View Full Version : It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a... uh... what is it...?

09-26-2006, 07:06 AM
I've long been fascinated by a particular, wide-ranging and real-world phenomena that is really a million things lumped into one category: UFOs: Unidentified Flying Objects. This, at best, is a controversial subject, with extreme views both for and against.

I'm looking for your experiences, your views, your opinions on the subject. Share as much as you dare in a public forum.

Why post this here?
I thought about posting in SF/F, but this is really more about what's happening in today's world, the here and now. This is as much our reaction to it, the sociology of it, the black project, special-ops intrigue of it, the history of it... as it is the science behind it.

This is fantastic territory for current-day thrillers. It's right at the nexus of reality and fantasy. It's got highly-charged emotions and ten tons of connotation behind every scene a writer could set (making a challenge to stretch belief while keeping credibility).

09-26-2006, 07:14 AM
By nature, I'm a pretty skeptical guy. If you have an extraordinary claim, you should be able to back it up with extraordinary evidence. So why do I give the UFO phenomena a second thought? Personal experience.

I'm going to start this thread small – literally. Around 1975 or so, I was traveling with my mother by car through Kentucky when we saw an Unidentified Flying Object. I don't remember a whole lot about it (I was maybe 5 at the time), and it still freaks my mom out to talk about it. What was it? Can't say – I have no earthly clue – but it did spark an interest in the phenomena.

It's not as dramatic as, say, Michael Shermer's abduction "experience (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00008C3F-3EFD-11E7-BB5883414B7F0000)" (I think the trauma drove him to overcompensate a bit), just enough to lodge it in my awareness.

As I grew, so did my consciousness of it. I wanted to understand what I saw – and honestly, I still don't. I probably never will. I was young and that was more than 30 years ago. I was looking through a partially frosted windshield that cold, dark night and frankly, I don't trust my memory. Still, it was a dramatic incident and an odd aerospace-related event (the only thing I know was that something was in the air).

Since then, I found it to be a subject filled with intrigue, zealots of every color, charlatans and the thinnest slice of dramatic possibilities. Those possibilities even inspired a story (which I'm currently shopping around).

September skies
09-26-2006, 07:48 AM
I can't back anything up but I had a UFO experience once and I swear till my death - this really happened!

I was in college and had driven up to the lake with a guy on his motorcycle. We were up there alone, messing around (about 11 p.m.) and suddenly as we were leaving, a circle of light came from the sky and started chasing us. We went as fast as we could, and this circle kept following us, getting closer and closer. I was screaming and the poor guy was so freaked out. We started to go out of control and he stopped and we both jumped off the motorcycle and threw rocks at the small light that was now dancing around in front of us. I was crying by now and praying - asking God forgiveness for what I had just done.

Finally the light left. We got back on the motorcycle and he took me home. I was freaked out but the next night we went back to look for it and never found it again.

I believe to this day, it was some kind of ufo messing with us. (and no, I was not high on anything. I've never done drugs in my life)

09-26-2006, 08:03 AM
I'm not too comfortable with UFOs, honestly. I prefer my weirdness supernatural rather than alien and I've got enough weirdness going on already. So I guess you could say my world view is self-limited in order to avoid a tabloid weird situation.

As to UFOs in general, I never thought about it much. I did read Communion, oh, years and years ago, but it didn't really stick with me. I do find it hard to believe that some alien intelligence is passing time buzzing our planet or making crop circles; I'd be interested to see if the feeling one gets from encountering "aliens" is the same as when encountering "ghosts".

Uh, but not so interested that I'd volunteer to be the guinea pig.

09-26-2006, 08:27 AM
I've seen three UFOs that could not possibly have been planes, birds, weather balloons, or anything else I can possibly explain. Which says nothing about what they were, only what they were not.

Lyra Jean
09-26-2006, 08:54 AM
The world is going to end on December 9, 2012. This is when aliens will invade Earth and create alien-human hybrids to be their slaves. Oh wait that's X-Files.

For myself. I believe in aliens as in extraterrestial. I just don't know if they've visited Earth.

I saw this thread and thought it was about Superman.

09-26-2006, 02:23 PM
I've seen three UFOs that could not possibly have been planes, birds, weather balloons, or anything else I can possibly explain. Which says nothing about what they were, only what they were not.

If you can possibly explain it, you did not see an unidentified flying object.

09-26-2006, 02:25 PM
The world is going to end on December 9, 2012. This is when aliens will invade Earth and create alien-human hybrids to be their slaves. Oh wait that's X-Files.

For myself. I believe in aliens as in extraterrestial. I just don't know if they've visited Earth.

I saw this thread and thought it was about Superman.

That's the near the end of the Babylonian calander, 12/31/12. The world, in fact, will end that day.

But rebirth begins right away and the average person does not notice a change.

Good Word
09-26-2006, 03:42 PM
I wax and wane in my reading on this topic, but am ALWAYS interested. I think it's hard to believe that there is NOT other life out there, and that they have not been to this planet before, even though it is off the beaten path in the Milky Way. The span of humanity (on this planet anyway--hah!) is quite young, and it is improbable that we are the only "intelligent" (I use that word loosely in this context) life that has been here. Really, just think about how old the sun is, and that if it had eyes, the lifespan to date of humanity would have occured in the blink of the sun's eyes. The snap of a sun-finger, if you will.

Why they'd even want to bother with us is a whole other topic. Maybe we're like the Comedy Channel for them.

I have found one person who claims to have been abducted since youth, whom I am inclined to believe, and several others who have seen very interesting sightings. I visited Peru a little over a year ago, where sightings are far more commonplace than they are here. There is also very old man-made stuff there, that appears remarkably like runways and markers that face the sky. I know of one person from Peru who claims to have seen a lot of ships in the sky at one time.

I once met a painter at a fair who was closing up for the day and loading his paintings into his van. He had some very strange paintings of aliens doing "human" things, like playing instruments, and they looked remarkably like the alien on the cover of Communion. I assumed the guy was familiar with all the books, but when I asked him about it, he claimed to have read nothing. Skeptical, I began drilling him on the subject, and he said that they visited the area he lived in Maine and they did not like the air quality. The man's son, who seemed to be around 12 years old, was growing increasingly upset, and it allegedly turned out to be not because the man was pulling my leg, but that he was telling me all this, which the son seemed to believe. <shrug> I don't know. When I left, I glibly said, "Well, tell them I said hello and would really like to meet them." I went back to ask more questions, they were already gone. I did get a business card, and called a few times to ask more questions, but chickened out and hung up every time.

My only personal, potentially related experience was of seeing something move through the sky during the day much faster than a plane and flying at an angle that you do not usually see a plane flying. It was during the day, and one of the people I was with said, "Look there goes a UFO." I don't know what it was, or if it was extraterrestrial, just that it was something I'd never seen before.

Thanks for the thread-starter, Ordinary Guy! You picked a great topic.

09-26-2006, 04:40 PM
My only personal, potentially related experience was of seeing something move through the sky during the day much faster than a plane and flying at an angle that you do not usually see a plane flying. It was during the day, and one of the people I was with said, "Look there goes a UFO." I don't know what it was, or if it was extraterrestrial, just that it was something I'd never seen before.
Same happened to me. One day, late in the afternoon, I was on the beach. It was fairly quiet; not too many people around. Up in the sky, a light moved very fast, from north to south, then zoomed back, south to north, then another light followed it back, north to south, and they disappeared. Far faster than a plane. It only took a few seconds.

My husband and a friend once saw lights in the sky over a lagoon, in a v formation. Again, moving extremely fast.

09-26-2006, 06:37 PM
I saw one of those mysterious "Black Triangles" when we lived in Colorado Springs. It flew with no lights, in approaching dusk against the backdrop of Cheyenne (sp?) Mountain. Weird!


09-26-2006, 06:50 PM
He had some very strange paintings of aliens doing "human" things, like playing instruments, and they looked remarkably like the alien on the cover of Communion. I assumed the guy was familiar with all the books, but when I asked him about it, he claimed to have read nothing.

That particular image is so ingrained into our society by now he wouldn't have had to read the book to pick it up. Assuming this was after the image became accepted, that is! It's been a long time since I last looked into the alien thing.

I guess I have a hard time believing in that sort of thing because I've experienced night terrors (very similar to many of the "abduction" stories I've heard) and I can see how easy it would be to mistake them for some sort of outside interference.

09-26-2006, 09:52 PM
...I guess I have a hard time believing in that sort of thing because I've experienced night terrors (very similar to many of the "abduction" stories I've heard) and I can see how easy it would be to mistake them for some sort of outside interference.
Interesting you should bring this up.

I'm not real sanguine on the abduction stories (motivation doesn't make much sense to me), but I can't disprove it either... so it stays on a distant back-burner for me.

As for the night terrors, check out (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00008C3F-3EFD-11E7-BB5883414B7F0000) Michael Shermer's story on his own experience. Quick summary: he'd been participating in an endurance ride and was so exhausted that when attended by his chase crew, he had a massive hallucination that they were aliens abducting him. It's an interesting story and is likely along the same lines (and origins) of most many other abduction stories.

...And for those that don't know, Michael Shermer is a professional skeptic and I think that experience is what started his path down skepticism. Either way, considering the source, it makes for an interesting read.

09-26-2006, 10:28 PM
Thanks for the link -- I have to agree with Shermer, although I've certainly never found myself as exhausted as he apparently was at the time!

I'm under no illusions as to the reality of what happens when I'm in the grips of sleep paralysis slash brain overload; I know what I see and I know what I feel, but I also know (afterwards, at any rate) that it's not objectively real. No matter how terrifying it is at the time.

Oh, and I can't take credit for the connection between night terrors and abduction stories. I *know* I read a piece on it a while back (that also covered some of the issues surrounding the "standard" alien image and its dissemination into our society) but I can't for the life of me remember the specifics (now I'm wondering if it's on Randi's site; I'll check for it).

Probably because aliens don't really interest me much; there's almost always a chapter on aliens in any book on skepticism (I pick them up for the debunked psychics) but I usually skip it.

09-26-2006, 10:50 PM
Originally posted in Historical Writing, RE: Have You Ever Been a Part of History? (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35492)

I have been in the newspaper 14 times

Bull attacks. Miami

(2) UFO's (newspapers have no archives but I kept copies from 1967). Miami
Sounds intriguing, right? He goes on to explain...

rtilryarms - talk about a tickler to make me want to say "more". Bull attacks, UFO's, tornado in St. Petersburg (are you allowed to say more about them on a historical fiction writer's forum?)

You know it is a true UFO sighting when cattle are involved. One of my books, The Crestview Conspiracy, solves the UFO mystery. I don't want to be a spoiler so just a couple of facts:

1966. The newspapers called it a "Steakout", as our school was invaded by 14 bulls in our playground. I was in 5th grade. They chased us into the school and laid siege as we were locked down until about 7 PM. The police and wildlife service was delayed in removing them because the bulls were enraged and attacked. For several hours they tranquilized as many as they could. One had to be shot multiple times and one died of a heart attack. When the rest were rounded up, they couldn't get them off the property because the gates had been welded shut for years. They had to torch them open.
Of course this starts the Crestview Conspiracy as I spend the next 40 years trying to understand why no one could answer one little question> Yup, If they couldn’t get them out, how did the bulls get in...?

1967. A few months later, we were in the same school playground when 3 cigar-shaped objects suddenly appeared and hovered above us. Ladies and Gentlemen when you hear the stories of how these things buzz back and forth hundreds of yards in a split second, believe it! It was beyond scientific belief. I chased one across a field and ran away when it stopped and landed.
Many teachers and hundreds of other witnesses were interviewed by the Air Force. We were locked down again until 7 PM. We were all told before we were released that they were Weather Balloons. We didn't have any reason not to believe them until...
The next day at 10 AM they re-appeared making this the largest consecutive sighting in history. I told my Mom and Dad both times and they just humored me. So I made them follow me to the field and I showed them where the one landed. They became believers because the landing site I pointed out contained 3 perfectly round burn circles.

The second sighting never made the papers. Years later, while researching for another book I am writing, Twilight’s Knight, I ran across some information, which started to make things add up. I remembered the day because it was the day of the last episode of Gilligan’s Island (of course I didn’t know it was the last episode then). So I had the days and the year but no newspapers had the reports in the archives. The day was there but no article! But I remembered reading it and seeing my picture and sister’s bike in it. There is also no report of this unusual sighting in any of the UFO databases. It just vanished. All the teachers that witnessed it had died by the time I traced them down. I began to believe it was just an exaggerated childhood experience.
But they made one crucial mistake. And that’s when I started to write The Crestview Conspiracy.
rtilryarms is far too modest so I reposted here with his permission...

It's an interesting experience, has abductions (though they're cattle) and a good bit of technological intrigue. Most interesting thing about it, though, is the human element: a guy has an experience and turns it into a story.

09-26-2006, 11:38 PM
Cattle abduction is critical to a true UFO experience. Of course I know I was abducted but that portion of my brain was wiped clean.

OK, that last tidbit is a stretch.

Thanks OD. The critical element in this is that the event just disappeared.

I think I know why now. I am pretty sure i know what really happened. It explains many of the others too.

Kate Thornton
09-26-2006, 11:56 PM
OMG - I must read that! rtilryarms - what a great story!

Good Word
09-27-2006, 01:13 AM
...And for those that don't know, Michael Shermer is a professional skeptic

I've been doing some alternative career exploration--and that's it! That's the job I want!

I wanna be a professional skeptic.

Thank you, Ordinary Guy. You are anything but ordinary.

09-27-2006, 01:16 AM
Bike with the baskets is my Sister's, my Brother rode it that day. I am in the background.

the resize is too unclear.

this newspaper article is not in the archives, microfilm of that day. Every other article is intact. To my knowledge i have the only copy of the full article in existance.

I don't devulge the paper or exact date or the full article on purpose.

09-27-2006, 04:43 PM
It's interesting to see just where "foreign" communications is mentioned. Here's a Wired article (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/security/0,71849-0.html) that talks about some of the things we mortals won't get a chance to read:

Peek at NSA's Secret Reading List
By Ryan Singel
02:00 AM Sep, 27, 2006

The tantalizing tables of contents to the best spy magazines you'll probably never get to read have been posted online, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request that pried open four classified National Security Agency publications.

Written specifically for NSA employees, the articles listed in the online indexes date back as far as 1956. Stories include an analysis of the TRS-80 Model 1's password-encryption algorithm, accounts of how Soviet codes were broken, analyses of bad management techniques within the sprawling eavesdropping agency, and an insider's view of North Korea's capture of the spy boat U.S.S. Pueblo in 1968.

The Memory Hole, a website dedicated to ferreting out and publishing government documents, posted the indexes (http://www.thememoryhole.org/nsa/bibs.htm) from Cryptologic Quarterly, Cryptologic Almanac, Cryptologic Spectrum and NSA Technical Journal on Monday. The lists were obtained following a smartly targeted FOIA request filed by researcher Michael Ravnitzky in 2003.

"This is one of the first glimpses we have had into NSA's own library -- and it's a safe bet there are some gems in there," said Secrecy News (http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/) editor Steven Aftergood.

Titles include "NSA in the Cyberpunk Future: A Somewhat Educated Guess at Things to Come" (1996), "I Was a Cryptologic Corporal" (1983), "Inference and Cover Stories" (1993), "Handy-Dandy Field Site History: Fifty Years of Field Operations, 1945-1995," "The Fallacy of the One-Time-Pad Excuse" (1969), "Meteor Burst Communications: An Ignored Phenomenon?" (1990) and "KAL 007 Shootdown: A View From (redacted)".

Secret spy programs such as Milkbush, Interrograph, Bourbon, Team Spirit, Ratbag, Tidytips III and Purple Dragon show up on the tables of contents. The listings also reveal the NSA's traffic analyst of the year award, called Gold Nugget.

While a few of these articles have been released before -- including one called "Communication With Extraterrestrial Intelligence (http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00034.pdf)" (.pdf) by NSA Technical Journal founder Lambros D. Callimahos -- the newly released indexes offer a "wealth of leads," according to Aftergood.

"The titles are tantalizing," he said. "You see them and you want to know more, but whether the reports themselves are equally intriguing or deadly dull or merely historical curiosities is impossible to say."

The indexes also give researchers details they can use to target specific documents rather than making blanket requests for all papers about a certain subject. The extra info could help streamline the processing of FOIA requests, according to Jeffrey Richelson, senior fellow at The National Security Archive (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/index.html).

While Richelson has gotten his hands on Cryptologic Spectrum articles in the past and said he would probably request a few more based on the now-public indexes, he said he doubts the documents will contain any big secrets.

"There are likely no great news stories in here, especially when you take into account what you are getting compared to what is in the articles before redactions (by NSA FOIA officials)," he said.
Didja note the link in red? It's an older document (and the PDF is a low-qual photocopy), but it's still a fascinating read – if only for the who is dealing with what subject matter...

09-27-2006, 08:23 PM
I wax and wane in my reading on this topic, but am ALWAYS interested. I think it's hard to believe that there is NOT other life out there, and that they have not been to this planet before, even though it is off the beaten path in the Milky Way.

It's interesting to look at the "Rare Earth" theory and the incredible implausibility of life on Earth. Basically, the theory says, we are a product of a series of extremely unlikely events. We have a star of the perfect character in a planetary system with the necessary gas giants. Earth is the perfect size .. it has a large moon that is unique to at least our system and that seemingly resulted from an unlikely event (a planetary impact), giving us tidal pools that nurture early life. Our planetary core is unusually massive thereby generating the magnetic field that keeps us safe from cosmic rays.... etc. etc.

Basically, our existence is analogous to waiting for an infinite number of monkeys to create Hamlet.

The theory has some flaws, I think (most notably that we have a limited view into the galaxy at this point), but I do think that life is a very improbable thing, and that sustained, intelligent life is infinitely even more rare. I really don't believe that extraterrestrials are buzzing around in their ships. There's obviously some phenomenon that has yet to be fully explained, though.

09-27-2006, 09:43 PM
This is my simplified logic reasoning:

If we can stipulate that witnesses are actually convinced that they saw an extraordinary event. Me for instance, i know i saw something that is not normal. Unless i am lying then - -

A - There really is superior life on other planets who have an extraordinary lifespan or have defeated time of travel as we understand it, OR --
B - This is a conspiracy, the makings of either an existing agency or current one such as CIA, Air Force, etc.

If -
- A is true, then they obviously are extremely advanced at appearing and disappearing.
If it was their intent to be seen, why disappear? If it was their intent to be hidden, why appear?
- B is true then the same conditions as above apply.

A or B cannot be determined unless the answer as to why they are seen is given.

Hence there is only one question that needs to be asked in order to solve this puzzle:

Why are these objects intentionally seen?

For the answer, The Crestview Conspiracy is a must read. Available summer of 2012.

09-27-2006, 10:34 PM
This is my simplified logic reasoning:

If we can stipulate that witnesses are actually convinced that they saw an extraordinary event. Me for instance, i know i saw something that is not normal. Unless i am lying then - -

There is another possibility that doesn't require anyone to be lying. "Convinced" is not the same as "accurate" or "right".

Witnesses aren't always particularly reliable, often through no fault of their own. Which isn't to say nothing happened; I'm just saying this logic as it stands is not particularly convincing.

And the chance for a bunch of people talking about something that happened getting it all garbled is, in my experience, not only likely but a near certainty.

09-28-2006, 12:39 AM
There is another possibility that doesn't require anyone to be lying. "Convinced" is not the same as "accurate" or "right".

Witnesses aren't always particularly reliable, often through no fault of their own. Which isn't to say nothing happened; I'm just saying this logic as it stands is not particularly convincing.

And the chance for a bunch of people talking about something that happened getting it all garbled is, in my experience, not only likely but a near certainty.
Interesting you should bring this up. The inherent unreliability of most witnesses to this type of incident are what make the noise-to-signal ratio so challenging – why it's so hard to find anecdotes (much less physical evidence) that can generate a valid lead. The unfortunate and honest truth is that most folk that think "they saw something" are either mistaken, delusional or deceptive. The important part here is that "most" is not "all."

According to the US Air Force (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=188), "most" would be about 94% of the reports. Figure that Project Blue Book catalogued sightings from 1947 to 1969. Of a total of 12,618 sightings handled by Blue Book, 701 remained "unidentified" – or a hair over 6% of their reports.

On it's own "701" sounds pretty impressive, although statistically, mere probabilities aren't proof of anything. But do you even need 701 reports...? Honestly, no. All it takes is [I]1 (one) incident of foreign visitation to spark a major overhaul of our theories (both social and technical). Within that rarified realm, within that narrow sliver of possibility and recognition, things get dicey...

Fortunately, for the Air Force CI and PR alike, conventional wisdom plays the odds. For better or worse, the suggestion of lower probability lowers public interest. The [general voting] public arbitrarily decides it's not worth following anymore and the mandate on politicians to pressure the military (as they were in the late 60s) fades away. [*POOF!*] Suddenly OpSec is a whole lot easier to handle.

09-29-2006, 03:59 AM
That's the near the end of the Babylonian calander, 12/31/12. The world, in fact, will end that day.

But rebirth begins right away and the average person does not notice a change.

I suspect you are thinking of a Great "long count" Katun. There is one that would have ended in 2012, but even the Mayans who invented the Katuns could not have had a clear idea what to do when a big one was complete.

10-01-2006, 12:29 AM
The Central Intelligence Agency (https://www.cia.gov/) (CIA) has long been a lightning rod for UFO enthusiasts and alarmists alike. With the possibilities an extraterrestrial might represent, it's natural for folk to have both curiosity and concern – and they recognize this at the Agency. In fact, a scholar by the name of Gerald K. Haines (an NRO (http://www.nro.gov/) historian) wrote a piece on the phenomenon and it was published in Studies In Intellligence, ( https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies.html) Semiannual Edition, No. 1, 1997. (https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/index.html)

Whether you agree with it or not, it's fascinating reading. (https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html) It's also humungous when you compare against the size of the average post here, so I'm going to repost it here and break it into sections for your digestions. For your entertainment and edification, then, here is the first section...

A Die-Hard Issue

CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90

Gerald K. Haines

An extraordinary 95 percent of all Americans have at least heard or read something about Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), and 57 percent believe they are real. (1) Former US Presidents Carter and Reagan claim to have seen a UFO. UFOlogists--a neologism for UFO buffs--and private UFO organizations are found throughout the United States. Many are convinced that the US Government, and particularly CIA, are engaged in a massive conspiracy and coverup of the issue. The idea that CIA has secretly concealed its research into UFOs has been a major theme of UFO buffs since the modern UFO phenomena emerged in the late 1940s. (2)

In late 1993, after being pressured by UFOlogists for the release of additional CIA information on UFOs, (3) DCI R. James Woolsey ordered another review of all Agency files on UFOs. Using CIA records compiled from that review, this study traces CIA interest and involvement in the UFO controversy from the late 1940s to 1990. It chronologically examines the Agency's efforts to solve the mystery of UFOs, its programs that had an impact on UFO sightings, and its attempts to conceal CIA involvement in the entire UFO issue. What emerges from this examination is that, while Agency concern over UFOs was substantial until the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena.


The emergence in 1947 of the Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union also saw the first wave of UFO sightings. The first report of a "flying saucer" over the United States came on 24 June 1947, when Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot and reputable businessman, while looking for a downed plane sighted nine disk-shaped objects near Mt. Rainier, Washington, traveling at an estimated speed of over 1,000 mph. Arnold's report was followed by a flood of additional sightings, including reports from military and civilian pilots and air traffic controllers all over the United States. (4) In 1948, Air Force Gen. Nathan Twining, head of the Air Technical Service Command, established Project SIGN (initially named Project SAUCER) to collect, collate, evaluate, and distribute within the government all information relating to such sightings, on the premise that UFOs might be real and of national security concern. (5)

The Technical Intelligence Division of the Air Material Command (AMC) at Wright Field (later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) in Dayton, Ohio, assumed control of Project SIGN and began its work on 23 January 1948. Although at first fearful that the objects might be Soviet secret weapons, the Air Force soon concluded that UFOs were real but easily explained and not extraordinary. The Air Force report found that almost all sightings stemmed from one or more of three causes: mass hysteria and hallucination, hoax, or misinterpretation of known objects. Nevertheless, the report recommended continued military intelligence control over the investigation of all sightings and did not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial phenomena. (6)

Amid mounting UFO sightings, the Air Force continued to collect and evaluate UFO data in the late 1940s under a new project, GRUDGE, which tried to alleviate public anxiety over UFOs via a public relations campaign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted nothing unusual or extraordinary. UFO sightings were explained as balloons, conventional aircraft, planets, meteors, optical illusions, solar reflections, or even "large hailstones." GRUDGE officials found no evidence in UFO sightings of advanced foreign weapons design or development, and they concluded that UFOs did not threaten US security. They recommended that the project be reduced in scope because the very existence of Air Force official interest encouraged people to believe in UFOs and contributed to a "war hysteria" atmosphere. On 27 December 1949, the Air Force announced the project's termination. (7)

With increased Cold War tensions, the Korean war, and continued UFO sightings, USAF Director of Intelligence Maj. Gen. Charles P. Cabell ordered a new UFO project in 1952. Project BLUE BOOK became the major Air Force effort to study the UFO phenomenon throughout the 1950s and 1960s. (8) The task of identifying and explaining UFOs continued to fall on the Air Material Command at Wright-Patterson. With a small staff, the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) tried to persuade the public that UFOs were not extraordinary. (9) Projects SIGN, GRUDGE, and BLUE BOOK set the tone for the official US Government position regarding UFOs for the next 30 years...
So we begin with a little innocuous history.

The interesting part, as far as I can tell, is that even while they were investigating the phenomena, the ATIC Blue Book guys are getting busy at PSYOPS/disinformation campaign to quiet public concerns.

Also note, at this point, that even if GRUDGE had found something of note, it would be subject to all the disinformation that followed (up to and including this report).

Like I said, this is good reading, but it needs to be framed in a particular context.

10-01-2006, 12:48 AM
It goes on...

Early CIA Concerns, 1947-52

CIA closely monitored the Air Force effort, aware of the mounting number of sightings and increasingly concerned that UFOs might pose a potential security threat. (10) Given the distribution of the sightings, CIA officials in 1952 questioned whether they might reflect "midsummer madness.'' (11) Agency officials accepted the Air Force's conclusions about UFO reports, although they concluded that "since there is a remote possibility that they may be interplanetary aircraft, it is necessary to investigate each sighting." (12)

A massive buildup of sightings over the United States in 1952, especially in July, alarmed the Truman administration. On 19 and 20 July, radar scopes at Washington National Airport and Andrews Air Force Base tracked mysterious blips. On 27 July, the blips reappeared. The Air Force scrambled interceptor aircraft to investigate, but they found nothing. The incidents, however, caused headlines across the country. The White House wanted to know what was happening, and the Air Force quickly offered the explanation that the radar blips might be the result of "temperature inversions." Later, a Civil Aeronautics Administration investigation confirmed that such radar blips were quite common and were caused by temperature inversions. (13)

Although it had monitored UFO reports for at least three years, CIA reacted to the new rash of sightings by forming a special study group within the Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI) and the Office of Current Intelligence (OCI) to review the situation. (14) Edward Tauss, acting chief of OSI's Weapons and Equipment Division, reported for the group that most UFO sightings could be easily explained. Nevertheless, he recommended that the Agency continue monitoring the problem, in coordination with ATIC. He also urged that CIA conceal its interest from the media and the public, "in view of their probable alarmist tendencies" to accept such interest as confirming the existence of UFOs. (15)

Upon receiving the report, Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) Robert Amory, Jr. assigned responsibility for the UFO investigations to OSI's Physics and Electronics Division, with A. Ray Gordon as the officer in charge. (16) Each branch in the division was to contribute to the investigation, and Gordon was to coordinate closely with ATIC. Amory, who asked the group to focus on the national security implications of UFOs, was relaying DCI Walter Bedell Smith's concerns. (17) Smith wanted to know whether or not the Air Force investigation of flying saucers was sufficiently objective and how much more money and manpower would be necessary to determine the cause of the small percentage of unexplained flying saucers. Smith believed "there was only one chance in 10,000 that the phenomenon posed a threat to the security of the country, but even that chance could not be taken." According to Smith, it was CIA's responsibility by statute to coordinate the intelligence effort required to solve the problem. Smith also wanted to know what use could be made of the UFO phenomenon in connection with US psychological warfare efforts. (18)

Led by Gordon, the CIA Study Group met with Air Force officials at Wright-Patterson and reviewed their data and findings. The Air Force claimed that 90 percent of the reported sightings were easily accounted for. The other 10 percent were characterized as "a number of incredible reports from credible observers." The Air Force rejected the theories that the sightings involved US or Soviet secret weapons development or that they involved "men from Mars"; there was no evidence to support these concepts. The Air Force briefers sought to explain these UFO reports as the misinterpretation of known objects or little understood natural phenomena. (19) Air Force and CIA officials agreed that outside knowledge of Agency interest in UFOs would make the problem more serious. (20) This concealment of CIA interest contributed greatly to later charges of a CIA conspiracy and coverup.

Amateur photographs of alleged UFOs
Passoria, New Jersey, 31 July 1952 (http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/p69.gif)
Sheffield, England, 4 March 1962 & Minneapolis, Minnesota, 20 October 1960 (http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/p70.gif)

The CIA Study Group also searched the Soviet press for UFO reports, but found none, causing the group to conclude that the absence of reports had to have been the result of deliberate Soviet Government policy. The group also envisioned the USSR's possible use of UFOs as a psychological warfare tool. In addition, they worried that, if the US air warning system should be deliberately overloaded by UFO sightings, the Soviets might gain a surprise advantage in any nuclear attack. (21)

Because of the tense Cold War situation and increased Soviet capabilities, the CIA Study Group saw serious national security concerns in the flying saucer situation. The group believed that the Soviets could use UFO reports to touch off mass hysteria and panic in the United States. The group also believed that the Soviets might use UFO sightings to overload the US air warning system so that it could not distinguish real targets from phantom UFOs. H. Marshall Chadwell, Assistant Director of OSI, added that he considered the problem of such importance "that it should be brought to the attention of the National Security Council, in order that a communitywide coordinated effort towards it solution may be initiated." (22)

Chadwell briefed DCI Smith on the subject of UFOs in December 1952. He urged action because he was convinced that "something was going on that must have immediate attention" and that "sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and traveling at high speeds in the vicinity of major US defense installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles." He drafted a memorandum from the DCI to the National Security Council (NSC) and a proposed NSC Directive establishing the investigation of UFOs as a priority project throughout the intelligence and the defense research and development community. (23) Chadwell also urged Smith to establish an external research project of top-level scientists to study the problem of UFOs. (24) After this briefing, Smith directed DDI Amory to prepare a NSC Intelligence Directive (NSCID) for submission to the NSC on the need to continue the investigation of UFOs and to coordinate such investigations with the Air Force... (25)
...So, not only do we have an unknown as for what phenomena[s] might be behind sightings (a potential threat by itself), now we have a not-unreasonable fear of how it could be used against us by our Cold War foes.

Now, instead of being just distant foreign threat, there is psychological motivation to classify it as a very real, exploitable threat by folk we know don't like us. The US CI community now has the mandate to quash this phenomena from public view.

Also note that of all the possible "evidence" pictures, they picked some that would give NRO analysts hairballs (and the NRO was fairly used to interpreting smudges).

Finally, the "temperature inversions" was the first really prominent bit of RetConning with a thin scientific bit of truth to back it up (and a good example of creating plausible deniability). Some of you might be familiar with the "Washington Merry-go-round" incident (and there are a wide variety of reactions to it), but at it's simplest level, ask yourself why the radar operators didn't recognize them as temp inversions in the first place? Either they were criminally stupid (and were a hazard to air travelers) or they were persuaded to "find the truth" (or face the consequences).

10-01-2006, 01:04 AM
Disinformation at work: swamp gas and seagulls.

The Robertson Panel, 1952-53

On 4 December 1952, the Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) took up the issue of UFOs. (26) Amory, as acting chairman, presented DCI Smith's request to the committee that it informally discuss the subject of UFOs. Chadwell then briefly reviewed the situation and the active program of the ATIC relating to UFOs. The committee agreed that the DCI should "enlist the services of selected scientists to review and appraise the available evidence in the light of pertinent scientific theories" and draft an NSCID on the subject. (27) Maj. Gen. John A. Samford, Director of Air Force Intelligence, offered full cooperation. (28)

At the same time, Chadwell looked into British efforts in this area. He learned the British also were active in studying the UFO phenomena. An eminent British scientist, R. V. Jones, headed a standing committee created in June 1951 on flying saucers. Jones' and his committee's conclusions on UFOs were similar to those of Agency officials: the sightings were not enemy aircraft but misrepresentations of natural phenomena. The British noted, however, that during a recent air show RAF pilots and senior military officials had observed a "perfect flying saucer." Given the press response, according to the officer, Jones was having a most difficult time trying to correct public opinion regarding UFOs. The public was convinced they were real. (29)

In January 1953, Chadwell and H. P. Robertson, a noted physicist from the California Institute of Technology, put together a distinguished panel of nonmilitary scientists to study the UFO issue. It included Robertson as chairman; Samuel A. Goudsmit, a nuclear physicist from the Brookhaven National Laboratories; Luis Alvarez, a high-energy physicist; Thornton Page, the deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Operations Research Office and an expert on radar and electronics; and Lloyd Berkner, a director of the Brookhaven National Laboratories and a specialist in geophysics. (30)

The charge to the panel was to review the available evidence on UFOs and to consider the possible dangers of the phenomena to US national security. The panel met from 14 to 17 January 1953. It reviewed Air Force data on UFO case histories and, after spending 12 hours studying the phenomena, declared that reasonable explanations could be suggested for most, if not all, sightings. For example, after reviewing motion-picture film taken of a UFO sighting near Tremonton, Utah, on 2 July 1952 and one near Great Falls, Montana, on 15 August 1950, the panel concluded that the images on the Tremonton film were caused by sunlight reflecting off seagulls and that the images at Great Falls were sunlight reflecting off the surface of two Air Force interceptors. (31)

The panel concluded unanimously that there was no evidence of a direct threat to national security in the UFO sightings. Nor could the panel find any evidence that the objects sighted might be extraterrestrials. It did find that continued emphasis on UFO reporting might threaten "the orderly functioning" of the government by clogging the channels of communication with irrelevant reports and by inducing "hysterical mass behavior" harmful to constituted authority. The panel also worried that potential enemies contemplating an attack on the United States might exploit the UFO phenomena and use them to disrupt US air defenses. (32)

To meet these problems, the panel recommended that the National Security Council debunk UFO reports and institute a policy of public education to reassure the public of the lack of evidence behind UFOs. It suggested using the mass media, advertising, business clubs, schools, and even the Disney corporation to get the message across. Reporting at the height of McCarthyism, the panel also recommended that such private UFO groups as the Civilian Flying Saucer Investigators in Los Angeles and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization in Wisconsin be monitored for subversive activities. (33)

The Robertson panel's conclusions were strikingly similar to those of the earlier Air Force project reports on SIGN and GRUDGE and to those of the CIA's own OSI Study Group. All investigative groups found that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national security and no evidence of visits by extraterrestrials.

Following the Robertson panel findings, the Agency abandoned efforts to draft an NSCID on UFOs. (34) The Scientific Advisory Panel on UFOs (the Robertson panel) submitted its report to the IAC, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board. CIA officials said no further consideration of the subject appeared warranted, although they continued to monitor sightings in the interest of national security. Philip Strong and Fred Durant from OSI also briefed the Office of National Estimates on the findings. (35) CIA officials wanted knowledge of any Agency interest in the subject of flying saucers carefully restricted, noting not only that the Robertson panel report was classified but also that any mention of CIA sponsorship of the panel was forbidden. This attitude would later cause the Agency major problems relating to its credibility... (36)
Okay, as the phenomena constitutes a potential for "'hysterical mass behavior' harmful to constituted authority," we get another mandate (this one for the NSC) to debunk the subject (whether there's any bunk in there or not). Haines is careful to avoid the buzzwords but what he writes says that the subject matter was to undergo a PSYOPS-style campaign to discredit it, not the least of which included McCarthyist un-American investigations into UFO groups...

Also note that considering the effort they're putting into discrediting the subject, it makes sense that their publicly released conclusions would be "...that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national security and no evidence of visits by extraterrestrials." Any evidence to the contrary would be significant technical intelligence and would be heavily classified.

10-01-2006, 01:30 AM
The 1950s: Fading CIA Interest in UFOs

After the report of the Robertson panel, Agency officials put the entire issue of UFOs on the back burner. In May 1953, Chadwell transferred chief responsibility for keeping abreast of UFOs to OSI's Physics and Electronic Division, while the Applied Science Division continued to provide any necessary support. (37) Todos M. Odarenko, chief of the Physics and Electronics Division, did not want to take on the problem, contending that it would require too much of his division's analytic and clerical time. Given the findings of the Robertson panel, he proposed to consider the project "inactive" and to devote only one analyst part-time and a file clerk to maintain a reference file of the activities of the Air Force and other agencies on UFOs. Neither the Navy nor the Army showed much interest in UFOs, according to Odarenko. (38)

A nonbeliever in UFOs, Odarenko sought to have his division relieved of the responsibility for monitoring UFO reports. In 1955, for example, he recommended that the entire project be terminated because no new information concerning UFOs had surfaced. Besides, he argued, his division was facing a serious budget reduction and could not spare the resources. (39) Chadwell and other Agency officials, however, continued to worry about UFOs. Of special concern were overseas reports of UFO sightings and claims that German engineers held by the Soviets were developing a "flying saucer" as a future weapon of war. (40)

To most US political and military leaders, the Soviet Union by the mid-1950s had become a dangerous opponent. Soviet progress in nuclear weapons and guided missiles was particularly alarming. In the summer of 1949, the USSR had detonated an atomic bomb. In August 1953, only nine months after the United States tested a hydrogen bomb, the Soviets detonated one. In the spring of 1953, a top secret RAND Corporation study also pointed out the vulnerability of SAC bases to a surprise attack by Soviet long-range bombers. Concern over the danger of a Soviet attack on the United States continued to grow, and UFO sightings added to the uneasiness of US policymakers.

Mounting reports of UFOs over eastern Europe and Afghanistan also prompted concern that the Soviets were making rapid progress in this area. CIA officials knew that the British and Canadians were already experimenting with "flying saucers." Project Y was a Canadian-British-US developmental operation to produce a nonconventional flying-saucer-type aircraft, and Agency officials feared the Soviets were testing similar devices. (41)

Adding to the concern was a flying saucer sighting by US Senator Richard Russell and his party while traveling on a train in the USSR in October 1955. After extensive interviews of Russell and his group, however, CIA officials concluded that Russell's sighting did not support the theory that the Soviets had developed saucerlike or unconventional aircraft. Herbert Scoville, Jr., the Assistant Director of OSI, wrote that the objects observed probably were normal jet aircraft in a steep climb. (42)

Wilton E. Lexow, head of the CIA's Applied Sciences Division, was also skeptical. He questioned why the Soviets were continuing to develop conventional-type aircraft if they had a "flying saucer." (43) Scoville asked Lexow to assume responsibility for fully assessing the capabilities and limitations of nonconventional aircraft and to maintain the OSI central file on the subject of UFOs...
The US had gotten its own share of German scientists from Operation Paperclip (http://www.operationpaperclip.info/) (not the least of which was Wernher von Braun) – and had gone on to build a space program on their engineering prowess (though I'd be remiss if I didn't give a nod back to Robert Goddard (http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/goddard.html) for getting it all off the ground). Interestingly, while we read of Scoville's dismissal of German-engineered saucers, this was right about the time electrogravitic theorist T.T. Brown publicly ruminated on the flight patterns of various sightings. Obviously, this ran afoul of the Robertson Panel recommendations and he was targeted for public discrediting (along with everything else that was related to the phenomena).

However, Brown's efforts weren’t ignored by his contemporaries. In the early 1950s, there was a burst of anti-gravity excitement. At the head of the pack was the carefully bland Research Institute for Advanced Studies (RIAS), a pie-in-the-sky R&D effort by the Glen L. Martin Company (destined to be the "Martin" of "Martin Marietta"). Gravity, they said, would be conquered in the same way as the atom in the MANHATTAN project. Then, in 1957, the project fell off the planet. What happened?

Nobody really knows (at least nobody that hasn't already signed a draconian NDA), but you can a little insight on it from an excellent bit of scholarly research wrapped in a little nugget entitled "The Hunt for Zero Point (http://www.amazon.com/Hunt-Zero-Point-Antigravity-Technology/dp/0767906276)," by Nick Cook. Unlike a lot of the yahoos out there that follow this fringy stuff, Cook is a long-time writer for the Jane's technical series.

The book is fairly straightforward (and eminently believable), though it gets hazy and a bit spooky when he starts delving into the German connections. It's worth a read, even if only to practice your "mosaic-theory" of intelligence analysis.

10-01-2006, 02:03 AM
This one is a bit longer. Herein we see the rise of a convenient scapegoat (our aerial surveillance program) and we see a bit of honesty in the analysis of handling PR that can only come after practically everybody involved is already dead...

CIA's U-2 and OXCART as UFOs

In November 1954, CIA had entered into the world of high technology with its U-2 overhead reconnaissance project. Working with Lockheed's Advanced Development facility in Burbank, California, known as the Skunk Works, and Kelly Johnson, an eminent aeronautical engineer, the Agency by August 1955 was testing a high-altitude experimental aircraft--the U-2. It could fly at 60,000 feet; in the mid-1950s, most commercial airliners flew between 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet. Consequently, once the U-2 started test flights, commercial pilots and air traffic controllers began reporting a large increase in UFO sightings. (44) (U)

The early U-2s were silver (they were later painted black) and reflected the rays from the sun, especially at sunrise and sunset. They often appeared as fiery objects to observers below. Air Force BLUE BOOK investigators aware of the secret U-2 flights tried to explain away such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions. By checking with the Agency's U-2 Project Staff in Washington, BLUE BOOK investigators were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights. They were careful, however, not to reveal the true cause of the sighting to the public.

According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956. (46)

At the same time, pressure was building for the release of the Robertson panel report on UFOs. In 1956, Edward Ruppelt, former head of the Air Force BLUE BOOK project, publicly revealed the existence of the panel. A best-selling book by UFOlogist Donald Keyhoe, a retired Marine Corps major, advocated release of all government information relating to UFOs. Civilian UFO groups such as the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) immediately pushed for release of the Robertson panel report. (47) Under pressure, the Air Force approached CIA for permission to declassify and release the report. Despite such pressure, Philip Strong, Deputy Assistant Director of OSI, refused to declassify the report and declined to disclose CIA sponsorship of the panel. As an alternative, the Agency prepared a sanitized version of the report which deleted any reference to CIA and avoided mention of any psychological warfare potential in the UFO controversy. (48)

The demands, however, for more government information about UFOs did not let up. On 8 March 1958, Keyhoe, in an interview with Mike Wallace of CBS, claimed deep CIA involvement with UFOs and Agency sponsorship of the Robertson panel. This prompted a series of letters to the Agency from Keyhoe and Dr. Leon Davidson, a chemical engineer and UFOlogist. They demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and confirmation of CIA involvement in the UFO issue. Davidson had convinced himself that the Agency, not the Air Force, carried most of the responsibility for UFO analysis and that "the activities of the US Government are responsible for the flying saucer sightings of the last decade." Indeed, because of the undisclosed U-2 and OXCART flights, Davidson was closer to the truth than he suspected. CI, nevertheless held firm to its policy of not revealing its role in UFO investigations and refused to declassify the full Robertson panel report. (49)

In a meeting with Air Force representatives to discuss how to handle future inquires such as Keyhoe's and Davidson's, Agency officials confirmed their opposition to the declassification of the full report and worried that Keyhoe had the ear of former DCI VAdm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter, who served on the board of governors of NICAP. They debated whether to have CIA General Counsel Lawrence R. Houston show Hillenkoetter the report as a possible way to defuse the situation. CIA officer Frank Chapin also hinted that Davidson might have ulterior motives, "some of them perhaps not in the best interest of this country," and suggested bringing in the FBI to investigate. (50) Although the record is unclear whether the FBI ever instituted an investigation of Davidson or Keyhoe, or whether Houston ever saw Hillenkoetter about the Robertson report, Hillenkoetter did resign from the NICAP in 1962. (51)

The Agency was also involved with Davidson and Keyhoe in two rather famous UFO cases in the 1950s, which helped contribute to a growing sense of public distrust of CIA with regard to UFOs. One focused on what was reported to have been a tape recording of a radio signal from a flying saucer; the other on reported photographs of a flying saucer. The "radio code" incident began innocently enough in 1955, when two elderly sisters in Chicago, Mildred and Marie Maier, reported in the Journal of Space Flight their experiences with UFOs, including the recording of a radio program in which an unidentified code was reportedly heard. The sisters taped the program and other ham radio operators also claimed to have heard the "space message." OSI became interested and asked the Scientific Contact Branch to obtain a copy of the recording. (52)

Field officers from the Contact Division (CD), one of whom was Dewelt Walker, made contact with the Maier sisters, who were "thrilled that the government was interested," and set up a time to meet with them. (53) In trying to secure the tape recording, the Agency officers reported that they had stumbled upon a scene from Arsenic and Old Lace. "The only thing lacking was the elderberry wine," Walker cabled Headquarters. After reviewing the sisters' scrapbook of clippings from their days on the stage, the officers secured a copy of the recording. (54) OSI analyzed the tape and found it was nothing more than Morse code from a US radio station.

The matter rested there until UFOlogist Leon Davidson talked with the Maier sisters in 1957. The sisters remembered they had talked with a Mr. Walker who said he was from the US Air Force. Davidson then wrote to a Mr. Walker, believing him to be a US Air Force Intelligence Officer from Wright-Patterson, to ask if the tape had been analyzed at ATIC. Dewelt Walker replied to Davidson that the tape had been forwarded to proper authorities for evaluation, and no information was available concerning the results. Not satisfied, and suspecting that Walker was really a CIA officer, Davidson next wrote DCI Allen Dulles demanding to learn what the coded message revealed and who Mr. Walker was. (55) The Agency, wanting to keep Walker's identity as a CIA employee secret, replied that another agency of the government had analyzed the tape in question and that Davidson would be hearing from the Air Force. (56) On 5 August, the Air Force wrote Davidson saying that Walker "was and is an Air Force Officer" and that the tape "was analyzed by another government organization." The Air Force letter confirmed that the recording contained only identifiable Morse code which came from a known US-licensed radio station. (57)

Davidson wrote Dulles again. This time he wanted to know the identity of the Morse operator and of the agency that had conducted the analysis. CIA and the Air Force were now in a quandary. The Agency had previously denied that it had actually analyzed the tape. The Air Force had also denied analyzing the tape and claimed that Walker was an Air Force officer. CIA officers, under cover, contacted Davidson in Chicago and promised to get the code translation and the identification of the transmitter, if possible. (58)

In another attempt to pacify Davidson, a CIA officer, again under cover and wearing his Air Force uniform, contacted Davidson in New York City. The CIA officer explained that there was no super agency involved and that Air Force policy was not to disclose who was doing what. While seeming to accept this argument, Davidson nevertheless pressed for disclosure of the recording message and the source. The officer agreed to see what he could do. (59) After checking with Headquarters, the CIA officer phoned Davidson to report that a thorough check had been made and, because the signal was of known US origin, the tape and the notes made at the time had been destroyed to conserve file space. (60)

Incensed over what he perceived was a runaround, Davidson told the CIA officer that "he and his agency, whichever it was, were acting like Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamster Union in destroying records which might indict them." (61) Believing that any more contact with Davidson would only encourage more speculation, the Contact Division washed its hands of the issue by reporting to the DCI and to ATIC that it would not respond to or try to contact Davidson again. (62) Thus, a minor, rather bizarre incident, handled poorly by both CIA and the Air Force, turned into a major flap that added fuel to the growing mystery surrounding UFOs and CIA's role in their investigation.

Another minor flap a few months later added to the growing questions surrounding the Agency's true role with regard to flying saucers. CIA's concern over secrecy again made matters worse. In 1958, Major Keyhoe charged that the Agency was deliberately asking eyewitnesses of UFOs not to make their sightings public. (63)

The incident stemmed from a November 1957 request from OSI to the CD to obtain from Ralph C. Mayher, a photographer for KYW-TV in Cleveland, Ohio, certain photographs he took in 1952 of an unidentified flying object. Harry Real, a CD officer, contacted Mayher and obtained copies of the photographs for analysis. On 12 December 1957, John Hazen, another CD officer, returned the five photographs of the alleged UFO to Mayher without comment. Mayher asked Hazen for the Agency's evaluation of the photos, explaining that he was trying to organize a TV program to brief the public on UFOs. He wanted to mention on the show that a US intelligence organization had viewed the photographs and thought them of interest. Although he advised Mayher not to take this approach, Hazen stated that Mayher was a US citizen and would have to make his own decision as to what to do. (64)

Keyhoe later contacted Mayher, who told him his story of CIA and the photographs. Keyhoe then asked the Agency to confirm Hazen's employment in writing, in an effort to expose CIA's role in UFO investigations. The Agency refused, despite the fact that CD field representatives were normally overt and carried credentials identifying their Agency association. DCI Dulles's aide, John S. Earman, merely sent Keyhoe a noncommittal letter noting that, because UFOs were of primary concern to the Department of the Air Force, the Agency had referred his letter to the Air Force for an appropriate response. Like the response to Davidson, the Agency reply to Keyhoe only fueled the speculation that the Agency was deeply involved in UFO sightings. Pressure for release of CIA information on UFOs continued to grow. (65)

Although CIA had a declining interest in UFO cases, it continued to monitor UFO sightings. Agency officials felt the need to keep informed on UFOs if only to alert the DCI to the more sensational UFO reports and flaps... (66)
Seems to me that Keyhoe was on the outside and like every UFO enthusiast since then, wanted to be on the inside. He used his military record to stay above the disinformation/discrediting campaign (and used a good Marine tactic: the best defense is a good offense). Was it leverage to get inside? Probably, especially when he starts pointing at CI technique of "asking eyewitnesses of UFOs not to make their sightings public." Note that in 1958, oversight wasn't what it is now – "asking" could be pretty heavy-handed.

Even if Keyhoe was let into the circle (whatever circle that may have been), I doubt anybody on the inside had "all the answers." At the very least, assuming there was anything to the phenomena, the folk on the inside would have a better chance at building an accurate perspective – a perspective that could reach profoundly philosophical levels.

Either way, the important part (from Haines' perspective) is the mishandling of the PR and the rise of public distrust of the government. Note that was before Vietnam and well before Watergate... and it lays a good groundwork that no matter what government says about it now, their credibility is shot. His subtext, it seems to me, is that the phenomena is has a life of its own at this point, with believers now sophisticated enough to generate self-validating theories.

...Though it's probably no coincidence that Haines' essay came out around the same time as the Air Force's response to a General Accounting Office (GAO) inquiry about Roswell. The AF report, "The Roswell Report: Case Closed ( http://www.af.mil/library/roswell/)," was not well received by UFO enthusiasts. If the link is just tantalizing enough that you want your copy (and can't drive out to Rachel, Nevada, to pick it up), you can probably pick up a copy from Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Roswell-Report-Case-Closed/dp/0160490189).

10-01-2006, 02:25 AM
Declare victory and maybe they'll go away...

The 1960s: Declining CIA Involvement and Mounting Controversy

In the early 1960s, Keyhoe, Davidson, and other UFOlogists maintained their assault on the Agency for release of UFO information. Davidson now claimed that CIA "was solely responsible for creating the Flying Saucer furor as a tool for cold war psychological warfare since 1951." Despite calls for Congressional hearings and the release of all materials relating to UFOs, little changed. (67)

In 1964, however, following high-level White House discussions on what to do if an alien intelligence was discovered in space and a new outbreak of UFO reports and sightings, DCI John McCone asked for an updated CIA evaluation of UFOs. Responding to McCone's request, OSI asked the CD to obtain various recent samples and reports of UFO sightings from NICAP. With Keyhoe, one of the founders, no longer active in the organization, CIA officers met with Richard H. Hall, the acting director. Hall gave the officers samples from the NICAP database on the most recent sightings. (68)

After OSI officers had reviewed the material, Donald F. Chamberlain, OSI Assistant Director, assured McCone that little had changed since the early 1950s. There was still no evidence that UFOs were a threat to the security of the United States or that they were of "foreign origin." Chamberlain told McCone that OSI still monitored UFO reports, including the official Air Force investigation, Project BLUE BOOK. (69)

At the same time that CIA was conducting this latest internal review of UFOs, public pressure forced the Air Force to establish a special ad hoc committee to review BLUE BOOK. Chaired by Dr. Brian O'Brien, a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, the panel included Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer from Cornell University. Its report offered nothing new. It declared that UFOs did not threaten the national security and that it could find "no UFO case which represented technological or scientific advances outside of a terrestrial framework." The committee did recommend that UFOs be studied intensively, with a leading university acting as a coordinator for the project, to settle the issue conclusively. (70)

The House Armed Services Committee also held brief hearings on UFOs in 1966 that produced similar results. Secretary of the Air Force Harold Brown assured the committee that most sightings were easily explained and that there was no evidence that "strangers from outer space" had been visiting Earth. He told the committee members, however, that the Air Force would keep an open mind and continue to investigate all UFO reports. (71)

Following the report of its O'Brien Committee, the House hearings on UFOs, and Dr. Robertson's disclosure on a CBS Reports program that CIA indeed had been involved in UFO analysis, the Air Force in July 1966 again approached the Agency for declassification of the entire Robertson panel report of 1953 and the full Durant report on the Robertson panel deliberations and findings. The Agency again refused to budge. Karl H. Weber, Deputy Director of OSI, wrote the Air Force that "We are most anxious that further publicity not be given to the information that the panel was sponsored by the CIA." Weber noted that there was already a sanitized version available to the public. (72) Weber's response was rather shortsighted and ill considered. It only drew more attention to the 13-year-old Robertson panel report and CIA's role in the investigation of UFOs. The science editor of The Saturday Review drew nationwide attention to the CIA's role in investigating UFOs when he published an article criticizing the "sanitized version" of the 1953 Robertson panel report and called for release of the entire document. (73)

Unknown to CIA officials, Dr. James E. McDonald, a noted atmospheric physicist from the University of Arizona, had already seen the Durant report on the Robertson panel proceedings at Wright-Patterson on 6 June 1966. When McDonald returned to Wright-Patterson on 30 June to copy the report, however, the Air Force refused to let him see it again, stating that it was a CIA classified document. Emerging as a UFO authority, McDonald publicly claimed that the CIA was behind the Air Force secrecy policies and coverup. He demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and the Durant report. (74)

Bowing to public pressure and the recommendation of its own O'Brien Committee, the Air Force announced in August 1966 that it was seeking a contract with a leading university to undertake a program of intensive investigations of UFO sightings. The new program was designed to blunt continuing charges that the US Government had concealed what it knew about UFOs. On 7 October, the University of Colorado accepted a $325,000 contract with the Air Force for an 18-month study of flying saucers. Dr. Edward U. Condon, a physicist at Colorado and a former Director of the National Bureau of Standards, agreed to head the program. Pronouncing himself an "agnostic" on the subject of UFOs, Condon observed that he had an open mind on the question and thought that possible extraterritorial origins were "improbable but not impossible." (75) Brig. Gen. Edward Giller, USAF, and Dr. Thomas Ratchford from the Air Force Research and Development Office became the Air Force coordinators for the project.

In February 1967, Giller contacted Arthur C. Lundahl, Director of CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC), and proposed an informal liaison through which NPIC could provide the Condon Committee with technical advice and services in examining photographs of alleged UFOs. Lundahl and DDI R. Jack Smith approved the arrangement as a way of "preserving a window" on the new effort. They wanted the CIA and NPIC to maintain a low profile, however, and to take no part in writing any conclusions for the committee. No work done for the committee by NPIC was to be formally acknowledged. (76)

Ratchford next requested that Condon and his committee be allowed to visit NPIC to discuss the technical aspects of the problem and to view the special equipment NPIC had for photoanalysis. On 20 February 1967, Condon and four members of his committee visited NPIC. Lundahl emphasized to the group that any NPIC work to assist the committee must not be identified as CIA work. Moreover, work performed by NPIC would be strictly of a technical nature. After receiving these guidelines, the group heard a series of briefings on the services and equipment not available elsewhere that CIA had used in its analysis of some UFO photography furnished by Ratchford. Condon and his committee were impressed. (77)

Condon and the same group met again in May 1967 at NPIC to hear an analysis of UFO photographs taken at Zanesville, Ohio. The analysis debunked that sighting. The committee was again impressed with the technical work performed, and Condon remarked that for the first time a scientific analysis of a UFO would stand up to investigation. (78) The group also discussed the committee's plans to call on US citizens for additional photographs and to issue guidelines for taking useful UFO photographs. In addition, CIA officials agreed that the Condon Committee could release the full Durant report with only minor deletions.

In April 1969, Condon and his committee released their report on UFOs. The report concluded that little, if anything, had come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years and that further extensive study of UFO sightings was unwarranted. It also recommended that the Air Force special unit, Project BLUE BOOK, be discontinued. It did not mention CIA participation in the Condon committee's investigation. (79) A special panel established by the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the Condon report and concurred with its conclusion that "no high priority in UFO investigations is warranted by data of the past two decades." It concluded its review by declaring, "On the basis of present knowledge, the least likely explanation of UFOs is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings." Following the recommendations of the Condon Committee and the National Academy of Sciences, the Secretary of the Air Force, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., announced on 17 December 1969 the termination of BLUE BOOK... (80)
Okay, Haines' does a great job of cataloging steps and missteps that further degrade public trust in the handling of the phenomena...

What's interesting is the subtext. In the public eye, the Air Force contracts Condon to report on the subject. The result, predictably, supports preestablished conclusions (you can read the report just about anywhere, but try here (http://www.ncas.org/condon/)). Haines walks a tightrope in his essay, both mentioning that Condon had some autonomy, but also admitting that "...No work done for the committee by NPIC was to be formally acknowledged." You'd have to be chewing lead chips to not realize that final editorial control would be filtered through the Air Force.

In the end, while the Report did little to satisfy the most serious critics, the Air Force declared "Mission Accomplished" and withdrew from the Public Relations battlefield. Hmm...

10-01-2006, 02:55 AM
Note some frustration in the section header...

The 1970s and 1980s: The UFO Issue Refuses To Die

The Condon report did not satisfy many UFOlogists, who considered it a coverup for CIA activities in UFO research. Additional sightings in the early 1970s fueled beliefs that the CIA was somehow involved in a vast conspiracy. On 7 June 1975, William Spaulding, head of a small UFO group, Ground Saucer Watch (GSW), wrote to CIA requesting a copy of the Robertson panel report and all records relating to UFOs. (81) Spaulding was convinced that the Agency was withholding major files on UFOs. Agency officials provided Spaulding with a copy of the Robertson panel report and of the Durant report. (82)

On 14 July 1975, Spaulding again wrote the Agency questioning the authenticity of the reports he had received and alleging a CIA coverup of its UFO activities. Gene Wilson, CIA's Information and Privacy Coordinator, replied in an attempt to satisfy Spaulding, "At no time prior to the formation of the Robertson Panel and subsequent to the issuance of the panel's report has CIA engaged in the study of the UFO phenomena." The Robertson panel report, according to Wilson, was "the summation of Agency interest and involvement in UFOs." Wilson also inferred that there were no additional documents in CIA's possession that related to UFOs. Wilson was ill informed. (83)

In September 1977, Spaulding and GSW, unconvinced by Wilson's response, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Agency that specifically requested all UFO documents in CIA's possession. Deluged by similar FOIA requests for Agency information on UFOs, CIA officials agreed, after much legal maneuvering, to conduct a "reasonable search" of CIA files for UFO materials. (84) Despite an Agency-wide unsympathetic attitude toward the suit, Agency officials, led by Launie Ziebell from the Office of General Counsel, conducted a thorough search for records pertaining to UFOs. Persistent, demanding, and even threatening at times, Ziebell and his group scoured the Agency. They even turned up an old UFO file under a secretary's desk. The search finally produced 355 documents totaling approximately 900 pages. On 14 December 1978, the Agency released all but 57 documents of about 100 pages to GSW. It withheld these 57 documents on national security grounds and to protect sources and methods. (85)

Although the released documents produced no smoking gun and revealed only a low-level Agency interest in the UFO phenomena after the Robertson panel report of 1953, the press treated the release in a sensational manner. The New York Times, for example, claimed that the declassified documents confirmed intensive government concern over UFOs and that the Agency was secretly involved in the surveillance of UFOs. (86) GSW then sued for the release of the withheld documents, claiming that the Agency was still holding out key information. (87) It was much like the John F. Kennedy assassination issue. No matter how much material the Agency released and no matter how dull and prosaic the information, people continued to believe in a Agency coverup and conspiracy.

DCI Stansfield Turner was so upset when he read The New York Times article that he asked his senior officers, "Are we in UFOs?" After reviewing the records, Don Wortman, Deputy Director for Administration, reported to Turner that there was "no organized Agency effort to do research in connection with UFO phenomena nor has there been an organized effort to collect intelligence on UFOs since the 1950s." Wortman assured Turner that the Agency records held only "sporadic instances of correspondence dealing with the subject," including various kinds of reports of UFO sightings. There was no Agency program to collect actively information on UFOs, and the material released to GSW had few deletions. (88) Thus assured, Turner had the General Counsel press for a summary judgment against the new lawsuit by GSW. In May 1980, the courts dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the Agency had conducted a thorough and adequate search in good faith. (89)

During the late 1970s and 1980s, the Agency continued its low-key interest in UFOs and UFO sightings. While most scientists now dismissed flying saucers reports as a quaint part of the 1950s and 1960s, some in the Agency and in the Intelligence Community shifted their interest to studying parapsychology and psychic phenomena associated with UFO sightings. CIA officials also looked at the UFO problem to determine what UFO sightings might tell them about Soviet progress in rockets and missiles and reviewed its counterintelligence aspects. Agency analysts from the Life Science Division of OSI and OSWR officially devoted a small amount of their time to issues relating to UFOs. These included counterintelligence concerns that the Soviets and the KGB were using US citizens and UFO groups to obtain information on sensitive US weapons development programs (such as the Stealth aircraft), the vulnerability of the US air-defense network to penetration by foreign missiles mimicking UFOs, and evidence of Soviet advanced technology associated with UFO sightings.

CIA also maintained Intelligence Community coordination with other agencies regarding their work in parapsychology, psychic phenomena, and "remote viewing" experiments. In general, the Agency took a conservative scientific view of these unconventional scientific issues. There was no formal or official UFO project within the Agency in the 1980s, and Agency officials purposely kept files on UFOs to a minimum to avoid creating records that might mislead the public if released. (90)

The 1980s also produced renewed charges that the Agency was still withholding documents relating to the 1947 Roswell incident, in which a flying saucer supposedly crashed in New Mexico, and the surfacing of documents which purportedly revealed the existence of a top secret US research and development intelligence operation responsible only to the President on UFOs in the late 1940s and early 1950s. UFOlogists had long argued that, following a flying saucer crash in New Mexico in 1947, the government not only recovered debris from the crashed saucer but also four or five alien bodies. According to some UFOlogists, the government clamped tight security around the project and has refused to divulge its investigation results and research ever since. (91) In September 1994, the US Air Force released a new report on the Roswell incident that concluded that the debris found in New Mexico in 1947 probably came from a once top secret balloon operation, Project MOGUL, designed to monitor the atmosphere for evidence of Soviet nuclear tests. (92)

Circa 1984, a series of documents surfaced which some UFOlogists said proved that President Truman created a top secret committee in 1947, Majestic-12, to secure the recovery of UFO wreckage from Roswell and any other UFO crash sight for scientific study and to examine any alien bodies recovered from such sites. Most if not all of these documents have proved to be fabrications. Yet the controversy persists. (93)

Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the Agency does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies of rational explanation and evidence.
At this point, most of the essay is historical wrap-up – though it does serve to illustrate the persistence of the public and the use of FOIA tools to try and pry some last nugget from publicly-known agencies. The issue really won't die.

It's worth noting, though, that if there really were anything to UFOs, especially if there were a profoundly "foreign" source to them, it would be such an astronomically sensitive subject (so to speak), that any real information pertaining to the phenomena would be classified in perpetuity. Like nuclear weapons design, this stuff would be exempt from declassification, FOIA requests, or even acknowledgment of their existence.

Note the mere existence of the NRO (http://www.nro.gov/) was technically classified for 30 years. Now, what if the stakes were technical/diplomatic with a profoundly foreign angle? You can bet that agency would be classified as well (and at this point, likely working with a budget that doesn't require Congressional approval).

...Of course, there's really nothing to any of it. It's all swamp gas and seagulls, but from a writer's perspective, the intrigue can really fire up the imagination... :cool:

10-01-2006, 03:19 AM
Hey, I wouldn't leave ya hangin...


(1) See the 1973 Gallup Poll results printed in The New York Times, 29 November 1973, p. 45 and Philip J. Klass, UFOs: The Public Deceived (New York: Prometheus Books, 1983), p. 3.

(2) See Klass, UFOs, p. 3; James S. Gordon, "The UFO Experience," Atlantic Monthly (August 1991), pp. 82-92; David Michael Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975); Howard Blum, Out There: The Government's Secret Quest for Extraterrestrials (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990); Timothy Good, Above Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-Up (New York: William Morrow, 1987); and Whitley Strieber, Communion: The True Story (New York: Morrow, 1987).

(3) In September 1993 John Peterson, an acquaintance of Woolsey's, first approached the DCI with a package of heavily sanitized CIA material on UFOs released to UFOlogist Stanton T. Friedman. Peterson and Friedman wanted to know the reasons for the redactions. Woolsey agreed to look into the matter. See Richard J. Warshaw, Executive Assistant, note to author, 1 November 1994; Warshaw, note to John H. Wright, Information and Privacy Coordinator, 31 January 1994; and Wright, memorandum to Executive Secretariat, 2 March 1994. (Except where noted, all citations to CIA records in this article are to the records collected for the 1994 Agency-wide search that are held by the Executive Assistant to the DCI).

(4) See Hector Quintanilla, Jr., "The Investigation of UFOs," Vol. 10, No. 4, Studies in Intelligence (fall 1966): pp.95-110 and CIA, unsigned memorandum, "Flying Saucers," 14 August 1952. See also Good, Above Top Secret, p. 253. During World War II, US pilots reported "foo fighters" (bright lights trailing US aircraft). Fearing they might be Japanese or German secret weapons, OSS investigated but could find no concrete evidence of enemy weapons and often filed such reports in the "crackpot" category. The OSS also investigated possible sightings of German V-1 and V-2 rockets before their operational use during the war. See Jacobs, UFO Controversy, p. 33. The Central Intelligence Group, the predecessor of the CIA, also monitored reports of "ghost rockets" in Sweden in 1946. See CIG, Intelligence Report, 9 April 1947.

(5) Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 156 and Quintanilla, "The Investigation of UFOs," p. 97.

(6) See US Air Force, Air Material Command, "Unidentified Aerial Objects: Project SIGN, no. F-TR 2274, IA, February 1949, Records of the US Air Force Commands, Activities and Organizations, Record Group 341, National Archives, Washington, DC.

(7) See US Air Force, Projects GRUDGE and BLUEBOOK Reports 1- 12 (Washington, DC; National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, 1968) and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, pp. 50-54.

(8) See Cabell, memorandum to Commanding Generals Major Air Commands, "Reporting of Information on Unconventional Aircraft," 8 September 1950 and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 65.

(9) See Air Force, Projects GRUDGE and BLUE BOOK and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 67.

(10) See Edward Tauss, memorandum for Deputy Assistant Director, SI, "Flying Saucers," 1 August 1952. See also United Kingdom, Report by the "Flying Saucer" Working Party, "Unidentified Flying Objects," no date (approximately 1950).

(11) See Dr. Stone, OSI, memorandum to Dr. Willard Machle, OSI, 15 March 1949 and Ralph L. Clark, Acting Assistant Director, OSI, memorandum for DDI, "Recent Sightings of Unexplained Objects," 29 July 1952.

(12) Stone, memorandum to Machle. See also Clark, memorandum for DDI, 29 July 1952.

(13) See Klass, UFOs, p. 15. For a brief review of the Washington sightings see Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 269-271.

(14) See Ralph L. Clark, Acting Assistant Director, OSI, memorandum to DDI Robert Amory, Jr., 29 July 1952. OSI and OCI were in the Directorate of Intelligence. Established in 1948, OSI served as the CIA's focal point for the analysis of foreign scientific and technological developments. In 1980, OSI was merged into the Office of Science and Weapons Research. The Office of Current Intelligence (OCI), established on 15 January 1951 was to provide all-source current intelligence to the President and the National Security Council.

(15) Tauss, memorandum for Deputy Assistant Director, SI (Philip Strong), 1 August 1952.

(16) On 2 January 1952, DCI Walter Bedell Smith created a Deputy Directorate for Intelligence (DDI) composed of six overt CIA organizations--OSI, OCI, Office of Collection and Dissemination, Office National Estimates, Office of Research and Reports, and the Office of Intelligence Coordination--to produce intelligence analysis for US policymakers.

(17) See Minutes of Branch Chief's Meeting, 11 August 1952.

(18) Smith expressed his opinions at a meeting in the DCI Conference Room attended by his top officers. See Deputy Chief, Requirements Staff, FI, memorandum for Deputy Director, Plans, "Flying Saucers," 20 August 1952, Directorate of Operations Records, Information Management Staff, Job 86-00538R, Box 1.

(19) See CIA memorandum, unsigned, "Flying Saucers," 11 August 1952.

(20) See CIA, memorandum, unsigned, "Flying Saucers," 14 August 1952.

(21) See CIA, memorandum, unsigned, "Flying Saucers," 19 August 1952.

(22) See Chadwell, memorandum for Smith, 17 September 1952 and 24 September 1952, "Flying Saucers." See also Chadwell, memorandum for DCI Smith, 2 October 1952 and Klass, UFOs, pp. 23-26.

(23) Chadwell, memorandum for DCI with attachments, 2 December 1952. See also Klass, UFOs, pp. 26-27 and Chadwell, memorandum, 25 November 1952.

(24) See Chadwell, memorandum, 25 November 1952 and Chadwell, memorandum, "Approval in Principle - External Research Project Concerned with Unidentified Flying Objects," no date. See also Philip G. Strong, OSI, memorandum for the record, "Meeting with Dr. Julius A. Stratton, Executive Vice President and Provost, MIT and Dr. Max Millikan, Director of CENIS." Strong believed that in order to undertake such a review they would need the full backing and support of DCI Smith.

(25) See Chadwell, memorandum for DCI, ""Unidentified Flying Objects," 2 December 1952. See also Chadwell, memorandum for Amory, DDI, "Approval in Principle - External Research Project Concerned with Unidentified Flying Objects," no date.

(26) The IAC was created in 1947 to serve as a coordinating body in establishing intelligence requirements. Chaired by the DCI, the IAC included representatives from the Department of State, the Army, the Air Force, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the FBI, and the AEC.

(27) See Klass, UFOs, p. 27.

(28) See Richard D. Drain, Acting Secretary, IAC, "Minutes of Meeting held in Director's Conference Room, Administration Building, CIA," 4 December 1952.

(29) See Chadwell, memorandum for the record, "British Activity in the Field of UFOs," 18 December 1952.

(30) See Chadwell, memorandum for DCI, "Consultants for Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects," 9 January 1953; Curtis Peebles, Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994). pp. 73-90; and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, pp. 91-92.

(31) See Fred C. Durant III, Report on the Robertson Panel Meeting, January 1953. Durant, on contract with OSI and a past president of the American Rocket Society, attended the Robertson panel meetings and wrote a summary of the proceedings.

(32) See Report of the Scientific Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects (the Robertson Report), 17 January 1953 and the Durant report on the panel discussions.

(33) See Robertson Report and Durant Report. See also Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 337-38, Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 95, and Klass, UFO's, pp. 28-29.

(34) See Reber, memorandum to IAC, 18 February 1953.

(35) See Chadwell, memorandum for DDI, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 10 February 1953; Chadwell, letter to Robertson, 28 January 1953; and Reber, memorandum for IAC, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 18 February 1953. On briefing the ONE, see Durant, memorandum for the record, "Briefing of ONE Board on Unidentified Flying Objects," 30 January 1953 and CIA Summary disseminated to the field, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 6 February 1953.

(36) See Chadwell, letter to Julius A. Stratton, Provost MIT, 27 January 1953.

(37) See Chadwell, memorandum for Chief, Physics and Electronics Division/OSI (Todos M. Odarenko), "Unidentified Flying Objects," 27 May 1953.

(38) See Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 3 July 1953. See also Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell, "Current Status of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) Project," 17 December 1953.

(39) See Odarenko, memorandum, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 8 August 1955.

(40) See FBIS, report, "Military Unconventional Aircraft," 18 August 1953 and various reports, "Military-Air, Unconventional Aircraft," 1953, 1954, 1955.

(41) Developed by the Canadian affiliate of Britain's A. V. Roe, Ltd., Project Y did produce a small-scale model that hovered a few feet off the ground. See Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell, "Flying Saucer Type of Planes" 25 May 1954; Frederic C. E. Oder, memorandum to Odarenko, "USAF Project Y," 21 May 1954; and Odarenko, T. M. Nordbeck, Ops/SI, and Sidney Graybeal, ASD/SI, memorandum for the record, "Intelligence Responsibilities for Non-Conventional Types of Air Vehicles," 14 June 1954.

(42) See Reuben Efron, memorandum, "Observation of Flying Object Near Baku," 13 October 1955; Scoville, memorandum for the record, "Interview with Senator Richard B. Russell," 27 October 1955; and Wilton E. Lexow, memorandum for information, "Reported Sighting of Unconventional Aircraft," 19 October 1955.

(43) See Lexow, memorandum for information, "Reported Sighting of Unconventional Aircraft," 19 October 1955. See also Frank C. Bolser, memorandum for George C. Miller, Deputy Chief, SAD/SI, "Possible Soviet Flying Saucers, Check On;" Lexow, memorandum, "Possible Soviet Flying Saucers, Follow Up On," 17 December 1954; Lexow, memorandum, "Possible Soviet Flying Saucers," 1 December 1954; and A. H. Sullivan, Jr., memorandum, "Possible Soviet Flying Saucers," 24 November 1954.

(44) See Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974 (Washington, DC: CIA History Staff, 1992), pp. 72-73.

(45) See Pedlow and Welzenbach, Overhead Reconnaissance, pp. 72-73. This also was confirmed in a telephone interview between the author and John Parongosky, 26 July 1994. Parongosky oversaw the day-to-day affairs of the OXCART program.

(46) See Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 135.

(47) See Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 128-146; Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (New York: Doubleday, 1956); Keyhoe, The Flying Saucer Conspiracy (New York: Holt, 1955); and Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, pp. 347-49.

(48) See Strong, letter to Lloyd W. Berkner; Strong, letter to Thorton Page; Strong, letter to Robertson; Strong, letter to Samuel Goudsmit; Strong, letter to Luis Alvarez, 20 December 1957; and Strong, memorandum for Major James F. Byrne, Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence Department of the Air Force, "Declassification of the `Report of the Scientific Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects,'" 20 December 1957. See also Berkner, letter to Strong, 20 November 1957 and Page, letter to Strong, 4 December 1957. The panel members were also reluctant to have their association with the Agency released.

(49) See Wilton E. Lexow, memorandum for the record, "Comments on Letters Dealing with Unidentified Flying Objects," 4 April 1958; J. S. Earman, letter to Major Lawrence J. Tacker, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Information Service, 4 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Berkner, 8 April 1958; Berkner, letter to Davidson, 18 April 1958; Berkner, letter to Strong, 21 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Tacker, 27 April 1958; Davidson, letter to Allen Dulles, 27 April 1958; Ruppelt, letter to Davidson, 7 May 1958; Strong, letter to Berkner, 8 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Berkner, 8 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Earman, 16 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Goudsmit, 18 May 1958; Davidson, letter to Page, 18 May 1958; and Tacker, letter to Davidson, 20 May 1958.

(50) See Lexow, memorandum for Chapin, 28 July 1958.

(51) See Good, Above Top Secret, pp. 346-47; Lexow, memorandum for the record, "Meeting with the Air Force Personnel Concerning Scientific Advisory Panel Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, dated 17 January 1953 (S)," 16 May 1958. See also La Rae L. Teel, Deputy Division Chief, ASD, memorandum for the record, "Meeting with Mr. Chapin on Replying to Leon Davidson's UFO Letter and Subsequent Telephone Conversation with Major Thacker, [sic]" 22 May 1958.

(52) See Edwin M. Ashcraft, Chief, Contact Division (Scientific), memorandum to Chief, Chicago Office, "Radio Code Recording," 4 March 1955 and Ashcraft, memorandum to Chief, Support Branch, OSI, 17 March 1955.

(53) The Contact Division was created to collect foreign intelligence information from sources within the United States. See the Directorate of Intelligence Historical Series, The Origin and Development of Contact Division, 11 July 1946 1 July 1965 (Washington, DC; CIA Historical Staff, June 1969).

(54) See George O. Forrest, Chief, Chicago Office, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division for Science, 11 March 1955.

(55) See Support Division (Connell), memorandum to Dewelt E. Walker, 25 April 1957.

(56) See J. Arnold Shaw, Assistant to the Director, letter to Davidson, 10 May 1957.

(57) See Support (Connell) memorandum to Lt. Col. V. Skakich, 27 August 1957 and Lamountain, memorandum to Support (Connell), 20 December 1957.

(58) See Lamountain, cable to Support (Connell), 31 July 1958.

(59) See Support (Connell) cable to Skakich, 3 October 1957 and Skakich, cable to Connell, 9 October 1957.

(60) See Skakich, cable to Connell, 9 October 1957.

(61) See R. P. B. Lohmann, memorandum for Chief, Contact Division, DO, 9 January 1958.

(62) See Support, cable to Skakich, 20 February 1958 and Connell (Support) cable to Lamountain, 19 December 1957.

(63) See Edwin M. Ashcraft, Chief, Contact Division, Office of Operations, memorandum for Austin Bricker, Jr., Assistant to the Director, "Inquiry by Major Donald E. Keyhoe on John Hazen's Association with the Agency," 22 January 1959.

(64) See John T. Hazen, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division, 12 December 1957. See also Ashcraft, memorandum to Cleveland Resident Agent, "Ralph E. Mayher," 20 December 1957. According to this memorandum, the photographs were viewed at "a high level and returned to us without comment." The Air Force held the original negatives. The CIA records were probably destroyed.

(65) The issue would resurface in the 1970s with the GSW FOIA court case.

(66) See Robert Amory, Jr., DDI, memorandum for Assistant Director/Scientific Intelligence, "Flying Saucers," 26 March 1956. See also Wallace R. Lamphire, Office of the Director, Planning and Coordination Staff, memorandum for Richard M. Bissell, Jr., "Unidentified Flying Saucers (UFO)," 11 June 1957; Philip Strong, memorandum for the Director, NPIC, "Reported Photography of Unidentified Flying Objects," 27 October 1958; Scoville, memorandum to Lawrence Houston, Legislative Counsel, "Reply to Honorable Joseph E. Garth," 12 July 1961; and Houston, letter to Garth, 13 July 1961.

(67) See, for example, Davidson, letter to Congressman Joseph Garth, 26 June 1961 and Carl Vinson, Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, letter to Rep. Robert A. Everett, 2 September 1964.

(68) See Maxwell W. Hunter, staff member, National Aeronautics and Space Council, Executive Office of the President, memorandum for Robert F. Parkard, Office of International Scientific Affairs, Department of State, "Thoughts on the Space Alien Race Question," 18 July 1963, File SP 16, Records of the Department of State, Record Group 59, National Archives. See also F. J. Sheridan, Chief, Washington Office, memorandum to Chief, Contact Division, "National Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP)," 25 January 1965.

(69) Chamberlain, memorandum for DCI, "Evaluation of UFOs," 26 January 1965.

(70) See Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 199 and US Air Force, Scientific Advisory Board, Ad Hoc Committee (O'Brien Committee) to Review Project BLUE BOOK, Special Report (Washington, DC: 1966). See also The New York Times, 14 August 1966, p. 70.

(71) See "Congress Reassured on Space Visits," The New York Times, 6 April 1966.

(72) Weber, letter to Col. Gerald E. Jorgensen, Chief, Community Relations Division, Office of Information, US Air Force, 15 August 1966. The Durant report was a detailed summary of the Robertson panel proceedings.

(73) See John Lear, "The Disputed CIA Document on UFOs," Saturday Review (September 3, 1966), p. 45. The Lear article was otherwise unsympathetic to UFO sightings and the possibility that extraterritorials were involved. The Air Force had been eager to provide Lear with the full report. See Walter L. Mackey, Executive Officer, memorandum for DCI, "Air Force Request to Declassify CIA Material on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO)," 1 September 1966.

(74) See Klass, UFOs, p. 40, Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 214 and Everet Clark, "Physicist Scores `Saucer Status,'" The New York Times, 21 October 1966. See also James E. McDonald, "Statement on Unidentified Flying Objects," submitted to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 29 July 1968.

(75) Condon is quoted in Walter Sullivan, "3 Aides Selected in Saucer Inquiry," The New York Times, 8 October 1966. See also "An Outspoken Scientist, Edward Uhler Condon," The New York Times, 8 October 1966. Condon, an outgoing, gruff scientist, had earlier become embroiled in a controversy with the House Unamerican Activities Committee that claimed Condon was "one of the weakest links in our atomic security." See also Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 169-195.

(76) See Lundahl, memorandum for DDI, 7 February 1967.

(77) See memorandum for the record, "Visit of Dr. Condon to NPIC, 20 February 1967," 23 February 1967. See also the analysis of the photographs in memorandum for Lundahl, "Photo Analysis of UFO Photography," 17 February 1967.

(78) See memorandum for the record, "UFO Briefing for Dr. Edward Condon, 5 May 1967," 8 May 1967 and attached "Guidelines to UFO Photographers and UFO Photographic Information Sheet." See also Condon Committee, Press Release, 1 May 1967 and Klass, UFOs, p. 41. The Zaneville photographs turned out to be a hoax.

(79) See Edward U. Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (New York: Bantam Books, 1969) and Klass, UFOs, p. 41. The report contained the Durant report with only minor deletions.

(80) See Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense, News Release, "Air Force to Terminate Project BLUEBOOK," 17 December 1969. The Air Force retired BLUEBOOK records to the USAF Archives at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. In 1976 the Air Force turned over all BLUEBOOK files to the National Archives and Records Administration, which made them available to the public without major restrictions. Some names have been withheld from the documents. See Klass, UFOs, p. 6.

(81) GSW was a small group of UFO buffs based in Phoenix, Arizona, and headed by William H. Spaulding.

(82) See Klass, UFOs, p. 8.

(83) See Wilson, letter to Spaulding, 26 March 1976 and GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859.

(84) GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859, p. 2.

(85) Author interview with Launie Ziebell, 23 June 1994 and author interview with OSI analyst, 21 July 1994. See also affidavits of George Owens, CIA Information and Privacy Act Coordinator; Karl H. Weber, OSI; Sidney D. Stembridge, Office of Security; and Rutledge P. Hazzard, DS&T; GSW v. CIA Civil Action Case 78-859 and Sayre Stevens, Deputy Director for National Foreign Assessment, memorandum for Thomas H. White, Assistant for Information, Information Review Committee, "FOIA Litigation Ground Saucer Watch," no date.

(86) See "CIA Papers Detail UFO Surveillance," The New York Times, 13 January 1979; Patrick Huyghe, "UFO Files: The Untold Story," The New York Times Magazine, 14 October 1979, p. 106; and Jerome Clark, "UFO Update," UFO Report, August 1979.

(87) Jerome Clark, "Latest UFO News Briefs From Around the World," UFO Update, August 1979 and GSW v. CIA Civil Action No. 78-859.

(88) See Wortman, memorandum for DCI Turner, "Your Question, `Are we in UFOs?' Annotated to The New York Times News Release Article," 18 January 1979.

(89) See GSW v. CIA Civil Action 78-859. See also Klass, UFOs, pp. 10-12.

(90) See John Brennan, memorandum for Richard Warshaw, Executive Assistant, DCI, "Requested Information on UFOs," 30 September 1993; Author interviews with OSWR analyst, 14 June 1994 and OSI analyst, 21 July 1994. This author found almost no documentation on Agency involvement with UFOs in the 1980s.

There is a DIA Psychic Center and the NSA studies parapsychology, that branch of psychology that deals with the investigation of such psychic phenomena as clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, and telepathy. The CIA reportedly is also a member of an Incident Response Team to investigate UFO landings, if one should occur. This team has never met. The lack of solid CIA documentation on Agency UFO-related activities in the 1980s leaves the entire issue somewhat murky for this period.

Much of the UFO literature presently focuses on contactees and abductees. See John E. Mack, Abduction, Human Encounters with Aliens (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1994) and Howard Blum, Out There (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990).

(91) See Charles Berlitz and William L. Moore, The Roswell Incident (New York: Berkeley Books, 1988); Moore, "The Roswell Incident: New Evidence in the Search for a Crashed UFO," (Burbank, California: Fair Witness Project, 1982), Publication Number 1201; and Klass, UFOs, pp. 280-281. In 1994 Congressman Steven H. Schiff (R-NM) called for an official study of the Roswell incident. The GAO is conducting a separate investigation of the incident. The CIA is not involved in the investigation. See Klass, UFOs, pp. 279-281; John H. Wright, Information and Privacy Coordinator, letter to Derek Skreen, 20 September 1993; and OSWR analyst interview. See also the made-for-TV film, Roswell, which appeared on cable TV on 31 July 1994 and Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 245-251.

(92) See John Diamond, "Air Force Probes 1947 UFO Claim Findings Are Down to Earth," 9 September 1994, Associated Press release; William J. Broad, "Wreckage of a `Spaceship': Of This Earth (and U.S.)," The New York Times, 18 September 1994, p. 1; and USAF Col. Richard L. Weaver and 1st Lt. James McAndrew, The Roswell Report, Fact Versus Fiction in New Mexico Desert (Washington, DC: GPO, 1995).

(93) See Good, Above Top Secret; Moore and S. T. Friedman, "Philip Klass and MJ-12: What are the Facts," (Burbank California: Fair-Witness Project, 1988), Publication Number 1290; Klass, "New Evidence of MJ-12 Hoax," Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 14 (Winter 1990); and Moore and Jaime H. Shandera, The MJ-12 Documents: An Analytical Report (Burbank, California: Fair-Witness Project, 1990), Publication Number 1500. Walter Bedell Smith supposedly replaced Forrestal on 1 August 1950 following Forrestal's death. All members listed were deceased when the MJ-12 "documents" surfaced in 1984. See Peebles, Watch the Skies, pp. 258-268.

Dr. Larry Bland, editor of The George C. Marshall Papers, discovered that one of the so-called Majestic-12 documents was a complete fraud. It contained the exact same language as a letter from Marshall to Presidential candidate Thomas Dewey regarding the "Magic" intercepts in 1944. The dates and names had been altered and "Magic" changed to "Majic." Moreover, it was a photocopy, not an original. No original MJ-12 documents have ever surfaced. Telephone conversation between the author and Bland, 29 August 1994.
If you missed it, go check Note #75 (about Condon being targeted by the HUAC). This should give a little background on the source (and, in intelligence parlance, "lower the confidence" in the Condon Report). Note that clearance is vital to a nuclear scientist...

Even after the HUAC was discredited, there would still be a residual stain on Condon, a stigma if you will. Years after the fact, then, Condon would be a prime candidate to tap for the Air Force's report, knowing that if he plays ball in the public eye, he can "redeem himself" and make life easier. I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's what occurs to me and the possibility of compromise has to be considered.

...See Note #90.
Interesting, eh?

...On note #93, it's interesting to, well, note that Haines doesn't mention that the FBI conducted an investigation into the MJ-12 documents in 1988. The investigation was declassified in 1991 and Haines' essay was released some 6 years later. It seems like it would've been a juicy tidbit.

At issue was whether the MJ-12 docs were ever properly declassified (even though they were over 35 years old at the time). Their investigation took 3 years and was released in redacted form (http://foia.fbi.gov/majestic/majestic.pdf) (pdf). Summary: the MJ-12 documents were completely bogus. That made it a non-issue (though it's still damned interesting to read, especially the FBI notes after the supposed MJ-12 document). Note the FBI knows how to release redacted docs – as images (no cutting and pasting to find what's behind the redaction).

I tend to believe the FBI on this one, though it does make you wonder: what if they were real? What would you do if you had to protect sensitive, ongoing programs and this issue bubbled up? The information is already out, you can't take it back. If that were the case, I would've done exactly what the FBI did: discredit the documents, make it a non-issue and let the information become tailored disinformation.

...Unfortunately, that doesn't do much to give peace of mind does it? :D