western sky he noticed what seemed to be “cloud building up” which grew in intensity for several minutes. Suddenly, an object appeared from one side of this cloud and climbed fast in a north-west direction. In size Drury said it seemed “slightly bigger than a pin head.”
The soundless object left a clearly defined vapour trail. It “finally disappeared with a rapid gain of altitude.” Drury had a movie camera with him and filmed using a telephoto lens. The film was examined both in Australia by the RAAF and in the USA. (5)
The Victorian UFO Research Society published a research document in Sep 1978 titled “A compilation of reports from the Victorian Press” which gave an insight into the DCA’s interest in 1954. (6)
The Melbourne Herald of 5 Jan 1954 reported that Mr R M Seymour, DCA Superintendent of Air Traffic Control said “People who believe they have seen unusual objects in the sky should not keep the information to themselves for fear of ridicule…we do not regard this business as a joke. People are definitely seeing objects, some of which have not been explained.”
Mr Seymour was also quoted the next day in The Melbourne Sun as saying that
“The best we can do at the moment is try to establish that an aircraft was in the vicinity when
the saucer was sighted. If we are unable to do that, then the report becomes inexplicable…” (7)
The exposure the DCA received from media items resulted in it receiving 24 reports on the 6 Jan alone! (8) By the 12 Jan, it was being reported that the DCA had received about 50 reports. (9)
The Melbourne Sun (13 Jan) newspaper reported that these reports to the DCA spanned nearly 30 years and that the DCA were checking the reports before forwarding them to the RAAF. A DCA official was quoted as saying that “Some highly qualified engineers in our department are convinced that there is something in the saucer mystery.”
Only one DCA file has been located which contains raw reports from this era. This is file series C273/227 control symbol 1957/619 which contains reports commencing on 14 Jun 1953 and extending to 24 Feb 1960. There are a total of 15 reports on this file, with eight being reported in 1954. Many are of the lights in the sky variety.
One interesting case on the file was that of the Mena Murtee Station photographs. Claims were made that a large saucer shaped object had been seen at the Station, and that three photographs were taken showing this object. The DCA conducted an investigation as demonstrated by various piece of correspondence on the file.
The story as given was that at 4pm Tuesday last before 4 Nov 1954, a Mr Keith Weston of Mena Murtee Station, 18 miles NW of Wilcannia NSW had sighted an object. It was 500 feet from the ground, with an estimated size of 80-90 yards across. It came from the direction of Netalia and hovered over a wool shed on the Station. It was said that when it departed there was a sound like a loud explosion and a clanking sound. Three photographs were taken and developed at the homestead.
It was the DCA who conducted the investigation, not the RAAF. Eventually, a Mrs Weston advised the Department (internal memo dated 10 Nov 1954) that: “…ask your Department to drop the matter, as it is a faked snapshot which was taken to have a joke with someone in Wilcannia and the matter has gone too far.” Thus the incident was stated to have been a hoax. Interestingly, in an internal memo dated 23 Nov 1954 the DCA Head Office stated: “If the photographs are genuine, they will be of considerable interest and a request has been received from American “Service” source for copies.” One wonders who these “Service” interests were?
Throughout the period 1954-1957, the DCA was regularly forwarding reports it received on to the Department of Air. It utilised its own internal form labelled “Air Safety Incident”
At 1944hrs on 27 Sep 1957 L. Stinson, an Air Traffic Controller reported seeing a white light bearing 025 degrees from the Launceston Tasmania Control Tower. The light was travelling southwards, at the speed of a DC3 aircraft. After 90 seconds, the light was abeam of the field and viewed through binoculars. Checks with area control revealed that there was no known air traffic or meteorological balloons.
After 3 minutes it was lost to view from Launceston. The cloud base was at 4000 feet and the sky was overcast. Ground wind was from 300 degrees at 10 knots. At 1950hrs staff at Hobart airport received a request from Launceston to undertake a radar search. At 2024hrs an echo was detected bearing 356 degrees at 34000 yards slant range at 5 degrees elevation, which moved at a fast speed. It was lost at 354 degrees at 17 miles, height 9-10,000 feet. (10)
RAAF files indicate that the DCA continued to refer reports, including ones from its own staff, throughout the period 1959-1963.
The subject of “unusual occurrences,” as the DCA sometimes referred to reports of “flying saucers” or “UFOs” made its way on to the agenda of a meeting on Air Safety investigations held between26-29 Nov 1963. The minutes of agenda item 21 read:
“Reporting Unusual Occurrences. When a report of an unusual occurrence is received, and investigation indicates that it is not associated with any known aircraft, the report should still be communicated to Head Office in case it may be of interest to some other Authority.” (11)
Departmental staff themselves continued to report ‘unusual occurrences. On Thursday 15 Jul 1965 six members of the Canberra Air Traffic control, employed by the DCA were involved in a UFO incident. At 10.50am T. Lindsay, an Air Traffic Controller, was looking for an aircraft, and reported seeing to the north-east “…a large yellow luminous balloon…It wasn’t Venus…I’m sure of that from the position.” Another controller, Tony Frodsham reported “…in colour it looked like a metallic object…After all that time-nearly forty minutes-it was gone, just like that.” (12) Officer-in-charge A.B. Lindeman said that the object was visible to the naked eye and was stationary at 020 degrees for 20 minutes. Binoculars revealed no further details. (13)
By the following year, 1966, the Department of Air was concerned at the publicity still surrounding the topic. Indeed, the Secretary of the Department of Air wrote to the Director-General of the DCA on 12 Oct 1966 as follows:
“Sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects have during recent months been receiving considerable publicity…Royal Australian Air Force is responsible for the investigation of reports…it is now considered that all authorities that could throw any light on these incidents should be officially associated with the investigation…Your agreement is therefore sought to the proposal that whenever the UFO investigation suggests that your department might be able to provide some assistance a copy of the ufo report should be sent for your comment.” (14)
The DCA responded on 26 Oct 66 that “We will be pleased to provide any assistance you require in connection with the investigation of reports on unidentified flying objects.” The DCA suggested using the same system as previously proposed for RAAF/DCA air safety incident reports.(15). The RAAF agreed, noting that the idea of RAAF bases liaising directly with the appropriate DCA Regional office was supported.
In a memorandum dated 14 Mar 1967 (ref 21/1/387) the DCA Head Office in Melbourne wrote to regional offices. The memo advised regions that the RAAF investigated UFO reports and that “…all authorities that could provide any information should be officially associated with the investigation system.” DCA has agreed to participate and this memo sets out procedures.
If it wasn’t for the reporting system via the DCA, researchers would still not know about an interesting South Australian Jul 1967 CE2 case. A witness named Langsford of Robby’s Aerial Services was travelling by motor vehicle five miles NNE of Murray Bridge one clear night with thick ground fog. Suddenly, the car radio experienced interference. Within 100-150 yards the vehicle’s engine stopped by itself. Although the ignition was on, the dash warning lights came on.
Looking up he saw a “large dark shadow” at an estimated height of 20 feet. Above the shadow was a greyish-blue glow. He stopped the vehicle but shadow and light had gone. Returning to the car he started the engine; switched on the radio and found there was no interference. (16)
Two years later, a radar visual event occurred on the 23 May 1969 which involved a DCA radar operator at Kalamunda WA. At 1835hrs two civilian witnesses saw a moving light which travelled from 10 degrees S, through the SE to the E then to the N of them. It appeared as a steady red light on top of a blue-white light. Finally it settled in a stationary position 10-15 degrees bearing 015 degrees.
It was described as circular, half the size of the full Moon. It was there for 15-20 minutes before, at 1900 hours it moved off at high speed to the N/NE. The female witness at 1901hrs telephoned Kalamundra radar. On checking the radar screen the operator saw a large echo 9 miles distance at 300 degrees. This meant it was some 2.5 miles N of the civilian witnesses. Contact was held for 30-40 seconds.
The echo appeared for short instances on five occasions and finally disappeared at 1942hrs. Interestingly, despite the radar having Moving Target Indicator which meant that it suppressed targets moving less than 6 knots. The target had no noticeable displacement. (17)
Other 1969 events involving airline pilots:
18 Jan 69 on a flight between Singapore and Perth airline Captain Morris travelling 350 degrees tracking 157 degrees True. The plane was at 35000 feet in a Boeing 707. He reported a yellow/white light which descended from 0 degrees to minus 2 degrees. The object gradually fell behind the aircraft. The duration of the event was 5-10 minutes (18)
5 Feb 69. An airline pilot Tillotson was at Ferny Creek, Vic at 2350hrs. He reported seeing a bright white point source travelling 5 degrees/minute soundlessly W to E. It was lost behind a hill (19).
22 Apr 69. A pilot named Hill was over Bass Strait at 1991hrs. A green light was initially seen at 60 degrees elevation and lost in mid-air at 30 degrees at 240 degrees T. Another pilot Rayment at the same time over Bass Strait reported a bright white wound balls in the sky with 2-3 very small incandescent balls trailing (20).
5 Aug 69. While 18nm NW of Melbourne, an airline pilot , first officer and 2 hostesses at 18000 feet saw a green fluorescent light 30 degree to port at 20-30 degrees elevation. It was 2-3 times the size of the full Moon (21)
More airline crew reports continued in 1970:
On 23 May at 1810hrs Captain Knott of an ANA DC9 flight 200nm SE of Townsville reported a beam of light in the direction of Alice Springs. It was pale yellow in colour. It was vertical and stationary. The pilot of a nearby TAA DC9 also saw it. (22).
On 29 Jun Keog, the pilot of a F27 aircraft on descent from 12500 feet noted echoes on radar 60 degrees abeam. The echo appeared to be 60nm from his aircraft and keeping station with him. These were five cigar shaped objects. DCA advised there were no aircraft in the area. (23)
A pilot Harrington was at 8500 feet 40nm SE of Katherine NT on 22 Jul at 2130hrs. He sighted two objects for two minutes, one vertically above the other at 270 degrees relative. In colour they were red and green and level with the aircraft. It moved through 10 degrees in 20 seconds. (24).
After at least 20 years of involvement in processing and investigations into “Unusual occurrences”, the DCA was abolished in 1973 and its function taken up by the Air Transport Group of the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOT).
The Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTRS)
As mentioned above, the Department of Transport and Regional Services took over the role of the former Department of Civil Aviation. An FOI request was submitted and the Departmental decision maker for the request, Rob Graham, Director, Safety Investigations, stated that:
“A thorough search has been made and to the best of my knowledge this decision covers all documents relevant to the Freedom of Information application made…This FOI request seeks access to documents concerning unidentified flying objects held by the Department of Transport and Regional services including the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). The relevant documents from a search of the ATSB’s OASIS aviation occurrence database are listed below with a decision on access under the Act.
link source; http://disclosureaustralia.freewebpages.org/
-
A SEARCH THROUGH THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S UFO RECORDS PART 2;
The Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTRS);
Nine cases were located in the database and these are listed below.
Occurrence number 196901691;
Occurrence id 129813. 2 Jul 1969 “Burn marks rep on 2 golf courses. Reported as poss UFO landing. RAAF notified.
Occurrence number 196902473
Occurrence id. 130595. 31 Jan 1969. Diamond Creek Vic. Rep sighting a UFO white in colour moving very fast in a straight line.
Occurrence number 197502943;
Occurrence id 91062. 12 Jan 1975. Albury NSW. UFO sighted on radar at 20000ft in CTA. Not possible to identify.
Occurrence number 197703195;
Occurrence id 77512. 16 Apr 1977. Near King island Tas. UFO report from pilot. Passed to RAAF for study. CFT beacon abeam VH-KRY. Cessna 401.
Occurrence number 197802563;
Occurrence id 70857. 21 Oct 1978. Near cape Otway Vic. Plt reported UFO then rough running eng. TX ceased-ACFT missing. Cessna 182L.
Occurrence number 197904600;
Occurrence id 66734. 22 Sep 1979. near Banka Banka NT. Object in area. Search ACFT found burnt trees and white ash but no object. (Sneaky Martians?) Misc UFO consisting of white light trailing smoke. Sighted by three witnesses. F27 Plt reported white.
Occurrence number 197904657;
Occurrence id 66791. 19 Oct 1979. Near Broken Hill NSW. Acft, however no known aircraft in area. Misc F27 crew sighted UFO whilst on climb out. Flashing white light similar to strobe on high flying Fokker. B.V. F27 Mk 200.
Occurrence number 198300234;
Occurrence id 40550. 7 Apr 1983. Near Manly West Qld. No known acft or balloon activity in area. Inside radar coverage but no radar return. UFO reported silvery object size of Cessna without wings flying from east to west at 2000ft.
Occurrence number 199804923;
Occurrence id 164236. 8 Nov 1998. 28km NW Perth, Aerodrome. WA. The pilot reported an unidentified flying object, bright red/orange in colour 100ft below and travelling very fast as the aircraft passed 9,000ft. Then object was approximately 2 metres across and the pilot believed that it may have been a model aircraft.
The former Department of Territories 1959-1965
At 1200hrs on 23 Aug 1953 Mr T. Drury, the then Deputy Director of the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) for Papua New Guinea, was in Port Moresby. In the cloudless south-western sky he noticed what seemed to be “cloud building up” which grew in intensity for several minutes. Suddenly, an object appeared from one side of this cloud and climbed fast in a north-west direction. In size Drury said it seemed “slightly bigger than a pin head.” The soundless object left a clearly defined vapour trail. It “finally disappeared with a rapid gain of altitude.” Drury had a movie camera with him and filmed using a telephoto lens. The film was examined both in Australia by the RAAF and in the USA.
The dramatic events of the reported Jun 1959 CE3 events at Boianai, Papua New Guinea are well documented in the UFO literature. What is far less known is the flow of UFO reports from that region as documented in Federal Government files.
It all started with a memo from the Secretary, Department of Territories (DOT) (1) to the Secretary, Department of Defence (DOD) dated 17 Jun 1959 informing Defence of a “Reported sighting of falling object.” At 1900 hours on 24 May 1959 a UFO was reported to the west of Baniara, which descended erratically to the south-west. Brilliant blue in colour, alternating to red, it disappeared at 2015 hours.
The DOT again wrote to the DOD on 4 Aug 1959 (2) recording a number of other sightings in Papua. Copies of the memo were also sent to the Department of Air (DOA); DCA; Department of National Development and the CSIRO. Two internal DOT memos were attached.
It is understandable why copies should have gone to DOA and DCA, but why CSIRO? Two previously located CSIRO files were cross-checked. A copy of the 4 Aug 1959 DOT memo was found on CSIRO file series A8520 control symbol HM1/30. The copy had simply been filed on the CSIRO file titled “Miscellaneous Enquiries – General - UFOs” with no apparent action or further analysis/comment undertaken. Also on the file were copies of six other DOT memos containing reports from PNG; no action noted on the file.
Who was the Department of National Development, and why was the DOT forwarding them copies of UFO reports? NAA “agency notes” on that Department indicated it was created on 16 Mar 1950 for the planning and co ordinating the development of national resources on a national basis. It was abolished in 1972.
Back to the reports. In the 4 Aug 1959 DOT memos Bishop Doyle of Sideia reported that in Jun 1958 a round, pale blue object the size of the Moon, was seen and emitted brighter light than moonlight. It approached and hovered over the Mission. After five minutes it moved north and disappeared in mid-sky.
In late Oct/early Nov 1958 at about 1900 hours a white light travelled from north-west to south-east on two evenings. On the second evening the light flashed on and off at two second intervals.
In May 1959, nine school boys reported seeing a large, green elliptical object moving rapidly across the sky.
On 13 Jun 1959 at 1815 hours, twenty boys reported a fast, green, elliptical object travelling east to north-east.
Mr E Evenett of Samarai was at Giwa, 8 miles from Baniara in Goodenough Bay on 26 Jun 1959. Some time between 1915 and 1930 hours he went outside to see an object approaching from the north or north-east. It descended then hovered an estimated 500 feet above the ground at an angular elevation of 45 degrees. He estimated it to be 60 feet long and in shape was described as like a “rugger football.” It had a “kind of ring around it with about four semi-domed portholes.” A glow came from the ‘portholes.” After hovering for four minutes it disappeared rapidly to the south.
Finally, on 27 Jun 1959 at 2030h hours, two men noted a half-Moon sized object, in the western sky which moved slowly over a ten minute period.
One of the accompanying memos went on to discuss the possibility that Venus was unlikely to be the cause of the events. It closed by stating that “The Regional Director, Attorney General’s Department has been kept fully informed of these reports.” From the phrasing, this suggests ASIO was the agency informed. We do know that other agencies were keeping files on “unidentified aircraft” over PNG. For example:
File series MT1131/1 control symbol A31/1/133 is titled “Unidentified aircraft Papua & New Guinea.” The date range is 1958-1959. The controlling agency at the time was The Department of Army
File series A452 control symbol 1969/1630 is titled “Flights by unidentified aircraft over Papua New Guinea.” The date range is 1958-1970. The controlling agency was the Department of Territories 1958-1968; then the Department of External Territories 1968-1970.
It could simply be that ASIO, like other Government Departments, was keeping an eye on “unidentified aircraft” over PNG.
Another of the attached memos told of yet more sightings:
27 Jun 1959. Baniara. At 1940 hours Mr R Smith and two others saw a bright, white spherical light. It was initially stationary and then slowly moved to the west. Red and green lights were seen on the object. It cast light on the water. At 2025 hours a “bronze coloured disc” was seen below and to the right of the light. It was lost at 2045 hours below low cloud low in the west
28 Jun 1959. Baniara. 1820 hours. Mr and Mrs Orwin saw the same light as on the 27th. At 2001 hours it traversed a distance in one minute which took 30 minutes the previous night. It was in the western sky where it disappeared low down at 2115 hours
7 Jul 1959. At 0500 hours Mr R Smith noted a very bright light. After 15 minutes an object like a falling star came from near the object and shot earthward at speed. Five minutes later another falling star was seen. After a total of an hour it moved westwards.
What is absent from these reported observations is any mention of the 26 and 27 Jun 1959 Boianai CE3 events which do not feature at all in the reports from the DOT.
It appears that it wasn’t until 12 Sep 1959 when Peter Norris of the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society (VFSRS) wrote to DAFI (3) that DAFI became aware of the Father Gill sightings. Norris wrote “My society has been undertaking investigations into the alleged sightings of unidentified flying objects reported by the Reverend W B Gill of Boianai Anglican Mission, Papua, New Guinea.” Norris wrote that Gill et al had reported humanoid beings on the object and “…these sightings, once established as authentic, appear to furnish the much-coveted proof that the UFOs are intelligently guided machines.” Norris asked DAFI if they had inquired into the Gill sightings and if so what were their conclusions?
In an undated response letter, Squadron Leader Gilson from DAFI replied “We have no official information on any sightings by Gill in New Guinea, but we are now making inquiries into the matter.” (4)
By replies dated 20 Oct 1959 VFSRS gave DAFI Gill’s current Victorian address (5) and on 16 Nov 59 (6) VFSRS forwarded a copy of their 15 page report (7) on not only the Gill sightings but others from PNG. VFSRS again asked DAFI if they had received official information and could DAFI please respond to their letter of 12 Sep 59 with questions re DAFI’s conclusions?
On the 25 Nov 1959 five of the main Australian UFO groups sent a joint letter to the Right Honourable R G Menzies-providing a copy of the VFSRS Gill report. The groups wrote that one possible explanation was that the Gill sightings were caused by a secret weapon of a foreign power. “We feel strongly that an investigation should be made…” (8)
On the 26 Nov 59 DAFI responded to VFSRS that “We have initiated enquiry into Father Gill’s claims, but it is too early to have reached any conclusions.” (9) Despite two statements by DAFI that they had initiated enquiries into Gill’s account, there is no evidence on their files of any such enquiries.
Interestingly, out of all the time which DAFI could have chosen to undertake their next action, DAFI chose 26 Nov to also write to the DOD’s RAAF liaison in both London and Washington with a question. The question was for the liaison staff in each country to ascertain the latest views of the respective governments on the issue of UFOs. (10)
Politics entered the scene at this point, on the 15 Dec 59 when the Secretary for the DOD advised the Secretary of the DOA that the Minister for Defence had received a letter from VFSRS. The Secretary DOD asked for a report on the subject of Papuan UFO reports which were received some months ago. (11)
On the 16 Dec 59 the DOD forwarded the PNG reports contained in the 4 Aug 59 DOT memo to the Australian Embassy in Washington. These reports were then forwarded to the “Aerospace Technical Intelligence Centre” for evaluation (USAF).
The question arises as to whether DAFI in the DOD or some other area in the DOD requested the evaluation? There are no copies of correspondence from DAFI on this topic in the files we have seen. The memo reference involved was W.183/59 and this isn’t the style used by DAFI. It does appear that while DAFI was dealing with questions re Father Gill’s report; someone else in the DOD was dealing with the other PNG reports, seeking an evaluation of their cause in the USA.
Although they had had Gill’s Australian address since Oct, it wasn’t until 18 Dec 1959 that DAFI wrote to Father Gill, who was by then in Victoria, asking if a Squadron leader Lang could interview him. (12)
On the day before Christmas, a reply came back from London to the effect that 90 % of all UK UFO reports could be explained and that the remaining 10% “…only remain unexplained because of lack of reliable information about them.” (13)
Following the Secretary DOD’s request for a report, Squadron Leader Lang interviewed Father Gill. On 8 Jan 1960 Sec DOA forwarded a copy of this two page report to the Sec DOD. The report, solely based on the interview, and lacking any attempt to check with PNG sources, concluded “It seems probably that the lights observed by Mr Gill were natural phenomena.”
With a Defence orientation the memo concluded “In the light of our own and overseas military experience, the reported sights by Reverend Gill do not contain sufficient additional evidence to warrant any firm opinion that illegal flights by alien countries are being made over Australian Territory.” (14) A copy of this report was also sent to the Prime Minister’s Department on 8 Jan 1960. (15)
The Australian Embassy in Washington responded on 12 Jan 60 advising the latest position on UFOs of the US Government. They referred to “Air Technical Intelligence Centre” Special report No 14.” (16)
The VFSRS asked, once again (17) on 25 Jan 60 if DAFI had reached any conclusion on the Gill sightings? DAFI replied on 22 Feb 60 “…although it is not possible to reach any positive conclusion, we do not believe that the phenomena observed by the Reverend Gill and his party were manned space vehicles.” (18)
A memo dated 16 Feb. 60 (19) from the Office of the High Commission for Australia in London revealed that it wasn’t only the US Government who had been asked for an evaluation of the 58/59 Papuan reports. This memo from London referred to a DOD letter of 16 Dec 59 ref 128.1.21 and advised “…the reports have been studied by the Air Ministry, the representative of the British Astronomical Association and the Royal Greenwich Observatory.” The Air Ministry’ statement included “I am directed to regret that the investigations, except in two instances, were inconclusive.”
The BAA suggested the reports of May 59 and 13 Jun 59 were of meteors. Of other reports they said “In fact I cannot reconcile the descriptions with any known celestial phenomenon, and can only assume that they are either wildly inaccurate, deliberately falsified, or are bona-fide reports of known or unknown objects of terrestrial origin.” Greenwich observed “The only possible astronomical explanation of these various reports would be that they were of the planet Venus. However, some of the observers at least appear to have been aware of this possibility and so this seems an unlikely explanation.”
The USAF response to what could have caused the Papuan reports (in the 4 Aug 59 DOT memo) came in Mar 1960. Firstly, dated 4 Mar 60 (20) is a memo from the Washington RAAF Intelligence Representative to DAFI. Secondly, dated 24 Mar 60 (21) is a memo from the Sec DOD to the Sec DOA. Attached to both memos was a two page report from ATIC, Dayton, Ohio, USA. Table one presents their conclusions:
-
PART 3
“UNUSUAL AERIAL SIGHTINGS”
A SEARCH THROUGH THE
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S
RECORDS SYSTEMS;
Table one
Date
Reporter
Location
Conclusion
Jun 1958
Doyle
Sideia
Insufficient information
Oct/Nov 58
Doyle
Poss aircraft
May 1959
Doyle
Prob meteor
24 May 1959
Orwin/Smith
Baniara
Prob Sirius
13 Jun 59
Doyle
Prob meteor
26 Jun 1959
Evenett
Samarai
Prob search light
27 Jun 1959
Doyle
Prob Venus
27/28 Jun 1959
Smith/Orwin
Prob Venus
On the 8 Mar 1960 the sec DOD forwarded a memo (22) to the Sec DOA attaching the memo of 4 Aug 1959 from DOT. DOD advised DOA that they had forwarded the matter to Head of Australian Joint Services Staff (AJSS) in London and Washington for comment. This is actually the first time details of these reports appears in a DAFI referenced file as opposed to a DOD referenced file. This supports the view that DAFI was dealing only with the Gill sightings while someone else in the DOD was dealing with the other 1958/59 Papuan reports. Why this should be so, when DAFI was recognised as the lead area for the Government’s UFO investigation, is not known from reading the files.
Finally, on 14 Mar 1960 the Sec DOD forwarded to the Sec DOA an additional piece of correspondence from the AJSS in London. This included a reply from Bristol University advising that although one of their projects was flying large plastic balloons they knew of no agency flying such balloons in the area of Port Moresby PNG. (23).
Later reports
In total, 49 distinct UFO reports from PNG for the period Jun 1958 to Aug 1971 were extracted from these files. The 1970 Sepik River radar case stands out from the rest as one of interest to us. On 29 Jun 1970 the pilot of F27 aircraft VH-FNK reported a radar observation. On descent from 12,500 feet he noted echoes on radar 60 deg abeam his plane. Radar scale set at 180nm and echoes appeared to be 60nm from plane and keeping station with him. There were five cigar shaped objects. With the radar scanner on maximum depression or elevation the echoes disappeared. DCA advised there were no aircraft in the area. The DAFI file has a single page reporting this event, with no analysis and no follow up, yet it is written off in the Annual Summary as “electro-meteorological” what ever that means!
The former Department of External Affairs 1954
The Federal Minister for this Department, the Rt Hon R G Casey, took a personal interest in the subject in 1954-1955 according to the single Departmental file (M1148 “Flying Saucers 1954 to 1955”) located. Casey corresponded with various overseas Australian Embassies collecting information on the topic. He also engaged in correspondence with CSIRO staff.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 1952-1972
Commonwealth Investigation Service
One of the files which is digitally available from the NAA, is 56/2773 titled: “The Australian Flying Saucer Research Society.” Interestingly, the file cover indicates it was a file of the “Commonwealth Investigation Service Canberra.” The Australian Flying Saucer Research Society was a civilian UFO group. The Commonwealth Investigation Service’s functions included, according to NAA “Agency notes for agency CA 650, “…maintenance of liaison with customs, postal, taxation and state police services; security at Government factories, dockyards and facilities; and provision of personnel as required for special investigations…” In 1949 some of the roles of CIS passed to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), while the rest of the CIS role went to the Commonwealth Police Force in 1960.
The archive file currently holds a single document, a copy of a newspaper article. The article is headlined: “Men from Mars!” and concerns a close approach of the planet Mars to Earth in 1956, and notes in part that: “The Australian Flying Saucer Research Society (AFSR) will have its telescopes trained on the planet…”
ASIO
There are indications that ASIO was involved from at least 1952. One of the earliest Australian books written about Flying Saucers:
“Officers of the Civil Aviation Department wanted to establish a special bureau to collect and collate facts about flying saucers. From Cabinet itself, however, came instructions that it was more properly a matter for the security services.”(1)
Secondly, a May 1952 news paper report titled “Hush ban on saucers” advised that:
“Australian Security Intelligence Officers have refused the Civil Aviation Department permission to investigate reports of ‘flying saucers’ Mr R M Seymour said tonight. Mr Seymour is Superintendent of Air Traffic Control. He said his department had planned to set up a special section to collate facts on “flying saucer” reports. Intelligence officials had told him that “flying saucers” were “security matters.” Mr Seymour said “saucer” reports which he had collected followed the pattern of similar reports in the United States.” (2)
On 23 Aug 1953 Mr T. Drury, the then Deputy Director of the DCA for Papua New Guinea, was in Port Moresby and viewed and filmed an unusual object. All was quiet on the file until 1958 when an American citizen Max B Miller wrote to DCA asking to have a copy of the film or borrow the original to copy. The expressed intent was to photogrammetrically analyse the film. The response letter, signed by one T P Drury, (who identified himself as the photographer of the film) of DCA Melbourne, dated 19 Feb 1958, included: “ Immediately after taking this film it was handed over to the Commonwealth Security Branch for processing and investigation, and it has not been sighted by me since.”(3)
In 1959 there were a number of reports originating from the Department of Territories, from Papua. Oneof their memos closed by stating that “The Regional Director, Attorney General’s Department has been kept fully informed of these reports.” (4) This implies ASIO.
Requests were made to ASIO in 2005, via the National Australia Archives, to search their files to see if they held any records on the following Australian UFO research groups:
Australian Flying Saucer Bureau; Australian Flying Saucer Club; Australian Flying Saucer Investigation Committee; Australian Flying Saucer Research Society; UFO Investigation Centre; Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society; Victorian UFO Research Society; Perth UFO Research Group; Queensland Flying Saucer Research Bureau; UFO Research Queensland.
Responses (one per group) were received from ASIO via the NAA, stating that: “A check of our indices has failed to locate any open or closed period records with respect to the above named subject.”
Later however, a search of RecordSearch did in fact reveal that ASIOI had released one file to the NAA. File series A6122, control symbol 2155 has a date range of 1959-1973 and is “open with exception.” It is titled “Queensland Flying Saucer Bureau Volume 1.” The file cover, as shown on the released copy, carries the original ASIO file number 3/2/979 vol 1 and is titled “Flying Saucer Research Bureau (Qld.)”
Two pages of the file are a “Statement of reasons under section 40 of the Archives Act 1983” why exemptions are claimed for not releasing the entire file. The next page is titled “Access application title” and indicates that of the original 36 pages:
Total exemption was sought and given for 15 folios
Leaving 21 pages to be released.
The main body of the file
There is a four page Aug 1959 “secret” report and covering letter, on the Queensland Flying Saucer Research Bureau which indicates the reason for ASIO’s interest in the organisation. The author of the reports states “There is some communist influence in the Bureau…” naming a committee member, whose wife’s parents are stated to be “…pacifists and communists.” Concerning another committee member, the report says “He is a fanatic in matters relating to U.F.Os and all attempts to prove their validity and would resort to any means to obtain information concerning them.” The report concludes:
“At present the Queensland Bureau does not appear to constitute any serious concern…but its activities will be constantly watched as there is the ever present possibility that…together with Soviet contact and any increased Communist Party of Australia membership, the Bureau could become of far greater interest.”
This report was forwarded by ASIO Qld to ASIO HQ.
The next two documents are a report dated 12 Aug 1959 on a “Play Reading” evening of the “New Theatre Club” listing those who attended. One attendee is said to be “…a member of a writers’ group; also of the Flying Saucer Research Group.”
A memo dated 5 Jul 1960 from the Regional Director ASIO ACT to ASIO HQ forwarded a letter, from one Fred Stone of the Australian Flying Saucer Research Society, which Stone had sent to the RAAF. In this letter Stone referring to a Sydney based UFO group wrote “…the Sydney one which has some folk in its control who have ‘pink’ tendencies…” The ASIO memo says “The writer (STONE) may have some potential value for Regional Director, S.A., and Regional Director N.S.W. may be interested in the reference to the Sydney Society.”
The next folio, dated 17 Jul 1961, is from the Regional Security Officer SA to the Chief Security Officer Melbourne cc Regional Director ASIO Adelaide, concerning one Donald Frederick Stone who commenced employment at the WRE Salisbury.
A “secret” 9 Jan 1962 memo from Regional Director ASIO SA to ASIO HQ forwarded a report from the (blanked out) about the Australian Flying Saucer Research Society. The report is not on the file released to us.
The next two Department of Supply folios (dated 14 and 19 Jun 1963) are about Donald Frederick Stone’s involvement with the subject of Scientology.
There are then no papers on the released file until 17 Feb 1971 when the acting Establishment Investigations Officer WRE Salisbury wrote to the Establishment Security Officer Salisbury. This memo advised that Donald Frederick Stone ceased employment with the WRE on 29 Jan 1971. It also advised that Stone was off to the United Kingdom to Scientology headquarters. The covering memo dated 23 Feb 1971 from the RSO(SA) Department of Supply advised that “Stone has been kept under notice since 1961…”
A 3 Nov 1972 ASIO SA memo headed “Australian Flying Saucer Research Society” refers to a 13 Oct 1972 report concerning Colin Norris who the report says“…claims to be in correspondence with Soviet academicians on the subject of unidentified flying objects…Norris spoke to members of the Young Socialists League in South Australia about UFOs…” This report refers to an earlier 1969 report, which is not on the file.
Finally, a 15 Aug 1973 “Telephone message” from “Supervisor (Intelligence)” concerned Donald Frederick Stone, and posed questions re his connection to Scientology.
There was a prominent South Australian UFO researcher named Fred Stone, but his name was Frederick Phillip Stone.
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 1952-1989
The Science and Industry Research Act 1949 established the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). Included in its powers and functions:
· The initiation and carrying out of scientific researches and investigations in connection with, or for the promotion of, primary or secondary industries
· The training of scientific research workers
· The collection and dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters.
The early days
In May 1952, the Department of Civil Aviation was thinking of setting up its own investigation unit into “flying saucers,” but that Security agencies were said to have told them that they could not do so:
“Shortly afterwards a security spokesman confirmed they had investigators working on the reports with the aid of scientists from the radio-physics division of the CSIRO.” (1)
It was therefore with some interest that a CSIRO file was located dealing with “Flying saucers” in the NAA. This CSIRO file was from file series A9778 control symbol M1/F/31, date range 1952-1957, and was simply titled “Flying saucers.”
The initial piece of correspondence was dated 26 Aug 1952 and was from a Mr May of Grenfell NSW, who at 3.40am on the 22 Aug 1952 was awoken by his son to “come and see the flying saucer.” Looking into the sky they saw a “misty phosphorescent phenomenon” moving from the NW to NE, which disappeared after several minutes. It then re-appeared in the NW, moving again to the NE. It was last seen about 4am. It transpired that the son had been watching since 3am and the light travelled along the same course each time.
The Secretary of the Industrial and Physical Sciences area of the CSIRO replied on the 10 Sep 1952. “It is difficult, on the basis of the information you have given, for us to make any attempt at a detailed explanation of your observations.” (2) He went on to advise that searchlights can illuminate clouds without the beam being visible from the ground.
In a letter dated 9 Sep 1952 the Australian representative of The Chicago Daily News Foreign Service advised that the paper was doing a piece on “flying saucers” and asked a number of questions of the CSIRO. These were:
“1. Do you know of any evidence in Australian tending to prove or disprove ‘flying saucers’ as mysterious aircraft?
2. Do you know of any cases which defy scientific explanation of the phenomena Australians have reported seeing in their skies?
3. Have you made any discoveries or formed any theories about these phenomena?” (3)
The Chairman of the CSIRO, Dr Clunies-Ross, responded on 18 Sep 1952:
“I am afraid it is not possible for this organisation to make any useful contributions to the survey, since we know of few, if any, reports of the observations of ‘flying saucers’ in this country and certainly none which deserve serious consideration.” (4)
Government Minister R G Casey wrote a letter to the Editor of a number of Australian newspapers and on 5 Feb 1954 sent a copy of a press clipping to Dr Clunies-Ross. The clipping included:
“I have lists of the dates over the last several years on which people have reported having seen ‘flying saucers’ in Australia and have compared them with the dates on which the earth passes through the principal meteoric showers. There appears to be a noticeable relationship between these two sets of dates.” (5)
Minister Casey, as then Minister in charge of the CSIRO, wrote to Dr Clunies-Ross on 22 Feb 1954 advising that he (Casey) had sent a copy of his meteor article to Dr Bowen, Chief of the Division of Radio physics, who said “This is the first time such a relationship has been suggested and it might well be the complete answer.”
On another Government file there is an exchange of correspondence between Casey and Bowen. At one point Casey asked Bowen for his views on a book by Keyhoe “Flying Saucers from Outer Space.” Bowen responded “I must say, however, that I am far from convinced by any of the anecdotes or arguments. “ (7) The earlier reporting that security agencies were “…working on the reports with the aid of scientists from the radio-physics division of the CSIRO” must be seen in the light of this statement by the Chief of the Division of Radio physics.
Finally, the file contains a letter from a person in Esperance WA to the CSIRO asking for the identity of a “luminous egg” shaped object seen travelling from SW to E at 8.15pm on 16 Aug 1957. Dr Clunies-Ross wrote back on 17 Oct 1957 “I am afraid I can offer no explanation of this object…I shall, however, refer your letter to others more competent in this field…” (8)
Comments from elsewhere than this file
In Feb 1958 at Tarcutta NSW a witness reported hearing an unusual noise and observing the tops of trees unnaturally waving around. Chunks of a clinker type of material were discovered. “Specimens of the material were sent to the CSIRO in Sydney but no analysis was forthcoming.” (9)
Also, in 1958 a CSIRO physicist, Mr R Taylor of Adelaide reported observing an object in the sky with a cone shaped rear flame. This object, which travelled SW to NE was associated with a low pitched droning sound. (10)
Another CSIRO file
A second CSIRO file located was in file series A8520 control symbol HM1/30, titled “Miscellaneous Enquiries-General-UFO’s – Unidentified Flying Objects.” with a date range of 1959-1989. The NAA have a digital copy of this file which is currently open between 1959 and 1969.
In the 1959 to 1961 period there are a number of pieces of correspondence from the Department of Territories on file. The originals were forwarded to the Department of Defence, with copies to the CSIRO. The CSIRO appeared to have simply filed the papers on this miscellaneous file.
An aside
In the early 1960’s USAF U-2 aircraft flew missions out of RAAF East Sale. Details of these missions under the High Altitude Sampling Program, Operation “Crow flight,” are only just now being released in Government files under the Archives Act. Reading one recently available “Crow flight” file revealed that CSIRO equipment was flown on USAF U-2 aircraft. The CSIRO used these flights “…for observations connected with its experimental programme in cloud physics and rain making.” (11) An irony of this situation is that the CSIRO may have been involved in U-2 flights which ended up being reported as UFOs!
In May 1963, a letter came in from a Phillip Mayall, of the “UFO Research Centre” in Blackwood, South Australia. In part it read:
“It has recently been drawn to my attention that in recent months certain members of your organisation have been in attendance at places where Unidentified Flying Objects had been recently observed.” (12)
Myall offered his assistance to the CSIRIO in investigations. In a response dated 10 May 1963 the CSIRO replied “CSIRIO has not carried out any work in this field although, of course, some of its officers may have a private interest in it.”(13) The letter continued that it was possible one CSIRO member may have been involved, and on the same day a letter went from the CSIRO to a Dr G F Bornsmissza of Boolara, Vic:
“I do not know whether you have been interrogating anyone in Moe lately, concerning flying saucers, but if you have, and your interest in them is more than a casual one, you might care to write to Mayall.” (14)
This reference to Moe, concerns the Willow Grove, via Moe, Victoria CE1 case of 15 Feb 1963 where a Mr Brew reported seeing an extraordinary object at close range. The RAAF sent two officers to interview Brew. These officers also interviewed a Dr Berson and a Mr Clark of the CSIRO about the possibility of the Moe object being a meteorological phenomenon, possibly a tornado. The RAAF report does not say that any CSIRO staff members interviewed Brew. (15) However, Bill Chalker states:
“Dr Berson and an associate visited Charles Brew at the Willow Grove property. According to Brew, Dr Berson was interested in the headache that he had, and indicated that Berson had said that it tied in with their theory of a possible electromagnetic nature of the incident. The CSIRO’s field investigation had in fact preceded the RAAF by about a week.” (16)
Clyde Cameron MHR for Hindmarsh in South Australia wrote to Senator the Hon J G Gorton, then Minister in charge of the CSIRO on 13 Jul 1964 regarding one Colin Norris of Adelaide asking “… whether you could give him a job watching for flying saucers…” (17)
Answering a 1964 query from a Mr Hennessey of London in the United Kingdom, the CSIRO advised “…it [the CSIRO] has not been specifically concerned with unidentified flying objects.” (18) Interestingly, the CSIRO made no mention of the fact that the Department of Air was the central Australian agency collating UFO reports on behalf of the Government. It turns out that Julian Hennessey was a British UFO researcher who was behind the later (1967) attempt at lobbying the British Government to release copies of the UK Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) most impressive cases. However, this request for access was rejected. (19)
During 1965, more Department of Territories’ reports were copied to the CSIRO. Internally, copies were forwarded to both the Radio physics and the Upper Atmosphere sections.
Sylvia Sutton of the Commonwealth Aerial Phenomena Investigation Organisation (CAPIO) the national level UFO organisation forwarded a list of CAPIO officers to the CSIRO in Oct 1966. A hand written note on the file read “Records. UFOs are Mr Wilson’s worry-as from Exec meeting today.” (20) Other papers on the file revealed Mr L G Wilson was the Secretary, Administration, CSIRO.
Co-operation sought between Government Departments
The Department of Air wrote to the CSIRO on 12 Oct 1966 advising that “…Sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects have during recent months been receiving considerable publicity.” (21) The DOA invited the CSIRO to comment on specific UFO cases to be sent to them by the RAAF. The minutes of the 92nd meeting of the CSIRO executive committee on 25 Oct 1966 para 10, on file, revealed that the CSIRO agreed to the DOA’s request. They responded on 7 Nov 1966 when Mr L G Wilson replied “The organisation is quite happy to assist in this way...” (22)
As in 1963, a piece of 1968 correspondence suggested that the CSIRO was in fact interested enough in UFOs to investigate a case. A memo dated 28 Nov 1968 from the DOA said in part:
“During the course of an investigation into the unusual sightings made by Mr A S Ricketts of Bacchus marsh, Victoria, it was learned that a ‘team of CSIRO scientists’ had visited him on 7th Jul 1966.” (23)
It then asked the CSIRO for any information on this matter. By way of reply on 5 Dec 1968 the CSIRO commented “I have made enquiries…but with negative results.” (24) An inspection of the report of the RAAF interviewing officer located a paragraph:
“Mr Ricketts had a visit from a team of CSIRO scientists who saw something but would not confirm that this was a UFO. Mr Ricketts would not divulge the names of the CSIRO scientists.” (25)
Enter Dr Michael J Duggin
As foreshadowed in a comment in 1963 that some CSIRO staff members might have a private interest in UFOs, came a memo from the DOA dated 5 Jan 1967. It provided a copy of a letter from one Dr M J Duggin on CSIRO letterhead (National Standards Laboratory) to the DOA. Duggin referred to a previous telephone call, then described work on the UFO phenomenon being undertaken by Vallee and Hynek in the USA. Advising that several scientists in different countries were gathering UFO data he wrote “I would like to investigate cases myself where possible and would be very willing to be of any help which I can.” (26) Also attached was a “To whom in may concern” letter from J Allen Hynek introducing Duggin. Duggin had met Hynek and Vallee when Duggin visited Chicago in Nov 1966. (27)
The DOA memo stated, re Duggin’s letter:
“It is understood that this scientific investigation is quite unofficial…This department has no objection additionally to passing reports of all ufo sightings to Dr Duggin provided that this would not cause you any embarrassment.” (28)
A hand written CSIRO note on the file read “Discussions with Colin Harper (at Chippendale)-has no objections to Duggin’s extra-curricular activity.”
An examination of RAAF file 554/1/30 (their policy file at this stage) reveals the original of Duggin’s letter to Squadron Leader Baxter in DAFI. Folio 115 of 554/1/30 dated 29 Dec 1966 is an internal memo from D/DAFI (Ops) to DAFI which included:
“You will note that these scientists are mainly interested in the unexplained UFO’s, but as far as I can make out they would like information on all sightings…These scientists, with all the documents and facilities available to them, are obviously in a position to assist us in this matter, and though I am not too keen on releasing the details of the RAAF investigations or anything which may increase the interest of the general public in this field, I think we should give these scientists the information they require.”
On file, DAFI do not discuss what assistance it was felt Duggin et al could provide.
Dr Duggin conducted an investigation of a report from Sydney on 8 Mar 1967 where a dull grey-black object emitting a low humming sound was observed. Duggin forwarded the details of the case to Hynek in the USA and a copy of the report appears on a RAAF file (29)
When the Project interviewed former Government employee Harry Turner (see appendix three) he was asked about a proposal for a rapid investigation team within the DSTI area of the Joint Intelligence Bureau, Department of Defence. Turner told us he was the instigator of the idea. A request was made to the Secretary of Defence, who referred it on to DAFI. DAFI reacted badly against it and it was rejected. Mike Duggin was the other main player with Turner. Together they had investigated a reported UFO landing on a Sydney golf course.
They took samples and looked at what temperature would have been required to make the marks/holes. From memory Turner thought hotter than an oxy-acetylene torch would have been needed. Turner and Duggin went there privately to investigate and interviewed the green keeper who had found the marks. Turner thought it was quite a convincing case.
In 1970 Duggin investigated a trace case at Boggabri NSW. A year later he presented a paper titled “The analysis of UFO Reports” at a symposium held on 30 Oct 1971, in Adelaide. The symposium, on UFOs, was organised by the SA Division of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science.
In Aug 1973 Hynek was in Australia and together with Duggin and Harry Turner, Hynek attended a Department of Defence DAFI meeting on the 24th. A DAFI file note (30) called it “An unofficial meeting…in an endeavour to expand the scientific relationship to the problem.” In the meeting, Duggin was described as “…a member of the CSIRO and is currently based in Sydney (North Ryde) and heading the Australian research aspects of ERSAT.” Paragraph 5 of the note read:
“DAFI suggested that CSIRO or the Dept of Science (but preferably the former) seemed to be logical agencies to conduct greater in depth investigation in Australia. DAFI agreed that a selection of reports (mainly those which were unanswerable and scientific in context) could possibly be made available to CSIRO for further study and computerization.”
A biography located on a United States Air Force web site indicates Duggin left Australia in 1979 and became an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Resources and Forest Engineering, Division of Engineering, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, USA. The biography goes on to say that in 2002 Duggin left that position and became Senior Scientist, Space Vehicles Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, USA.
Back to the second CSIRO UFO files
The Journal “Science” in its 14 Oct 1966 issue wrote about the establishment of the Condon investigation into UFOs in the USA. Someone at CSIRO was interested enough in it to forward a copy of the article to the DOA. (31)
A 19 Apr 1967 letter from Peter Norris of CAPIO referred to the University of Colorado’s USA UFO study and stated “The purpose of my letter is to enquire whether the CSIRO would consider establishing a similar investigation in Australia…” (32) There is no evidence on file that this request received any in-depth attention. The CSIRO’s reply went out five days later, on 24 Apr 1967-“I am sorry to tell you that it is felt it would not be appropriate in Australia at this time for CSIRO to embark on such an investigation…” (33) CSIRO then referred Norris to the DOA, and forwarded a copy of Norris’s letter and their reply to the DOA (copy sighted on RAAF file 554/1/30.)
The CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography referred a UFO report to the Royal Australian Navy from the M S Seaway on 27 Apr 1967. The report referred to an observation of three comet-like objects seen at 2130hrs EST on 5 Apr, travelling to the NNE over a 25 second period. (34)
It wasn’t until late 1967 that the DOA/RAAF took up the CSIRO’s offer to look at an individual UFO case. On 20 Dec 1967 RAAF Pearce forwarded a report from Derby WA for comment. It was an unusual report involving a strange vehicle and a human-like figure. CSIRO despatched a reply on 4 Jan 1968 “The nature of the report attached to your letter is such that CSIRO cannot usefully comment on it.” (35)
Jun 1968 brought in two more reports from RAAF Pearce to the CSIRO for comment. They were referred internally to Dr E G Bowen, Chief of the Division of Radio physics and to Dr D F Martyn, Chief of the Upper Atmosphere area. Martyn responded that there was too little data. Bowen wrote “…We are not very good at UFO’s and I find it difficult to comment…” (36)
Jun 1968 also saw a copy of a letter on file from the Department of External Affairs to the Secretary Prime Minister’s Department concerning another letter from UK Ufologist Hennessey. In part it read: “…the history of this subject reveals that the more time and effort that is spent by experienced scientists in investigating the smaller becomes the residue of unexplained phenomena…in spite of these difficulties the Australian Government continue to keep records of all “sightings” and associated phenomena reported within Australian and associated territories.” (37)
As we have previously seen, raw reports were made to the CSIRO from time to time. In Mar 1969, a Mrs Gibbs of Kyogle NSW reported finding a twenty foot diameter “scorched grass” area and toadstools. The CSIRO sent the toadstool to the Government Botanist who identified it and suggested the cause of the “scorched grass” was in fact a “fairy ring” fungus. The CSIRO forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the DOA. (38)
The last relevant item concerning the CSIRO is from 1972 where the main RAAF DAFI policy file contains a cryptic file note dated 14 Sep 1972. “CSIRO has a very high resolution radar which is mobile and which we could possibly utilise at some future date.” (39) Looking at DAFI files to see what was occurring at that time we found that there were a number of UFO reports generated in Victoria around Maffra, Morwell, Stratfield and Sale since 14 Sep 72. (40)
The Department of Defence 1951-2007
Royal Australian Navy
Four Navy files have been located, of which two of these dealt with the 1954 Nowra Navy pilot incident. Of the other two, file series E499/18 control symbol C21/4/41 was located at the Darwin office of the National Australia Archives and was titled “Unidentified flying object sightings.” The file was from Defence Establishment Berrimah (Formerly HMAS Coonawarra) and consisted of 41 pages. Its date range was 1959-1974 and although no analysis was present on the file, someone, for some reason was keeping a file on the subject. The final file A6826 control symbol 1361/1/1-3 titled “Earth satellites, space vehicles, Unidentified Flying Objects-general” is a mere three pages and mentions one report of low level interest.
Australian Army
Three Army files were located and examined:
MP742/1 control symbol 177/1/2356 titled: “Flying saucers re O L Alwin” contained a letter from Mrs O L Alwin of North Manly to “Army inventions etc(?)” dated 4 Jan 1951
File AWM 288 control symbol R723/1/1 titled “Reports-General-Flying Objects” located in the Australian War Memorial contained a Memo dated 23 May 1966 from Brigadier Commander HQ Puckapunyal Area to S Comd. Reference S Comd 109-S1-3 dated 17 May 66. It said that enquiries have failed to locate any info on the reporting of a UFO
MT1131/1, A31/1/102 of 9 pages deals with correspondence from one R Baudish to the Department of Army in 1957. Baudish asked if there had been UFO reports in association with military exercises. The combined reply from the Department of Army, Navy and Air was there had been none.
LINK; http://disclosureaustralia.freewebpages.org/
-
PART 4;“UNUSUAL AERIAL SIGHTINGS”
A SEARCH THROUGH THE
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S
RECORDS SYSTEMS
The former Air Board/Department of Air/current RAAF
The Air Board, in a memorandum dated 16 Jan 1951, issued a pro forma to be used to gather information on sightings of “flying saucers.” (file PP474/1 control symbol 5/5/ Air p2) Given that some of the earliest memos are from the “Air Board,” a search was undertaken of series A7668 controls symbols 8, 9 & 10 which were the “Air Board’s Executive Council Minutes 1947-1950. However, no reference could be found to the topic of ‘flying saucers.”
The Air Board was still receiving reports up until at least Nov 1953 when it issued a revised pro forma for reports.
The Directorate of Air Force Intelligence (DAFI) of the former DOA (1939-1973) then took the lead in collecting and examining reports of UASs from around 1953. How and why the DOA was tasked with this role is not yet clear from any documents so far examined. The search continues to look for early (1947-1951) material, including an apparently lost internal DAFI file numbered SEC.CD2/2 which may throw light on this topic.
One file was located which carried six folios dated earlier that 1953. This was file series number B5758, control symbol 5/6/AIR part 1 titled “Training Command Headquarters. Reports on unusual activity and Aerial Phenomenon.” The front cover indicates the Unit which held it as “Headquarters Training Command.” It also carries a rubber stamped number 80/3/105. There are six folios earlier than Oct 1953. These are:
Confidential memo from RAAF East Sale to HQ Southern Area dated 15 Aug 1950. Relates to a report of light flashes seen from Perry Bridge on Lake Wellington.
Memo dated 24 Aug 1950 forwarding report at folio 1 from Southern Area RAAF to DAFI.
RAAF telegram dated 20 Aug 1950 from Wing Commander SASO to RAAF HQ giving details of aircraft navigation exercises in vicinity of Port Albert re reported flares and lights in that area.
Memo. 14 Feb 1951. From RAAF East Sale to HQ Southern Command. Report that Captain of RAAF aircraft on 7 Feb 1951 observed at 2330hrs a brilliant light. The pilot believed it to be either a flare on the ground or one at very low altitude.
Memo. 16 Jan 1951. From Chief of Air Staff to HQs Southern Area; Eastern Area; North Eastern Area; North Western Area and Western Area. “A number of reports have been made by Areas regarding unusual sightings which have been brought to the notice of various authorities. In order to standardise the reports made about these occurrences, the attached pro-forma has been drafted…It would obviously be unwise to draw any publicity towards Service interest in these reports, and persons making the reports should be asked to treat Service interest as Confidential.”
Memo. 13 May 1952. From Air Officer Commanding HQ Southern Area to DAFI. Details of a sighting. 3 May 1952 0545hrs Kew. Bullet nosed object travelling at high speed leaving a vapour trail.
File A703 control symbol 554/1/30 is titled “Investigations of Flying Saucers-policy.” The earliest folio on the file is dated 20 Jul 1953 and is from the Office of the Air Attaché of the American Embassy in Melbourne and addressed to DAFI. The letter thanks DAFI for copies of previous correspondence and refers to a meeting on 18 May 1953 between the author and DAFI. The author writes “…my headquarters is very interested in receiving reports of all unusual sightings…” and seeks DAFI’s input of data on sightings.
On 16 Nov 1953 an internal memo from the Chief of the Air Staff went out to various RAAF Headquarters forwarding a revised pro-forma for the gathering of information on “unusual sightings.” The memo advised that this new form replaced one initially distributed on 16 Jan 1951. It closed by stating “These new instructions do not emanate from any renewed interest in “Flying Saucers” or any new intelligence on the subject, but are merely intended to improve the standard of reporting.”
A 20 Nov 1953 “Note of Action” was a reply to a Ministerial question on the subject and noted that “…all reports are still being investigated closely and recorded as an aid to further research into future reports of this nature.” Later folios revealed that the information sent was to answer a question from Mr Downer MP.
Folio 7A is a draft statement of RAAF policy, but has a written note to the effect that it was approved by DCAS (presumably Deputy Chief of Air Staff) and issued in Apr 1954. It is the earliest statement of policy and read:
“1. The RAAF accepts reports on flying saucers and attempts an allocation of reliability. Those that fall in the reliable class are then subjected to further investigation as and when the opportunity occurs. As a result of this further investigation, a smaller number of reports are followed up and investigations are made with the Meteorological Services, the Government Astronomer and the Civil Aviation Authorities in an attempt to fit the original occurrences in with any normal flying activity or meteorological phenomena.
2. As a result of investigations in the past, there is no doubt that reliable observers have reported sightings which today are inexplicable within the resources available to the RAAF. Reports of this type are continuously filed in an attempt to develop sufficient depth of evidence for accurate analysis to be made. It may however, be several years before the required depth of evidence is available.”
On 16 Dec 1954 a telegram was sent from Athol Townley, who had the Government portfolios of air and civil aviation, to Mr E W Hicks, Secretary Department of Air, asking if any factual information had been received on an “aircraft phenomenon Canberra Nowra” as there were constant enquiries from journalists. It went on to joke “Trust no mermaid is associated with this sighting.”
Instant action came from DAFI who, on the same day, wrote a minute to the Secretary, Department of Air titled “Ministerial enquiry-radar sightings of unidentified flying objects.” The minute attached a copy of a report (not on the file) from the Department of the Navy. It also stated that “Since the beginning of Aug until quite recently, all reports on unidentified flying objects were referred to Mr O H Turner of the Physics Department of the University of Melbourne, who had offered to carry out a statistical analysis of such report.”
Harry Turner tabled his report by way of a letter dated 26 Dec 1954 which he sent from London to the Secretary, Department of Air in Melbourne. In it he stated that DAFI had given him two files of reports to examine. He had also read books by Keyhoe, Menzel and Leslie & Adamski, and had discussions with other staff members of the Physics Department of the University of Melbourne, plus had personally investigated some local sightings.
Under the heading of conclusions he remarked that: “If one assumes these Intelligence reports are authentic, then the evidence presented is such that it is difficult to assume any interpretation other than that unidentified flying objects are being observed….Indeed, the superiority is such that it is highly improbable that such objects have a terrestrial origin…the evidence presented by the reports held by the RAAF tend to support the above conclusion-namely that certain strange aircraft have been observed to behave in a manner suggestive of an extra-terrestrial origin.”
Turner went on to make a number of recommendations including at least one full time investigator; publicity to encourage more people to report; an liaison with the USAF to exchange information and verify Keyhoe’s claim; liaison with the RAF and the possibility of forming a panel to assist analyse reports.
On 24 Feb 1955, D/DAFI Ops wrote a minute to the D/CAS to accompany Turner’s report to him including Turner’s suggestion of at least one full time investigator. The DCAS on 15 Mar 1955 noted the minute but stated “I am not prepared to afford a full time investigator.”
On 30 Jul 1955 the first of an extensive range of correspondence commenced between DAFI and Fred Stone from Adelaide, of the Australian Flying Saucer Research Society. Stone arranged an appointment to visit DAFI in Melbourne.
Further DAFI response to the Turner report, in Sep 1955, included writing to RAAF liaison in Washington in the USA seeking any information on the subject that the USAF may hold and for the USAF’s assessment of Keyhoe’s work. The reply from Washington came dated 19 Oct 1955 and included a part re Keyhoe which read “He has, however, no official status whatsoever and a dim view is taken officially of both him and his works.”
On 2 Nov 1955 A/DAFI wrote to D.Ops which included the statement “A Ministerial statement in the House on 19 Nov 53 to the effect that the RAAF make detailed investigations of every report received (which in truth we are not yet doing)” It went on to say “To honour the Minister’s statement and the Press release, some effort should be made to investigate any reported “sightings.” This could only be done by a panel including operations, technical, navigation and meteorological staff.”
Feb 1957 saw a letter from Peter Norris to DAFI which requested clarification of the attitude of the Department of Air towards investigations of reports. The reply stated “All reports received by this Department area investigated within the limits of our capability.”
In Apr 1957 DAFI sought assistance with the task of investigation and evaluation of reports, from the Joint Intelligence Bureau (JIB.) Noting that the JIB had established a Scientific Intelligence Section, it suggested the JIB would be better placed to look at the material. No response from JIB has been found on any file, despite the JIB UFO file having been located (see appendix eight.)
Correspondence continued to flow from civilian research societies to DAFI; for example the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society wrote in Sep 1959 to inquire about the Department’s knowledge of the Father Gill case. DAFI’s responded by citing the five year old RAAF policy statement that reports are “continuously filed” and it “may, however, be some time before the required depth of evidence is available.”
These communications triggered a minute from DAFI to their Australian representative at the UK Air Ministry. “Would you be good enough to let us have the latest official views of the United Kingdom government.” A similar request went to Washington.
The UK response was that questions had been asked in the House but Parliament had not debated the topic. Sighting reports were being processed “through Air Ministry intelligence.”
Stimulated by the letter from the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society DAFI interviewed Rev Gill and tabled their report in Jan 1960. DAFI found “It seems probable that the lights observed by Mr Gill were natural phenomena.” and concluded “In the light of our own and overseas military experience, the reported sights of UFOs by Reverend Gill do not contain sufficient additional evidence to warrant any firm opinion that illegal flights by alien countries are being made over Australian Territory.”
The Australian Embassy’s RAAF Intelligence representative wrote to DAFI dated 12 Jan 1960 responding to their earlier request for an update of USAF conclusions and included a copy of a “News Release” from the Department of Defense, Office of Public Affairs, Washington dated 15 Jul 1959 which started off “Over twelve years of investigating and evaluating unidentified flying object sightings has provided no evidence to confirm the existence of the popularly termed “flying saucers”, as interplanetary or interstellar space ships.” The US and UK responses were then given to the Minister on 7 Mar 1960.
Similarly, the 14 Oct 1960 sighting at Cressy, Tasmania, was also followed up by the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society. A memo dated 27 Jan 1961 from DAFI stated “We are of the opinion that the phenomena was the result of the moon rise associated with meteorological conditions…could have produced the impression of flying objects.”
Interestingly, some one hand crossed out the words “could have” in the memo so that a letter dated 7 Mar 1961 from DAFI to VFSRS read “produced the impression of flying objects.”
A little light hearted banter occurred in a letter from the Public Relations Officer of the Department of Civil Aviation to the Director of Public Relations, (DPR) Department of Air (DOA), dated 20 Feb 1963. “Our Embassy in Washington has sent us the attached letter…You know how we feel about saucers-we prefer to concentrate on cups…” This was followed by a minute from DPR DOA to DAFI “Without being saucy (pardon the pun) do you think you could accept the chore of replying to the attached enclosures…”
One of these DAFI responses included part of the text of the statement of the Minister for Air dated 29 Oct 1960 in Parliament. In part it stated:
Although reports of this sort have been investigated very carefully for some years, nearly all of them are explainable on a perfectly normal basis…of all these reports, only three or four percent cannot be explained on the basis of some natural phenomena, and nothing that has arisen from that three or four per cent of unexplained cases gives any firm support for the belief that interlopers from other places in this world or outside it have been visiting g us.”
A 22 Apr 1965 report from the Secretary of Air to a private US citizen included:
“The RAAF has to date neither received nor discovers in Australia or overseas any evidence to support the belief that the earth is being observed, visited or threatened by machines from other planets; nor is there any evidence to prove the existence of flying saucers.”
Apr 1966 saw the preparation of a “Summary of Unidentified Aerial Sightings reported to Department of Air, Canberra ACT from 1960” by the DOA DPR, which sent them to DAFI for comment. DAFI’s response, dated 18 May 1966, argued that as there was renewed interest “in the UFO question” DAFI would prefer that the summary not be passed to the public as it “will only whet their appetite rather than satisfy them.” This was followed by “Also I believe that the SAAB challenge some of the causes-could this be checked please.”
A 12 Oct 1966 memo from the Secretary DOA, which went to the CSIRO; Bureau of Meteorology; Dept of Civil Aviation; Mt Stromlo observatory, and Supervisor of United States Projects Tidbinbilla, sought their co-operation. “Your agreement is therefore sought that whenever the UFO investigation suggests that your organisation might be able to provide some assistance a copy of the UFO report should be sent to you for your comment.”
A minuted dated 12 Oct 1966 from EO(Air) to DAFI, DPR, SAAB and (unreadable) discussed apparent confusion within Departmental UFO policy. A Ministerial statement had advised that “…Anyone…interested in the sightings of UFOs…is welcome to a synopsis of UFO sightings, which includes a very brief assessment of the probable cause.” This conflicted with the 18 May 1966 DAFI view that the synopsis should not be given out to the public. The EO also suggested rationalisation of the Department’s UFO files, there being at least four different files at that time. “Three of these files are classified – two of which are secret, although there appears to be nothing on these files consistent with this classification.” File numbers given were 2/25/1; 580/1/1; 554/1/30. DPR opened file 574/3/88.
The question of the synopsis was resolved in a minute dated 10 Oct 1966 from DAFI:
“In view of the Minister’s statement…the synopsis of UFO sightings at F95 may be released to the public…I see no reason why files on this subject should not be UNCLASSIFIED; this Directorate will close off any classified files on this subject.”
1966 also brought the USAF announcement that Dr E U Condon would head a USAF funded inquiry into UFOs.
Dr M J Duggin of the CSIRO – National Standards Laboratory – wrote to Sqd Ldr Baxter on 20 Dec 1966, following their telephone discussion. Duggin had met Dr J Vallee and Prof J A Hynek in Chicago and he (Duggin) was interested in the scientific investigation of UFOs. Duggin told DAFI that he was interested in investigating cases himself and offered his assistance to DAFI.
Wing Commander Marshall, D/DAFI(ops) wrote to DAFI on 29 Dec 1966 and in part
“ These scientists, with all the documents and facilities available to them, are obviously in a position to assist us in this matter, and although I am not too keen on releasing the details of the RAAF investigations or anything which may increase the interest of the general public in this field, I think we should give these scientists the information they require.”
A memo dated 6 Jan 1967 went from the Secretary DOA to the Secretary CSIRO “…this Department has no objection additionally to passing reports of all UFO sightings to Dr Duggin provided that this will not caused you any embarrassment…” CSIRO responded on 12 Jan 1967 “the organisation has no objection to you passing reports of UFO sightings to Dr Duggin…”
The Commonwealth Aerial Phenomena Investigations Organisation was quick to seize on the USAF study and wrote to the CSIRO requesting it to consider a similar study. A copy of the CSIRO’s response dated 28 Apr 1967 was found on 554/1/30 part 1. “I am sorry to tell you that it would not be appropriate in Australia at this time for CSIRO to embark on such an investigation.” File 554/1/30 part 1 ended here and part 2 commenced on 23 Nov 1967.
On 1 Mar 1968 Wing Commander Pembridge for Chief of the Air Staff, wrote to HQ Op Cmd and HQ Supt Cmd:
“The investigation of unidentified flying objects is understandably a tedious task and one in which the investigator may frequently have little faith or interest. Whilst this Department has every sympathy with this point of view it is nevertheless necessary to obtain a comprehensive as record as possible. The main RAAF object in investigating these reports is to determine whether Australian airspace has been violated.”
A letter dated 16 Mar 1968 from Judith Magee, then Secretary of VUFORS, to Chief of Air Force Intelligence requested “…a conference, for the purpose of discussing current investigations carried out by the Air Force, into Unidentified Flying Objects.” A file note stated that the original letter had been transferred to file 574/3/88 and actioned there.
Later, CAPIO requested a RAAF officer to attend the third conference in Canberra to provide a synopsis of UFO sightings. This caused concern in that to send an officer from DAFI “…underlines that our interest in this subject is that associated with Air Defence/Intelligence aspects, and this could cause some problems and lead to some unwanted publicity.” The memo, from A Sec A to the Minister dated 3 Jun 1968 also stated that DOA intended to see if any other Commonwealth Department e.g. Defence, Supply, Education & Science, Prime Ministers may be better placed to investigate reports.
A 2 Jun 1969 memo from Wing Commander Murphy, DAFI, to HQ Supt Cmd and HQ Ops Cmd read in part:
“In an attempt to obtain slightly more scientific date on sightings, the Defence Science Section has requested that the following report form be used...as Defence Science are the advisors on the reports…”
The file contains a copy of a summary of UAS sightings between 23 Jan 1960 and 30 Nov 1968 at this point. Of the 400 or so reports listed there, are 7 (or 1.75%) labelled “unknown.”
Later, on 11 Nov 1969, Wing Commander Murphy for the Chief of Air Staff asked for better attention to detail when completing UFO report forms “…the public is becoming more and more susceptible to the UFO syndrome, and the press and radio thrive on it. This in turn generates questions in Parliament which require answers sometimes at ministerial level, and unless effort is put into the investigations then the correct answers cannot be given.”
At this point in the file there is an undated summary document titled “UFO Investigation in the RAAF” prepared by Flt Lt K Jordan AI-4. It consists of two pages plus 24 pages of annexes.
“Research into this subject has come up with some unrewarding answers; firstly the inquiry can not go back any further than the 11th Nov 1953. The cause of this blockage is the loss of Part 1 of 114/1/197 (ex SEC CD2/2) in the move of the Department from Melbourne to Canberra.”
The document goes on to summarise “Australian Government policy.” “RAAF Investigation Policy,” “Overseas observations” and “Mr O Turner’s interests.”
A memo from Flt Lt K Jordan, DAFI AI-4 to D/DAFI (Ops) dated 2 Jan 1970 revealed that “One of the secondary duties of AI-4 has been the handling of all UFO reports submitted to the RAAF. This involves making a final decision on the nature of the observed phenomenon in each case…”
In Dec 1969 the USAF terminated Project Blue Book and a copy of the relevant News Release arrived with DAFI. Wind Commander Murphy wrote, on 15 Jan 1970, to D/D(CIV)JIO “In view of this conclusion and decision by the USAF, we are investigating the possibility of reducing the RAAF effort in investigating UFO reports in Australia.”
There was a sighting on 15 Jul 1965 in Canberra which became the subject of a 6 Jun 1970 letter from a member of the public. In preparation of a reply someone included on the file a copy of a Ministerial press release dated 30 Jul 1965. This stated that there were several possible explanations for the event, ranging from a condensation trail of an aircraft, to Venus to a meteorological balloon.
Dated 1 Apr 1970 is an “Operational Command, Air Staff Instruction No 3/A/5 Intelligence – report on Unusual Aerial Sightings.” It set out the then current action to be taken with reports.
The Committee of the South Australian Division of Australian and New Zealand Association of the Advancement of Science convened a one day symposium on “The Unidentified Flying Object problem” on 30 Oct 1971, and requested a RAAF officer attend and explain the processing of reports. DAFI recommended no one be made available and a negative response was sent, but included “There is no evidence that UFOS have landed in Australia…”
LINK; http://disclosureaustralia.freewebpages.org/
-
PART 5;“UNUSUAL AERIAL SIGHTINGS”
A SEARCH THROUGH THE
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S
RECORDS SYSTEMS;
This report was forwarded by ASIO Qld to ASIO HQ.
The next two documents are a report dated 12 Aug 1959 on a “Play Reading” evening of the “New Theatre Club” listing those who attended. One attendee is said to be “…a member of a writers’ group; also of the Flying Saucer Research Group.”
A memo dated 5 Jul 1960 from the Regional Director ASIO ACT to ASIO HQ forwarded a letter, from one Fred Stone of the Australian Flying Saucer Research Society, which Stone had sent to the RAAF. In this letter Stone referring to a Sydney based UFO group wrote “…the Sydney one which has some folk in its control who have ‘pink’ tendencies…” The ASIO memo says “The writer (STONE) may have some potential value for Regional Director, S.A., and Regional Director N.S.W. may be interested in the reference to the Sydney Society.”
The next folio, dated 17 Jul 1961, is from the Regional Security Officer SA to the Chief Security Officer Melbourne cc Regional Director ASIO Adelaide, concerning one Donald Frederick Stone who commenced employment at the WRE Salisbury.
A “secret” 9 Jan 1962 memo from Regional Director ASIO SA to ASIO HQ forwarded a report from the (blanked out) about the Australian Flying Saucer Research Society. The report is not on the file released to us.
The next two Department of Supply folios (dated 14 and 19 Jun 1963) are about Donald Frederick Stone’s involvement with the subject of Scientology.
There are then no papers on the released file until 17 Feb 1971 when the acting Establishment Investigations Officer WRE Salisbury wrote to the Establishment Security Officer Salisbury. This memo advised that Donald Frederick Stone ceased employment with the WRE on 29 Jan 1971. It also advised that Stone was off to the United Kingdom to Scientology headquarters. The covering memo dated 23 Feb 1971 from the RSO(SA) Department of Supply advised that “Stone has been kept under notice since 1961…”
A 3 Nov 1972 ASIO SA memo headed “Australian Flying Saucer Research Society” refers to a 13 Oct 1972 report concerning Colin Norris who the report says“…claims to be in correspondence with Soviet academicians on the subject of unidentified flying objects…Norris spoke to members of the Young Socialists League in South Australia about UFOs…” This report refers to an earlier 1969 report, which is not on the file.
Finally, a 15 Aug 1973 “Telephone message” from “Supervisor (Intelligence)” concerned Donald Frederick Stone, and posed questions re his connection to Scientology.
There was a prominent South Australian UFO researcher named Fred Stone, but his name was Frederick Phillip Stone.
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 1952-1989
The Science and Industry Research Act 1949 established the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). Included in its powers and functions:
· The initiation and carrying out of scientific researches and investigations in connection with, or for the promotion of, primary or secondary industries
· The training of scientific research workers
· The collection and dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters.
The early days
In May 1952, the Department of Civil Aviation was thinking of setting up its own investigation unit into “flying saucers,” but that Security agencies were said to have told them that they could not do so:
“Shortly afterwards a security spokesman confirmed they had investigators working on the reports with the aid of scientists from the radio-physics division of the CSIRO.” (1)
It was therefore with some interest that a CSIRO file was located dealing with “Flying saucers” in the NAA. This CSIRO file was from file series A9778 control symbol M1/F/31, date range 1952-1957, and was simply titled “Flying saucers.”
The initial piece of correspondence was dated 26 Aug 1952 and was from a Mr May of Grenfell NSW, who at 3.40am on the 22 Aug 1952 was awoken by his son to “come and see the flying saucer.” Looking into the sky they saw a “misty phosphorescent phenomenon” moving from the NW to NE, which disappeared after several minutes. It then re-appeared in the NW, moving again to the NE. It was last seen about 4am. It transpired that the son had been watching since 3am and the light travelled along the same course each time.
The Secretary of the Industrial and Physical Sciences area of the CSIRO replied on the 10 Sep 1952. “It is difficult, on the basis of the information you have given, for us to make any attempt at a detailed explanation of your observations.” (2) He went on to advise that searchlights can illuminate clouds without the beam being visible from the ground.
In a letter dated 9 Sep 1952 the Australian representative of The Chicago Daily News Foreign Service advised that the paper was doing a piece on “flying saucers” and asked a number of questions of the CSIRO. These were:
“1. Do you know of any evidence in Australian tending to prove or disprove ‘flying saucers’ as mysterious aircraft?
2. Do you know of any cases which defy scientific explanation of the phenomena Australians have reported seeing in their skies?
3. Have you made any discoveries or formed any theories about these phenomena?” (3)
The Chairman of the CSIRO, Dr Clunies-Ross, responded on 18 Sep 1952:
“I am afraid it is not possible for this organisation to make any useful contributions to the survey, since we know of few, if any, reports of the observations of ‘flying saucers’ in this country and certainly none which deserve serious consideration.” (4)
Government Minister R G Casey wrote a letter to the Editor of a number of Australian newspapers and on 5 Feb 1954 sent a copy of a press clipping to Dr Clunies-Ross. The clipping included:
“I have lists of the dates over the last several years on which people have reported having seen ‘flying saucers’ in Australia and have compared them with the dates on which the earth passes through the principal meteoric showers. There appears to be a noticeable relationship between these two sets of dates.” (5)
Minister Casey, as then Minister in charge of the CSIRO, wrote to Dr Clunies-Ross on 22 Feb 1954 advising that he (Casey) had sent a copy of his meteor article to Dr Bowen, Chief of the Division of Radio physics, who said “This is the first time such a relationship has been suggested and it might well be the complete answer.”
In the 1959 to 1961 period there are a number of pieces of correspondence from the Department of Territories on file. The originals were forwarded to the Department of Defence, with copies to the CSIRO. The CSIRO appeared to have simply filed the papers on this miscellaneous file.
An aside
In the early 1960’s USAF U-2 aircraft flew missions out of RAAF East Sale. Details of these missions under the High Altitude Sampling Program, Operation “Crow flight,” are only just now being released in Government files under the Archives Act. Reading one recently available “Crow flight” file revealed that CSIRO equipment was flown on USAF U-2 aircraft. The CSIRO used these flights “…for observations connected with its experimental programme in cloud physics and rain making.” (11) An irony of this situation is that the CSIRO may have been involved in U-2 flights which ended up being reported as UFOs!
In May 1963, a letter came in from a Phillip Mayall, of the “UFO Research Centre” in Blackwood, South Australia. In part it read:
“It has recently been drawn to my attention that in recent months certain members of your organisation have been in attendance at places where Unidentified Flying Objects had been recently observed.” (12)
Myall offered his assistance to the CSIRIO in investigations. In a response dated 10 May 1963 the CSIRO replied “CSIRIO has not carried out any work in this field although, of course, some of its officers may have a private interest in it.”(13) The letter continued that it was possible one CSIRO member may have been involved, and on the same day a letter went from the CSIRO to a Dr G F Bornsmissza of Boolara, Vic:
“I do not know whether you have been interrogating anyone in Moe lately, concerning flying saucers, but if you have, and your interest in them is more than a casual one, you might care to write to Mayall.” (14)
This reference to Moe, concerns the Willow Grove, via Moe, Victoria CE1 case of 15 Feb 1963 where a Mr Brew reported seeing an extraordinary object at close range. The RAAF sent two officers to interview Brew. These officers also interviewed a Dr Berson and a Mr Clark of the CSIRO about the possibility of the Moe object being a meteorological phenomenon, possibly a tornado. The RAAF report does not say that any CSIRO staff members interviewed Brew. (15) However, Bill Chalker states:
“Dr Berson and an associate visited Charles Brew at the Willow Grove property. According to Brew, Dr Berson was interested in the headache that he had, and indicated that Berson had said that it tied in with their theory of a possible electromagnetic nature of the incident. The CSIRO’s field investigation had in fact preceded the RAAF by about a week.” (16)
Clyde Cameron MHR for Hindmarsh in South Australia wrote to Senator the Hon J G Gorton, then Minister in charge of the CSIRO on 13 Jul 1964 regarding one Colin Norris of Adelaide asking “… whether you could give him a job watching for flying saucers…” (17)
Answering a 1964 query from a Mr Hennessey of London in the United Kingdom, the CSIRO advised “…it [the CSIRO] has not been specifically concerned with unidentified flying objects.” (18) Interestingly, the CSIRO made no mention of the fact that the Department of Air was the central Australian agency collating UFO reports on behalf of the Government. It turns out that Julian Hennessey was a British UFO researcher who was behind the later (1967) attempt at lobbying the British Government to release copies of the UK Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) most impressive cases. However, this request for access was rejected. (19)
During 1965, more Department of Territories’ reports were copied to the CSIRO. Internally, copies were forwarded to both the Radio physics and the Upper Atmosphere sections.
Sylvia Sutton of the Commonwealth Aerial Phenomena Investigation Organisation (CAPIO) the national level UFO organisation forwarded a list of CAPIO officers to the CSIRO in Oct 1966. A hand written note on the file read “Records. UFOs are Mr Wilson’s worry-as from Exec meeting today.” (20) Other papers on the file revealed Mr L G Wilson was the Secretary, Administration, CSIRO.
Co-operation sought between Government Departments
The Department of Air wrote to the CSIRO on 12 Oct 1966 advising that “…Sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects have during recent months been receiving considerable publicity.” (21) The DOA invited the CSIRO to comment on specific UFO cases to be sent to them by the RAAF. The minutes of the 92nd meeting of the CSIRO executive committee on 25 Oct 1966 para 10, on file, revealed that the CSIRO agreed to the DOA’s request. They responded on 7 Nov 1966 when Mr L G Wilson replied “The organisation is quite happy to assist in this way...” (22)
As in 1963, a piece of 1968 correspondence suggested that the CSIRO was in fact interested enough in UFOs to investigate a case. A memo dated 28 Nov 1968 from the DOA said in part:
“During the course of an investigation into the unusual sightings made by Mr A S Ricketts of Bacchus marsh, Victoria, it was learned that a ‘team of CSIRO scientists’ had visited him on 7th Jul 1966.” (23)
It then asked the CSIRO for any information on this matter. By way of reply on 5 Dec 1968 the CSIRO commented “I have made enquiries…but with negative results.” (24) An inspection of the report of the RAAF interviewing officer located a paragraph:
“Mr Ricketts had a visit from a team of CSIRO scientists who saw something but would not confirm that this was a UFO. Mr Ricketts would not divulge the names of the CSIRO scientists.” (25)
Enter Dr Michael J Duggin
As foreshadowed in a comment in 1963 that some CSIRO staff members might have a private interest in UFOs, came a memo from the DOA dated 5 Jan 1967. It provided a copy of a letter from one Dr M J Duggin on CSIRO letterhead (National Standards Laboratory) to the DOA. Duggin referred to a previous telephone call, then described work on the UFO phenomenon being undertaken by Vallee and Hynek in the USA. Advising that several scientists in different countries were gathering UFO data he wrote “I would like to investigate cases myself where possible and would be very willing to be of any help which I can.” (26) Also attached was a “To whom in may concern” letter from J Allen Hynek introducing Duggin. Duggin had met Hynek and Vallee when Duggin visited Chicago in Nov 1966. (27)
The DOA memo stated, re Duggin’s letter:
“It is understood that this scientific investigation is quite unofficial…This department has no objection additionally to passing reports of all ufo sightings to Dr Duggin provided that this would not cause you any embarrassment.” (28)
A hand written CSIRO note on the file read “Discussions with Colin Harper (at Chippendale)-has no objections to Duggin’s extra-curricular activity.”
An examination of RAAF file 554/1/30 (their policy file at this stage) reveals the original of Duggin’s letter to Squadron Leader Baxter in DAFI. Folio 115 of 554/1/30 dated 29 Dec 1966 is an internal memo from D/DAFI (Ops) to DAFI which included:
“You will note that these scientists are mainly interested in the unexplained UFO’s, but as far as I can make out they would like information on all sightings…These scientists, with all the documents and facilities available to them, are obviously in a position to assist us in this matter, and though I am not too keen on releasing the details of the RAAF investigations or anything which may increase the interest of the general public in this field, I think we should give these scientists the information they require.”
On file, DAFI do not discuss what assistance it was felt Duggin et al could provide.
Dr Duggin conducted an investigation of a report from Sydney on 8 Mar 1967 where a dull grey-black object emitting a low humming sound was observed. Duggin forwarded the details of the case to Hynek in the USA and a copy of the report appears on a RAAF file (29)
When the Project interviewed former Government employee Harry Turner (see appendix three) he was asked about a proposal for a rapid investigation team within the DSTI area of the Joint Intelligence Bureau, Department of Defence. Turner told us he was the instigator of the idea. A request was made to the Secretary of Defence, who referred it on to DAFI. DAFI reacted badly against it and it was rejected. Mike Duggin was the other main player with Turner. Together they had investigated a reported UFO landing on a Sydney golf course. They took samples and looked at what temperature would have been required to make the marks/holes.
From memory Turner thought hotter than an oxy-acetylene torch would have been needed. Turner and Duggin went there privately to investigate and interviewed the green keeper who had found the marks. Turner thought it was quite a convincing case.
In 1970 Duggin investigated a trace case at Boggabri NSW. A year later he presented a paper titled “The analysis of UFO Reports” at a symposium held on 30 Oct 1971, in Adelaide. The symposium, on UFOs, was organised by the SA Division of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science.
In Aug 1973 Hynek was in Australia and together with Duggin and Harry Turner, Hynek attended a Department of Defence DAFI meeting on the 24th. A DAFI file note (30) called it “An unofficial meeting…in an endeavour to expand the scientific relationship to the problem.” In the meeting, Duggin was described as “…a member of the CSIRO and is currently based in Sydney (North Ryde) and heading the Australian research aspects of ERSAT.” Paragraph 5 of the note read:
“DAFI suggested that CSIRO or the Dept of Science (but preferably the former) seemed to be logical agencies to conduct greater in depth investigation in Australia. DAFI agreed that a selection of reports (mainly those which were unanswerable and scientific in context) could possibly be made available to CSIRO for further study and computerization.”
A biography located on a United States Air Force web site indicates Duggin left Australia in 1979 and became an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Resources and Forest Engineering, Division of Engineering, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, USA. The biography goes on to say that in 2002 Duggin left that position and became Senior Scientist, Space Vehicles Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, USA.
Back to the second CSIRO UFO files
The Journal “Science” in its 14 Oct 1966 issue wrote about the establishment of the Condon investigation into UFOs in the USA. Someone at CSIRO was interested enough in it to forward a copy of the article to the DOA. (31)
A 19 Apr 1967 letter from Peter Norris of CAPIO referred to the University of Colorado’s USA UFO study and stated “The purpose of my letter is to enquire whether the CSIRO would consider establishing a similar investigation in Australia…” (32) There is no evidence on file that this request received any in-depth attention. The CSIRO’s reply went out five days later, on 24 Apr 1967-“I am sorry to tell you that it is felt it would not be appropriate in Australia at this time for CSIRO to embark on such an investigation…” (33) CSIRO then referred Norris to the DOA, and forwarded a copy of Norris’s letter and their reply to the DOA (copy sighted on RAAF file 554/1/30.)
The CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography referred a UFO report to the Royal Australian Navy from the M S Seaway on 27 Apr 1967. The report referred to an observation of three comet-like objects seen at 2130hrs EST on 5 Apr, travelling to the NNE over a 25 second period. (34)
It wasn’t until late 1967 that the DOA/RAAF took up the CSIRO’s offer to look at an individual UFO case. On 20 Dec 1967 RAAF Pearce forwarded a report from Derby WA for comment. It was an unusual report involving a strange vehicle and a human-like figure. CSIRO despatched a reply on 4 Jan 1968 “The nature of the report attached to your letter is such that CSIRO cannot usefully comment on it.” (35)
Jun 1968 brought in two more reports from RAAF Pearce to the CSIRO for comment. They were referred internally to Dr E G Bowen, Chief of the Division of Radio physics and to Dr D F Martyn, Chief of the Upper Atmosphere area. Martyn responded that there was too little data. Bowen wrote “…We are not very good at UFO’s and I find it difficult to comment…” (36)
Jun 1968 also saw a copy of a letter on file from the Department of External Affairs to the Secretary Prime Minister’s Department concerning another letter from UK Ufologist Hennessey. In part it read: “…the history of this subject reveals that the more time and effort that is spent by experienced scientists in investigating the smaller becomes the residue of unexplained phenomena…in spite of these difficulties the Australian Government continue to keep records of all “sightings” and associated phenomena reported within Australian and associated territories.” (37)
As we have previously seen, raw reports were made to the CSIRO from time to time. In Mar 1969, a Mrs Gibbs of Kyogle NSW reported finding a twenty foot diameter “scorched grass” area and toadstools. The CSIRO sent the toadstool to the Government Botanist who identified it and suggested the cause of the “scorched grass” was in fact a “fairy ring” fungus. The CSIRO forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the DOA. (38)
The last relevant item concerning the CSIRO is from 1972 where the main RAAF DAFI policy file contains a cryptic file note dated 14 Sep 1972. “CSIRO has a very high resolution radar which is mobile and which we could possibly utilise at some future date.” (39) Looking at DAFI files to see what was occurring at that time we found that there were a number of UFO reports generated in Victoria around Maffra, Morwell, Stratfield and Sale since 14 Sep 72. (40)
The Department of Defence 1951-2007
Royal Australian Navy
Four Navy files have been located, of which two of these dealt with the 1954 Nowra Navy pilot incident. Of the other two, file series E499/18 control symbol C21/4/41 was located at the Darwin office of the National Australia Archives and was titled “Unidentified flying object sightings.” The file was from Defence Establishment Berrimah (Formerly HMAS Coonawarra) and consisted of 41 pages. Its date range was 1959-1974 and although no analysis was present on the file, someone, for some reason was keeping a file on the subject. The final file A6826 control symbol 1361/1/1-3 titled “Earth satellites, space vehicles, Unidentified Flying Objects-general” is a mere three pages and mentions one report of low level interest.
Australian Army
Three Army files were located and examined:
MP742/1 control symbol 177/1/2356 titled: “Flying saucers re O L Alwin” contained a letter from Mrs O L Alwin of North Manly to “Army inventions etc(?)” dated 4 Jan 1951
File AWM 288 control symbol R723/1/1 titled “Reports-General-Flying Objects” located in the Australian War Memorial contained a Memo dated 23 May 1966 from Brigadier Commander HQ Puckapunyal Area to S Comd. Reference S Comd 109-S1-3 dated 17 May 66. It said that enquiries have failed to locate any info on the reporting of a UFO
MT1131/1, A31/1/102 of 9 pages deals with correspondence from one R Baudish to the Department of Army in 1957. Baudish asked if there had been UFO reports in association with military exercises. The combined reply from the Department of Army, Navy and Air was there had been none.
The former Air Board/Department of Air/current RAAF
The Air Board, in a memorandum dated 16 Jan 1951, issued a pro forma to be used to gather information on sightings of “flying saucers.” (file PP474/1 control symbol 5/5/ Air p2) Given that some of the earliest memos are from the “Air Board,” a search was undertaken of series A7668 controls symbols 8, 9 & 10 which were the “Air Board’s Executive Council Minutes 1947-1950. However, no reference could be found to the topic of ‘flying saucers.”
The Air Board was still receiving reports up until at least Nov 1953 when it issued a revised pro forma for reports.
The Directorate of Air Force Intelligence (DAFI) of the former DOA (1939-1973) then took the lead in collecting and examining reports of UASs from around 1953. How and why the DOA was tasked with this role is not yet clear from any documents so far examined. The search continues to look for early (1947-1951) material, including an apparently lost internal DAFI file numbered SEC.CD2/2 which may throw light on this topic.
One file was located which carried six folios dated earlier that 1953. This was file series number B5758, control symbol 5/6/AIR part 1 titled “Training Command Headquarters. Reports on unusual activity and Aerial Phenomenon.” The front cover indicates the Unit which held it as “Headquarters Training Command.” It also carries a rubber stamped number 80/3/105. There are six folios earlier than Oct 1953. These are:
Confidential memo from RAAF East Sale to HQ Southern Area dated 15 Aug 1950. Relates to a report of light flashes seen from Perry Bridge on Lake Wellington.
Memo dated 24 Aug 1950 forwarding report at folio 1 from Southern Area RAAF to DAFI.
RAAF telegram dated 20 Aug 1950 from Wing Commander SASO to RAAF HQ giving details of aircraft navigation exercises in vicinity of Port Albert re reported flares and lights in that area.
Memo. 14 Feb 1951. From RAAF East Sale to HQ Southern Command. Report that Captain of RAAF aircraft on 7 Feb 1951 observed at 2330hrs a brilliant light. The pilot believed it to be either a flare on the ground or one at very low altitude.
Memo. 16 Jan 1951. From Chief of Air Staff to HQs Southern Area; Eastern Area; North Eastern Area; North Western Area and Western Area. “A number of reports have been made by Areas regarding unusual sightings which have been brought to the notice of various authorities. In order to standardise the reports made about these occurrences, the attached pro-forma has been drafted…It would obviously be unwise to draw any publicity towards Service interest in these reports, and persons making the reports should be asked to treat Service interest as Confidential.”
Memo. 13 May 1952. From Air Officer Commanding HQ Southern Area to DAFI. Details of a sighting. 3 May 1952 0545hrs Kew. Bullet nosed object travelling at high speed leaving a vapour trail.
File A703 control symbol 554/1/30 is titled “Investigations of Flying Saucers-policy.” The earliest folio on the file is dated 20 Jul 1953 and is from the Office of the Air Attaché of the American Embassy in Melbourne and addressed to DAFI. The letter thanks DAFI for copies of previous correspondence and refers to a meeting on 18 May 1953 between the author and DAFI. The author writes “…my headquarters is very interested in receiving reports of all unusual sightings…” and seeks DAFI’s input of data on sightings.
On 16 Nov 1953 an internal memo from the Chief of the Air Staff went out to various RAAF Headquarters forwarding a revised pro-forma for the gathering of information on “unusual sightings.” The memo advised that this new form replaced one initially distributed on 16 Jan 1951. It closed by stating “These new instructions do not emanate from any renewed interest in “Flying Saucers” or any new intelligence on the subject, but are merely intended to improve the standard of reporting.”
A 20 Nov 1953 “Note of Action” was a reply to a Ministerial question on the subject and noted that “…all reports are still being investigated closely and recorded as an aid to further research into future reports of this nature.” Later folios revealed that the information sent was to answer a question from Mr Downer MP.
Folio 7A is a draft statement of RAAF policy, but has a written note to the effect that it was approved by DCAS (presumably Deputy Chief of Air Staff) and issued in Apr 1954. It is the earliest statement of policy and read:
“1. The RAAF accepts reports on flying saucers and attempts an allocation of reliability. Those that fall in the reliable class are then subjected to further investigation as and when the opportunity occurs. As a result of this further investigation, a smaller number of reports are followed up and investigations are made with the Meteorological Services, the Government Astronomer and the Civil Aviation Authorities in an attempt to fit the original occurrences in with any normal flying activity or meteorological phenomena.
2. As a result of investigations in the past, there is no doubt that reliable observers have reported sightings which today are inexplicable within the resources available to the RAAF. Reports of this type are continuously filed in an attempt to develop sufficient depth of evidence for accurate analysis to be made. It may however, be several years before the required depth of evidence is available.”
On 16 Dec 1954 a telegram was sent from Athol Townley, who had the Government portfolios of air and civil aviation, to Mr E W Hicks, Secretary Department of Air, asking if any factual information had been received on an “aircraft phenomenon Canberra Nowra” as there were constant enquiries from journalists. It went on to joke “Trust no mermaid is associated with this sighting.”
Instant action came from DAFI who, on the same day, wrote a minute to the Secretary, Department of Air titled “Ministerial enquiry-radar sightings of unidentified flying objects.” The minute attached a copy of a report (not on the file) from the Department of the Navy. It also stated that “Since the beginning of Aug until quite recently, all reports on unidentified flying objects were referred to Mr O H Turner of the Physics Department of the University of Melbourne, who had offered to carry out a statistical analysis of such report.”
Harry Turner tabled his report by way of a letter dated 26 Dec 1954 which he sent from London to the Secretary, Department of Air in Melbourne. In it he stated that DAFI had given him two files of reports to examine. He had also read books by Keyhoe, Menzel and Leslie & Adamski, and had discussions with other staff members of the Physics Department of the University of Melbourne, plus had personally investigated some local sightings.
Under the heading of conclusions he remarked that: “If one assumes these Intelligence reports are authentic, then the evidence presented is such that it is difficult to assume any interpretation other than that unidentified flying objects are being observed….Indeed, the superiority is such that it is highly improbable that such objects have a terrestrial origin…the evidence presented by the reports held by the RAAF tend to support the above conclusion-namely that certain strange aircraft have been observed to behave in a manner suggestive of an extra-terrestrial origin.”
Turner went on to make a number of recommendations including at least one full time investigator; publicity to encourage more people to report; an liaison with the USAF to exchange information and verify Keyhoe’s claim; liaison with the RAF and the possibility of forming a panel to assist analyse reports.
On 24 Feb 1955, D/DAFI Ops wrote a minute to the D/CAS to accompany Turner’s report to him including Turner’s suggestion of at least one full time investigator. The DCAS on 15 Mar 1955 noted the minute but stated “I am not prepared to afford a full time investigator.”
On 30 Jul 1955 the first of an extensive range of correspondence commenced between DAFI and Fred Stone from Adelaide, of the Australian Flying Saucer Research Society. Stone arranged an appointment to visit DAFI in Melbourne.
A 2 Jun 1969 memo from Wing Commander Murphy, DAFI, to HQ Supt Cmd and HQ Ops Cmd read in part:
“In an attempt to obtain slightly more scientific date on sightings, the Defence Science Section has requested that the following report form be used...as Defence Science are the advisors on the reports…”
The file contains a copy of a summary of UAS sightings between 23 Jan 1960 and 30 Nov 1968 at this point. Of the 400 or so reports listed there, are 7 (or 1.75%) labelled “unknown.”
Later, on 11 Nov 1969, Wing Commander Murphy for the Chief of Air Staff asked for better attention to detail when completing UFO report forms “…the public is becoming more and more susceptible to the UFO syndrome, and the press and radio thrive on it. This in turn generates questions in Parliament which require answers sometimes at ministerial level, and unless effort is put into the investigations then the correct answers cannot be given.”
At this point in the file there is an undated summary document titled “UFO Investigation in the RAAF” prepared by Flt Lt K Jordan AI-4. It consists of two pages plus 24 pages of annexes.
“Research into this subject has come up with some unrewarding answers; firstly the inquiry can not go back any further than the 11th Nov 1953. The cause of this blockage is the loss of Part 1 of 114/1/197 (ex SEC CD2/2) in the move of the Department from Melbourne to Canberra.”
The document goes on to summarise “Australian Government policy.” “RAAF Investigation Policy,” “Overseas observations” and “Mr O Turner’s interests.”
A memo from Flt Lt K Jordan, DAFI AI-4 to D/DAFI (Ops) dated 2 Jan 1970 revealed that “One of the secondary duties of AI-4 has been the handling of all UFO reports submitted to the RAAF. This involves making a final decision on the nature of the observed phenomenon in each case…”
In Dec 1969 the USAF terminated Project Blue Book and a copy of the relevant News Release arrived with DAFI. Wind Commander Murphy wrote, on 15 Jan 1970, to D/D(CIV)JIO “In view of this conclusion and decision by the USAF, we are investigating the possibility of reducing the RAAF effort in investigating UFO reports in Australia.”
There was a sighting on 15 Jul 1965 in Canberra which became the subject of a 6 Jun 1970 letter from a member of the public. In preparation of a reply someone included on the file a copy of a Ministerial press release dated 30 Jul 1965. This stated that there were several possible explanations for the event, ranging from a condensation trail of an aircraft, to Venus to a meteorological balloon.
Dated 1 Apr 1970 is an “Operational Command, Air Staff Instruction No 3/A/5 Intelligence – report on Unusual Aerial Sightings.” It set out the then current action to be taken with reports.
The Committee of the South Australian Division of Australian and New Zealand Association of the Advancement of Science convened a one day symposium on “The Unidentified Flying Object problem” on 30 Oct 1971, and requested a RAAF officer attend and explain the processing of reports. DAFI recommended no one be made available and a negative response was sent, but included “There is no evidence that UFOS have landed in Australia…”
The question of the numbers of DOA files again arose in Jul 1971. It was then stated that there were only two files 580/1/1 and 554/1/30. A third was created “Correspondence from individuals and organisations re UFOs.”
As mentioned previously, DAFI was looking for someone else to take over the reins of UFO investigations. A memo dated 27 Jul 1971 from Group Captain Royston, DAFI to S/Air/SS wrote
“You spoke to me recently on the matter of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and you mentioned that the Department of Supply may be interested in investigating this subject…As I advised you, although I am directly concerned with any possible threat to Australian security, I am not particularly interested in the subject of UFOs, even though my directorate devotes valuable time to the problem. I accept the US assessments without question and consider that it would be a complete waste for we here in Australia to spend valuable time and money in further detailed investigations…”
Sep 1971 saw DAFI draft a general pro forma reply to anyone who inquired/reported UFOs. This was brought in because “Observers have in the past seldom been informed of subsequent investigation of their sighting and this has, no doubt, created bad publicity for the RAAF.”
RAAF Edinburgh wrote to DOA on 12 Apr 1972 regarding the increased public interest in UFOs and the re-organisation of UFO research groups in South Australia, stating that it “…is straining parameters for UFO reporting in this state” and asked about a new policy on UFOs being issued. A further communication from RAAF Edinburgh to DOA dated 10 May 1972 “Several airmen at this base are active members of one or other of the flying saucer quote research unquote societies which are competing with each other in South Australia in similar fashion to tow-truck operators.”
554/1/30 part 3 was opened 28 May 1972. The first undated memo was from Chief of Air Staff to HQ Op Cmd and Spt Cmd “Changes to investigation of UFO policy.” “The main purpose of the …changes is to eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and to streamline the process of investigations.” The DOA would henceforth deal directly with bases.
A DAFI memo dated 30 Jan 1973 to A/EXECO A referred to Ministerial Correspondence. It provided a summary of RAAF involvement then “Paras 3,4 and 5, and the comparatively low volume of reports necessitating investigation (623 in 12 years) would seem to indicate that a central research body as advocated by (blanked out) and (blanked out) is unnecessary…”
May 1973 again saw a revised report pro forma issued.
A single page “Record of discussion” dated 24 Aug 1973 revealed that “An unofficial meeting” was held attended by Prof J A Hynek, Dr M Duggin, Mr O Turner and DAFI. “Each member was present in a private capacity to discuss certain procedures of investigation into unusual aerial Sightings in Australian and throughout the world, in an endeavour to expand the scientific relationship to the problem.”
The meeting notes revealed that “All present agreed that the scientific aspects were of prime importance. DAFI suggested that CSIRO or the Department of Science…seemed to be logical agencies to conduct greater in depth investigation in Australia…Any such study should be low key and not known to the lunatic fringe of ufologists.”
One week after this meeting, a memo from HQ Supt Cmd to DAFI stated “…unidentified flying objects are not a defence threat. It is therefore suggested that UFO investigation be discontinued.”
A HQ Supt Cmd memo dated 16 Oct 1974 to DAFI sought approval to
“…issue the contents of Reference A and all previous unusual aerial sightings (UAS) policy as revised ‘Support Command Air staff Instruction No 3/3.” At present UAS policy is spread over a number of policy letters…The proposed Air Staff Instruction contains relevant information that has not previously been incorporated in UAS policy but which will help promote a clearer understanding of a subject which has suffered from pseudo-scientific reports and speculation in the past.” CAS granted approval.
In 1977 the file contained papers relating to a letter from Harry Griesberg of the ACOS and a request for RAAF co-operation.
There are then no papers on the file until 1981, a four year gap. The fading photocopy appears to be a response to an article in the Australian newspaper dated 9-10 May and sets out that each reported sighting takes 3 hours, and completed reports are forwarded to DAFIS for filing and “…used by the Foreign Liaison Officer to produce a yearly sightings summary.” “Whilst it is therefore true to say from the foregoing that UFO investigations are a part-time occupation for fourteen RAAF officers and one senior RAAF intelligence officer.” The memo contains a hand written note “It seems to me that the newspaper article basically supports our contention that we should not be doing this! Perhaps we can use that fact!”
DAFIS on 26 May 1981 wrote a memo to DCAS titled “Investigation of Unusual Aerial Sightings (UAS).
“My Directorate is charged with the responsibility for UAS investigation and reporting. It has been a contentious issue for many years with opinion varying from a questioning of the need for monitoring such sightings, to the organisational area most appropriately placed to deal with them…The only advantage I see in retaining UAS investigation responsibilities are:
a .it allows a security oversight of unusual events which, on the odd occasion, may bear some military implication
b. it provides ‘cover’ if we wish to investigate some incident, not necessarily related, in more details, and…
…I seek your views on whether the RAAF should continue to carry the responsibility for the investigation of UAS…”
The response was “We spoke. While I agree with you in principle, the practicalities suggest we will continue to wear the responsibility. You should, however, ensure that the impact of this chore does not unduly impede our normal business.”
The file then contains an 8 Sep 1983 request for information from overseas to Pearce AFB re a 1980 Ogilve trace case.
The file ends with a copy of a blank VUFORS report form.
The top paper indicates the file was closed in 1984 and subsequent correspondence placed on file AF 84/3508. A Freedom of Information request to the Department of Defence by this author resulted in their advice that they were unable to locate this file.
Summary so far
All the material examined indicates that DAFI was, for the main, not really interested in conducting any scientific research into the phenomenon. The impression gained from comments on the RAAF’s UAS policy file series (control symbol 554/1/30) was that, for the most part, examining UAS reports was merely a job that had to be done:
“The investigation of Unidentified Flying Objects is understandably a tedious task and one in which the investigator may frequently have little faith or interest.” (1)
“As you are probably aware the Department of Air is concerned solely with any possible threat to Australian security and does not go into detailed scientific investigation of UFO reports.” (2)
· “We spoke. While I agree with you in principle, the practicalities suggest we will continue to wear the responsibility. You should, however, ensure that the impact of this chore does not unduly impede our normal business.” (3)
There were however, indications at times of a softening of this attitude. For example an examination of file 554/1/30 reveals the original of a letter from Dr M J Duggin employed by the CSIRO to Squadron Leader Baxter of DAFI. Folio 115 of 554/1/30 dated 29 Dec 1966 is an internal memo from D/DAFI (Ops) to DAFI which included:
“You will note that these scientists are mainly interested in the unexplained UFO’s, but as far as I can make out they would like information on all sightings…These scientists, with all the documents and facilities available to them, are obviously in a position to assist us in this matter, and though I am not too keen on releasing the details of the RAAF investigations or anything which may increase the interest of the general public in this field, I think we should give these scientists the information they require.” (4)
What is interesting here is the comment “…the unexplained UFO’s…” This is an internal memo, way before the FOI Act allowed outsiders to see it. Here are DAFI staff writing of “unexplained UFO’s.” It is realised that this is in the context of what Duggin was interested in. However, the author does not dispute the fact that there were some UAS reports which remain unexplained after investigation.
Pass the buck
DAFI tried on a number of occasions to pass off at least part of the task to other agencies:
1. The Joint Intelligence Bureau of the DOD in 1957. A letter dated 1 Apr 1957 from DAFI to the JIB, said in part “…reports could best be investigated and evaluated by one of your scientific research officers…” (5) See the later sections on the Joint Intelligence Bureau/Joint Intelligence Committee.
2. The Department of Supply in 1971. A Memo dated 27 Jul 1971 from DAFI to S/AIR/SS stated in part:
“You spoke to me recently on the matter of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and you mentioned that the Department of Supply may be interested in investigating this subject. This minute provides a brief historical sketch of this subject and my reaction to the proposal.” (6)
The possible Department of Supply interest also came up within the Joint Intelligence Organisation when the then Director R W Furlonger wrote on 27 May 1971 to Deputy Secretary B as follows:
“The Department of Supply has personnel with an appropriate range of scientific and technical expertise and laboratory and field facilities that suitably be employed on UFO investigations.
(a) I suggest that Department of defence should consider passing responsibility for investigation of Australian UFO sightings from the RAAF top the Department of Supply under the following general conditions.
(1) That a limited number of selected reports, say six per year, be thoroughly investigated by Department of Supply;
(2) That at the end of two or three years (or earlier if suggested by the investigators) the results of Supply investigations be examined by interested parties; eg Defence, RAAF and Supply, with a view to determining whether there is any defence interest in UFO sightings that could justify further investigation.”
3. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in 1973. In Aug 1973 Prof J Allen Hynek was out here in Australia and together with Dr Michael Duggin and Harry Turner of the JIB, attended a DAFI meeting on the 24th. A DAFI file note (7) called it “An unofficial meeting…in an endeavour to expand the scientific relationship to the problem.” In the meeting, Duggin was described as “…a member of the CSIRO and is currently based in Sydney (North Ryde) and heading the Australian research aspects of ERSAT.” Paragraph 5 of the note read:
“DAFI suggested that CSIRO or the Dept of Science (but preferably the former) seemed to be logical agencies to conduct greater in depth investigation in Australia. DAFI agreed that a selection of reports (mainly those which were unanswerable and scientific in context) could possibly be made available to CSIRO for further study and computerization.”
However, nothing officially came from any of these three approaches by DAFI to shift the “UAS problem” from them to somewhere else in the Government. DAFI remained the “Official” Government UAS agency.
1984 onwards
A major change of policy was announced in the media on 2 May 1984:
“UNUSUAL AERIAL SIGHTINGS - RAAF CHANGE IN POLICY
The RAAF in future will investigate fully only those Unusual Aerial Sightings (UAS) which suggest a defence or national security implication. The Minister for Defence, Mr Gordon Scholes, said today that while the RAAF would continue to be the first point of contact,
UAS reports not considered to have a defence or security implication would not be further investigated.
Instead they would be recorded and the UAS observer would be given the address of civilian UAS research organisations if the observer wished to pursue the matter further. Mr Scholes said that in the past the RAAF's investigation of all UAS reports had often proved time consuming, unproductive and had led to many man-hours of follow-up action by the RAAF and other agencies such as the Department of Aviation and the Bureau of Meteorology.
He said that procedures for investigating UAS reports had remained unchanged for many years. The vast majority of reports submitted by the public had proven not to have a national security significance.”
A deduction from the last paragraph of the announcement is that some reports in fact had a “national security implication.” It is generally understood just what a “defence implication” is, e.g. an unauthorised intrusion into Australian air space by an unidentified man-made aircraft. However, just what constitutes a “national security implication” as opposed to a “defence implication” remains unclear.
Nothing was known previously of the inside deliberations behind this policy shift. However, when examining files at RAAF Base Edinburgh a file was located with a draft Support Command Air Staff Instruction no 3/A/3 ( AF 84/3508 part 1 of 12 Apr 1984.) This said that the RAAF is the first point of contact and that most UAS from the public are found to be natural or man-made.
“The RAAF accepts reports on UAS and attempts an allocation of reliability. However, few reports are of any direct interest to the RAAF.”
This was followed by a piece about the Condon report conclusions, then:
“Experience in the RAAF since the early 1950s supports the Condon report conclusion…The RAAF is responsible for the acceptance and evaluation of UAS reports. Those which suggest a defence or national security implication are further investigated and a probable cause determined…”
The draft went on to say that DAFI is to assess such reports. Reports considered not having defence or national security implications are not investigated further and are filed at Command HQ’s:
“On return of part 2, the report is to be examined in terms of defence or national security implications, to assess whether further investigation is warranted. In general terms, further investigation is to be confined to sightings of a terrestrial, rather than an extra-terrestrial nature. Sightings of interest to the RAAF would involve incursions into Australian airspace by man-made objects, and particularly include sightings near defence or other sensitive establishments. The traditional “lights in the sky” are no longer cause for RAAF investigation.”
The sentence “…further investigation is to be confined to sightings of a terrestrial, rather than an extra-terrestrial nature.” is very intriguing! This seems to be saying that although the RAAF knew some sightings were of an extra-terrestrial nature, it wasn’t interested in these! A very rare admission indeed for the RAAF. The document goes on:
“Command intelligence staff are to be made aware immediately of any report warranting further investigation. On receipt of such a report, CINTO is to:
a. inform DAFIS and the Chief of Staff (COFS)
b. commence an immediate investigation and instruct the UAS investigator at the reporting unit to complete Annex A part 3 (Unit report).
c. complete Annex A part 4 on receipt of completed parts 1-3 and report the findings of his investigation to COFS and DAFIS.” (8)
Note that the 2 May 1984 media release didn’t contain the reference to “extra-terrestrial
nature.”
This new policy lasted ten years, and then in 1994 the DOD policy again changed:
“Unidentified Aerial Sightings. Revised policy.
“Consideration of the scientific record suggests that, whilst not all UAS have a ready explanation, there is no compelling reason for the RAAF to continue to devote resources to recording, investigating and attempting to explain UAS. The RAAF no longer accepts reports on UAS…”
“Some UAS may relate to events that could have a defence, security or public safety implications, such as man-made debris falling from space, a burning aircraft or an aircraft making an unauthorised incursion into Australian air space. Where members of the community may have witnessed an event of this type they are encouraged to contact the police, civilian aviation authorities or coast watch.”
“2. The change in policy will not be publicised by press release. Known UFO groups will be contacted individually by mail and provided with a copy of the new policy together with a brief explanations of the implications for them.” (9)
Three points of the above, call for comment:
The use of the phrase “Consideration of the scientific record…” when it is clear from the DOA’s own statements that it “…does not go into detailed scientific investigation.”
The statement “… not all UAS have a ready explanation…” indicates that the DOD recognised that some reports were puzzling (indeed their own investigations sometimes labelled a report as “unidentified” or “unknown.”)
That “The change in policy will not be publicised by press release.” After 45 years it was to be a quiet exit.
The Joint Intelligence Bureau/Joint Intelligence Organisation
File 3092/2/000 whose title is “Scientific Intelligence – General – Unidentified Flying Objects” was originally classified “Secret.” In bold letters on the cover is “JIO” with a sticky label stating “Box 2738 JIO Archived file no. 3390P. The words “Retain permanently RDA 1040 class S.1” are stamped on the cover.
Papers on the file commence on 1 Apr 1957 with a memo from the Department of Air, Directorate of Air Force Intelligence (DAFI) to the Director, Joint Intelligence Bureau (JIB). DAFI advised that the Department of Air receive UFO reports and:
“As your Branch has now established a Scientific Intelligence Section, it would appear that these reports could best be investigated and evaluated by one of your Scientific Research Officers, who will have a broader background of knowledge that anyone in this Directorate.”
DAFI asked if JIB would take on the commitment.
D T Forsyth the Acting Director of JIB wrote on 3 Apr 1957 to Sc I O “What do you think about this?” R H Mathams, the then Scientific Intelligence Officer, replied;
“As DAFI points out these reports cover a number of subjects…and hence would, I suggest be an appropriate study for the STISC…”
The STISC was the Scientific and Technical Intelligence sub-committee of the Joint Intelligence Committee.
On 9 Apr 1957 Forsyth sent a memo to the Controller, Joint Services Organisations suggesting that the UFO subject:
___________________
LINK; http://disclosureaustralia.freewebpages.org/
-
PART 6;“UNUSUAL AERIAL SIGHTINGS”
A SEARCH THROUGH THE
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S
RECORDS SYSTEMS;
On 9 Apr 1957 Forsyth sent a memo to the Controller, Joint Services Organisations suggesting that the UFO subject:
“…would be an appropriate study for the STISC, when formed…I would suggest that we ask DAFI to continue to hold the papers they have acquired and bring the subject forward again preferably for JIC discussion, when the STISC has been formed and in operation.”
Subsequently on 18 Oct 1957, agendum item 71/1957 of the Joint Intelligence Committee was headed “Investigations into reports of Unidentified Flying Objects” and scheduled for a later meeting of that Committee. See below for more on this.
At this time, 1957-1958, UFO reports were being sent to a number of Federal Government agencies both from the public and from other Government agencies. Recipient agencies included the CSIRO; the Department of Territories; and the Department of Air (DAFI).
The JIB file contains a Minute dated 24 Feb 1958 from the Controller, Joint Service Organisations to the Director JIB. The Minute covers a report from the Department of Territories concerning a UFO report from the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, dated 6 Dec 1957. Here, two servicemen had reported seeing a bright white light at 2130hrs which was seen to fall over the SE horizon. A bright glow lasted for 5 seconds after the light disappeared from view. A muffled impact was heard as if something had hit the ground. The Controller’s Minute asks that the report be passed to the JIB Bureau in London and the Central Intelligence Agency in Washington. This was done as shown by referral letters on the file.
Next on the file is a report from the captain of the ship “Woomera” which had sighted an unusual object while on passage between Port Lincoln, South Australia and Melbourne, Victoria. At 1400hrs EST 8 Feb 1958 a contrail had formed in the sky at 50 degrees elevation, 290 degrees form the ship and travelled to 40 degrees elevation, then disappeared only to reform at 30 degrees elevation finally disappearing from view at 15 degrees elevation, bearing 110 degrees. It lasted for some 30 minutes before finally fading. Again copies of this observation were sent to JIB London, and JIB Washington to pass to the CIA.
On 7 Aug 1961 a teleprinter message arrived at JIB reporting that that day’s “Melbourne Sun” newspaper carried details of an observation of 12 flying objects leaving a white trail of streamers which floated to the ground. DAFI was asked by JIB for a copy of the report but later RAAF Pearce advised they had not investigated the sighting.
There were no papers on the file between 1962 and 1966, then a Nov 1967 letter from a Swedish citizen, addressed to the Department of National defence, Intelligence Section made it to the JIB file. However, it was promptly despatched to DAFI to handle.
In Dec 1969 the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense Public Affairs released a News Release which informed that the US Air Force was to terminate their UFO research project “Project Blue Book.” A copy was forwarded by the RAAF Intelligence Representative in Washington to DAFI. This led to Wing Commander T W Murphey, A/DAFI to send a minute dated 15 Jan 1970 to D/D (CIV) JIO which read
“Further to teletalk Mr McMichael/Wg Cdr T W Murphy on Thursday 8 Jan 70, a copy of the USAF news release on UFO Investigation is attached. In view of this conclusion and decision by the USAF, we are investigating the possibility of reducing the RAAF effort in investigating UFO reports in Australia.”
On 28 Jan 1970 the JIO DD(c) Mr McMichael, wrote to the DSTI:
“May I have your advice and comments…I have received a number of papers from Mr Turner on UFOs in the last year …should we maintain an incipient capacity in this field?”
Mathams, DSTI replied to the DD(C) on 2 Feb 1970.
“I have discussed the paper (loosely enclosed ) with Mr Turner and have told him that my views on the subject of UFOs, from a scientific point of view, are as follows:
(a) The present establishment of DSTI has been designed to meet the research demands arising from our studies of defence science in countries in the Far East and South East Asia, and to keep abreast of major developments in defence science in the Soviet bloc. There is no surplus research capacity within the establishment that could be diverted to problems such as the investigation of UFO reports.
(b) I am not convinced that there is a sufficient scientific intelligence component in the UFO problem such as to warrant any diversion of Australia’s very limited resources for scientific intelligence research.
(c) It is evident that there is still considerable controversy concerning UFOs and this will undoubtable continue until the subject is fully examined by some competent authority. Such an examination, however, would require a considerable effort to collect information on UFO sightings, to investigate reports of such sightings and to examine all information in an objective, scientific manner. It is for consideration as to whether the Department of Defence could (or would) approve such an effort.”
On 3 Feb 1970 the DD(C) McMichael, wrote to DSTI
“I have by now read a considerable amount of material on this subject. I am sure that there is an area for investigation that should be pursued by some authority. That authority, however, would need very considerable resources indeed.
I have considered carefully whether a part of the subject might be undertaken by us, but this approach doesn’t seem practicable I am forced, therefore, whilst agreeing that the subject should be studied somewhere, to decide that JIO cannot be that somewhere. Without considerable back-up we would be wasting our time and the RAAF have apparently cancelled out the little they were doing. I would be obliged if you would show this minute to Mr Turner.”
By 1971 the JIB had become the Joint Intelligence organisation (JIO.) The then Director R W Furlonger wrote on 27 May 1971 to Deputy Secretary B as follows:
“Further to our discussions on the question of investigation of Australian reports on unidentified flying object, I would summarize my attitude as follows:
(b) There appears to be sufficient evidence from RAAF and US reports of investigations of UFO sightings to indicate that some reports cannot readily be explained by natural phenomena or man-made activities. Thorough investigation of selected Australian reports of UFO sightings seems to be warranted, but the effort should be restricted to those occurrences that cannot easily be explained.
(c) The Department of Supply has personnel with an appropriate range of scientific and technical expertise and laboratory and field facilities that suitably be employed on UFO investigations.
(d) I suggest that Department of defence should consider passing responsibility for investigation of Australian UFO sightings from the RAAF top the Department of Supply under the following general conditions.
(3) That a limited number of selected reports, say six per year, be thoroughly investigated by Department of Supply;
(4) That at the end of two or three years (or earlier if suggested by the investigators) the results of Supply investigations be examined by interested parties; eg Defence, RAAF and Supply, with a view to determining whether there is any defence interest in UFO sightings that could justify further investigation.
(e) I believe that, although Defence should have general oversight and broad direction of the UFO investigation, significant JIO resources should not be devoted to this until it can clearly be shown from the results of the investigation that a strategic intelligence interest exists. Even then, the matter would have to be related to other priorities; there are many things that it would be desirable for us to do but which cannot be tackled because of higher priorities.”
The final set of papers on the file were attached to a Minute dated 27 May 1971 written by O H Turner, Head of the Nuclear Branch of JIO to the JIO Director through DSTI. Attached to the Minute were the following pages headed:
1. “US Official attitude to UFOs” 7 pages
2. “RAAF attitude to UFOs” 2 pages
3. Chronology of US Investigations into UFO phenomena 13 pages
4. Summary 2 pages.
There was a handwritten note on the minute “Director after you have read the attachments, I would like to discuss this matter with you, please.” R A Mathams DSTI. 27/5/71.
Turner’s minute titled “Scientific and Intelligence aspects of the UFO problem” argued that there were genuine intelligence aspects to the UFO issue:
“Intelligence aspects include assessment of real from false reporting, capabilities of propulsion methods and possible weapons used, motivation of operations (harmful or not, defensive, offensive, scientific etc) for both short-term and long-term and whether there are more effective ways to detect these operations or defend them if necessary.”
In the two page summary, Turner argued that:
“The RAAF…give credence only to the USAF public façade and appear to have uncritically accepted the associated information….Project BLUE BOOK was terminated, but presumably this would have little effect on the main programme. It would appear wrong for Australia to remain ignorant of the true situation. We lack an intelligence viewpoint that can assess the nature and possible consequences of the problem, a scientific viewpoint that could derive scientifically valid data from the reports and public relations viewpoint that can honestly satisfy public interest.
To overcome these deficiencies in the Australian investigation of UFOs, it would seem that strong case exists for the acceptance of the RAAF suggestion that another government department assume responsibility for the investigation and analysis of UFO reports.”
In the pages titled “RAAF attitude to UFO’s he wrote:
“In general, the RAAF attitude has been guided by the USAF public releases which were aimed at allaying public interest by denying the reality of UFOs. Consequently, most of the Australian reports were given identifications without a great concern for rational correlation. …as a result there has been a negligible scientific analysis of the data….If Australia is to follow the US lead, then instead of following the public USAF attitude, it would be preferable to follow the USAF/CIA role of concentrating on gaining a knowledge of the power sources involved. However, it may be preferable to act independently of the US and initiate a programme that is scientifically sound and intellectually honest towards unravelling the UFO mystery.”
It is at this point that the next document on the file is simply a “File closed” one.
The Joint Intelligence Committee
As noted above, the JIB file stated that “The matter will be listed for consideration by the Joint Intelligence Committee at an early date” agendum no. 71/1957.
Who was the Joint Intelligence Committee? Folio 88 of file series A1838, control symbol TS663/4 Part 3 (in 1957) states that:
“The Joint Intelligence Committee formed part of the Australian Joint Service machinery, and is responsible to the Defence Committee. It comprises the Director of Naval Intelligence, the Director of Military Intelligence, The Director of Intelligence RAAF, a representative of the Department of External Affairs, and the Controller Joint Services organizations who also represents the Department of Defence..
“The function of the Committee includes all matters of Joint Intelligence Policy, control through the Controller of Joint Services Organisations of intelligence policy of the Joint Intelligence machinery; propagation of reports, appreciations etc as may be required; liaison with the Joint Planning Committee and the appropriate scientific advisory body.”
The attendees list for the 10 October 2007 meeting was:
Group Captain A D Henderson, Director of Air Force intelligence
A P Fleming, Controller, Joint Services Organisation
W H King, Director Joint Intelligence Bureau
Colonel T F B MacAdie, Director of Military Intelligence
T W Cutts, Representing Department of External Affairs
Commander D J Beckley, Representing Director of Naval intelligence.
Agendum item 71/1957 went to the Joint Intelligence Committee on Tuesday 22 October 1957. A copy of the agenda was found on file series A1838 control symbol 663/4/1/ Part 1 titled “Australian Defence Organisation Joint Intelligence Committee Business papers.” Item 5 was “Investigations into Reports of Unidentified Flying Objects”. The meeting was held in room 108 ‘A’ block (New wing) at Victoria Barracks in Melbourne. The distribution list on the agenda shows copies of the agenda went to “List ‘B’; ASIO & E L D White Esq.”
Unfortunately a search of this file and also two other files:
A1838 TS652/3/2 Part 2 “Australian Defence Organisation Joint Intelligence committee Minutes”
A1838 TS663/4 Part 3 “Australian Defence Organisation Joint Intelligence Committee”
failed to locate a copy of the minutes of the meeting, so no record of the discussions or outcomes are available from these files.
However, on the front cover of file series JIO63, control symbol 3092/2/000, there is a notation to the effect that the matter “Will be put on agenda of next STISC meeting.” This note is dated 1 November 1957 and is signed “Sc I O” presumably short hand for Scientific Intelligence Officer. R H Mathams was the JIB Scientific Intelligence Officer at the time.
What was the STISC? The STISC was the Scientific and Technical Intelligence sub-committee of the Joint Intelligence Committee. No mention of STISC agenda, business papers or minutes can be found on any file so far examined. However, a 1960 list of STISC members showed the following:
R H Mathams (Chairman) Head, Scientific Intelligence Branch, JIB
Lt Cdr K J Price, Naval Representative, Joint Intelligence Branch
Major K Whyte, GSO2 M.18 Directorate of Military Intelligence
Sqn Ldr P T V Jessop, Guided Weapons Section, Department of Air, Melbourne.
G C Shaefer, Aeronautical Research Laboratory, Department of Supply.
No record of any files relating to the STISC can be found in the National Archives of Australia Recordsearch, so for now the trail goes cold.
A check of the above mentioned three files failed to locate any other JIC agenda items relating to UFOs between the years 1955 and 1961.
Other areas of the DOD since 1977
A check of other areas of the DOD, namely the Army, the Navy, the DSTO and the DOD intelligence areas by way of an FOI request in 2004 was met with a response that they were unable to locate any files originating in these areas dealing with the topic of UASs for the period 1977 to 2004.
Post 1994
With the latest change of policy, came a call for all areas of the RAAF to close off their files dealing with UAS. Twenty three such files were collected and lodged with the NAA in 1994. These files were examined at the Edinburgh RAAF Base in 2004.
So, since 1994 the DOD has referred all sighting reports from the general public to civilian UAS groups, and there has been no evidence that the RAAF has investigated any UAS reports in the period 1994 to date.
Courtesy of Adrian Ross of Canberra, the Project acquired a copy of a previously unknown “Defence Instructions (General) ADMIN 55-1,” dated 13 Jun 1996. ADMIN 55-1 concerns “Unusual Aerial Sightings Policy”.
Interestingly, as a DOD document, it has “Single service filing instructions,” namely “This instruction should be filed as NAVY ADMIN 65-7; ARMY ADMIN 77-1 and AIR FORCE ADMIN 13-7.”
It sets out the Department’s interest, or rather lack thereof, in UAS reports and advises callers should be directed to civilian UFO organisations and provides a listing of known Australian civilian groups.
Does the DOD have a position in 2008? It certainly does. The current Department web site has the following statement regarding UAS sightings:
“Unidentified Aerials Sightings (UAS)
Sightings of unusual or unidentified aerial objects or UFO's.
Provided by: Directorate of Concepts and Capability Development Royal Australian Air Force
Postal: Russell Offices Department of Defence Canberra ACT 2600
The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) formerly had a responsibility for investigating and assessing the validity of UAS. After careful examination of the factual data and historical records that had been gathered over many years, it was determined that the collective evidence did not warrant the continued allocation of resources by the RAAF to investigate and report on UAS. Subsequently, the RAAF ceased this function.
Current Defence policy on UAS where members of the public may have questions on, or seek to report sightings, is to direct them to their local police authorities or civil Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) research organisations, through the relevant state telephone directory.” (10)
Answers to the first two questions;
The answers to the first two questions posed at the beginning of this work are:
Australian Government Departments, who received UAS reports, ultimately passed them on to the RAAF, which was the official repository for such reports within the Government. They did so because it was Government policy
From examination of Australian Government UAS documents, no evidence has been uncovered so far that any Government Department ever admitted conducting any “official” scientific research in to the UAS phenomenon.
However, the line of inquiry re the JIB/JIO suggests that “unofficial” research was conducted by O Harry Turner who was a JIB/JIO staff member, within the Department of Defence. This interest commenced in 1954 when DAFI asked Turner to examine UFO reports it held as at that date, and continued through to 1982 when Turner left the JIB/JIO.
A detour to the United Kingdom;
The RAAF’s early policy files reveal that from time to time (1955 (11); 1959 (12) ) the RAAF inquired as to the British Government’s position on the UAS phenomenon. It is therefore pertinent to ask did the UK Government ever conduct any scientific research into the UAS phenomenon?
Dr David Clarke and Andy Roberts in their 2002 book titled “Out of the Shadows” (13) reported upon their examination of hundreds of files generated by the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD); the Royal Air Force and other Government bodies.
Clarke and Roberts found that the MoD’s Directorate of Scientific and Technical Intelligence (DSTI), its predecessors and later counterpart, had indeed studied UAS reports:
“The documentary evidence we have presented demonstrates that DSTI…has indeed played a significant role in UFO research and investigation, dating back to the first “flying saucer” waves of the 1950’s…” (p251)
What was the purpose of DSTI’s interest in looking at UAS reports? In 1967, the Deputy Director of Intelligence wrote:
“In our case, we have tailored our efforts to meet the minimum requirement of protecting UK airspace from any incursions which might pose a threat or a hazard.” (p179)
Consideration was given to the creation of a scientific post with DSTI for UAS investigations (p184). At that time, responsibility for investigation of interesting reports which had survived initial screening was the province of a scientist in DI55, Dr John Dickison (p182). Dickison was a space weapons expert (p172.)
However, by 2001 DSTI (now retitled DIST) decided to cease reviewing UAS reports made to the MoD as it had determined that UFOs were of no defence interest (p252.) That same year the MoD stated:
“The Ministry does not question the existence, or otherwise, of extraterrestrial life forms, about which it remains open minded. To date we are, however, unaware of any evidence which proves that these phenomena exist.” (p256)
Subsequent to this, a MoD analysis, published in the year 2000, became public knowledge. The Executive Summary contained the words: “…the information studied…leads to the conclusion that it does not have any significant Defence Intelligence value…” (14)
Answer to question three
Question three at the start of this article was “Were there any interesting “unknowns” found in Government files?” Appendix nine lists such cases. There are multiple cases which cried out for further intensive examination. Unfortunately, based on the evidence available on the Government’s own files, they did not receive the scientific attention they deserved.
__________________________________________________ _______________
LINK; http://disclosureaustralia.freewebpages.org/
