Descripción

Air Force The UFO Problem 1968

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR UNIVERSITY
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE AL 36112,5001

October 16, 1992

HQ AU/IMD
50 LeMay Plaza South
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6334

 

This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act request of September
14, 1992, for a copy of the «Thesis Submitted to the Air Command and Staff
College of Air University …» entitled «The UFO Problem: Time for a
Reassessment» by J. King, Major, USAF, dated June 1968.

The requested document is releasable and a copy is attached. there is no
charge for the document.

Sincerely

/s/ Lucy P. McInnis

LUCY P. McINNIS 1 Atch
Chief, Records Management Division Copy of Thesis
Directorate of Information Management

 

 

Strength Through Knowledge
—————————————————————————

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE

 

THE UFO PROBLEM: TIME FOR A REASSESSMENT

by

John R.King, FR 47113, 1930-
Major, USAF

 

 

A Thesis Submitted to the Air and Staff College of
Air University in Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements for Graduation

 

June 1968

Thesis directed by Dale E. Downing, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF
No. 0670-68

 

AIR UNIVERSITY

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA

—————————————————————————

ABSTRACT

 

The debate centered around whether or not UFOs are
extraterrestrial space vehicles, or whether they exist
at all, has raged for many years. During the course of
the debate the United States Air Force, official govern-
ment agency responsible for UFO report evaluation, has
been subjected to severe criticism for the manner in
which it has handled this problem. This paper presents
the positions of the critics, outlined the Air Force re-
sponse and general approach to the subject and concludes
that the Air Force has performed ineptly. Recommendations
are made for the future conduct of UFO investigations.

 

 

ii
—————————————————————————

PREFACE

Anyone attempting a discussion of the UFO problem
must present his scientific/technological credentials
to the reader. Failure to present some assurance that
things scientific and technological are not totally be-
yond the comprehension of the writer exposes the writer
to possible dismissal as untrained and/or unreliable.

The writer of this paper presents the following:

Occupation: Active duty Air Force officer with over
fourteen years service.

Academic Experience: Scientific. Chemistry, Biology,
Botany, mathematics. Baccalaureate degree
in Geology, University of Cincinnati, 1953.
Member, Sigma Gamma Epsilon national geology
honorary fraternity.

Civilian Experience: Soils technician, The H. C. Nutting
Company, General Engineering Testing, Cin-
cinnati, Ohio.

Air Force Experience: Technical officer. Communications-
cs operation, maintenance. Radar
site selection. Project Officer, Minuteman
System program Office, in charge of develop-
ment and aquisition of minuteman II Ground
Electronics System (Launch Control and Sta-
tus Monitoring System – digital data).

 

iii

—————————————————————————

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Psychology of the Times
The Antagonists and the Bewildered
Formalities of the Approach to the Subject
The Plan

II. THE POSITION SPECTRUM AND SALIENT CHARACTERISTIC .. 9

The Ultra Group (Hostile)
The Ultra Group (Benevolent)
The Normal Believers
The Converts
The Neutrals
The Non-Believers

III. THE AIR FORCE AND UFOS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Past Performance
The Current Situation

IV. THE IMPLICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Political
Sociological
Military

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . 91

FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

iv
—————————————————————————
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Psychology of the Times

We have not yet arrived at the point in our culture
where it is in vogue to believe in flying saucers. On
the contrary, if one suggests that these machines might
exist, and that we need to look at the problem objective-
ly, he frequently meets with a not so subtle change in
the topic of conversation. Why is this so?
Within the last twenty years, Man has discovered
that through his conscious efforts he can improve his
material lot in marvelous ways. He no longer waits for
accidental discoveries to take place. Rather, he active-
ly searches out answers in the physical sciences and con-
verts these discoveries into tangible and practical materi-
al things for the good of humanity. The general advance-
ment of what is known as technology is attributed to
scientists, to the scientific method, and to the pragma-
tism of the laboratory. The accomplishments in technolo-
gy have been so impressive that scientists and things sci-
entific have assumed an aura almost of infallibility.

1
—————————————————————————

We are living in a pragmatic society. However, one
detects a curious thing about all this objectivity. There
has been built up almost a cult of allegiance to, and un-
questioned confidence in, the scientist of today. the
high priests are the coldly objective scientists, who
«prove» truth and falsity in mathematical formulae and
in laboratory demonstration. Their ability to do this
in many areas has been quite convincing. This success
has in large measure been responsible for the commonly
heard statements, «It’s not scientific,» or, «Science
has proven that…etc.» Science is looked upon as the
authority. However, people forget that some of the mis-
conceptions of mankind have been shared with, or even
caused by, the scientists of the times. The concept of
the flat Earth and the concept of the Earth as the cen-
ter of the universe were concepts commonly held by the
scientists and people of the times. We today hold dif-
ferent views about the nature of the Earth. Hopefully
we are closer to the truth. It must be remembered that
every succeeding generation has modified the scientific
«truths» of past generations. No generation should be
so brash as to think that it has once and for all deter-
mined the ultimate in scientific truth.

2
—————————————————————————

Man continues to be egocentric and arrogant about
his status in the universe. he has a tendency to be-
come resentful and confused when he is confronted with
a problem which he feels may be beyond his capacity.
Scientists have developed what is known as the scienti-
fic method. This approach to a problem includes as one
of its precepts testing of hypotheses. This testing
places emphasis on demonstrations perceivable to the
five obvious senses. The scientific community until re-
cently has looked askance at any attempt to include ad-
ditional senses to the human inventory. Science has been
using the five senses as the intellectual base for support-
ing or refuting hypotheses. the scientific method has been
sacrosanct. To challenge its adequacy has been heretical.
Then along came things like psychic phenomena: clair-
voyance, clairaudience, precognition, apportation, psychic
surgery. In some scientific circles this must have been
traumatic. Psychic attributes are not included in the
five standard senses. Immediately some scientists set
about to prove that demonstrations of psychic powers were
either fraudulent or could be explained in terms of the
five senses. Others refused to discuss the topic at all.
Some of the open-minded scientists started to do what

3
—————————————————————————

True objectivity demands: investigate, on the assump-
tion that these powers may in fact exist, and may war-
rant a change in the established order of things. Out-
of-hand rejection based on ignorance appears to be more
human than scientific. These scientists who decided that
psychic phenomena deserved investigation have been sub-
jected to the scoffings and ridicule of the «stable»
scientific community to the extent that much investiga-
tion has had to be conducted clandestinely and anonymous-
ly to preserve scientific reputation. Today, investiga-
tions into psychic phenomena do not carry the paralyz-
ing stigma of the past, but the existence of psychic
senses is still not universally accepted.
The writer’s point is that objectivity may be sub-
ject to various definitions, depending on how closely
this objectivity conforms to the norms of the times.
It appears to be much easier to be objective about any
given «fact» or theory if the «fact» or theory fits neat-
ly into the body of information currently accepted as
valid. A «fact» or theory which fits may be taken almost
as prima facie proof of itself. On the other hand, if
some piece of information turns up which runs counter to
current thought, which is unscientific, or which shakes
the egocentricity of the scientific community or Man
himself, then that piece of information or theory meets

4
—————————————————————————

with particular non-objecvtivity. man finds it extreme-
ly difficult to accept or even to objectively investi-
gate anything which threatens to shatter his emotional
equanimity or his high regard for himself.

The Antagonists and the Bewildered

It is not at all surprising that the UFO debate has
frequently become charged with emotion. It contains
within it many of the characteristics of the Earth-as-
the-center-of-the-universe debate; it is probably viewed
by some in the scientific community as a threat to their
reputation of near-omniscience; it carries implications
of the highest import to Man’s status and future. The
idea of the existence of UFOs ( and the corollary that they
are operated by intelligent beings who are extraterrestrial)
is emotionally difficult for Man to contemplate. A large
section of society probably wishes that the problem would
go away. The writer feels that, at least subconsciously,
this wishful thinking has pervaded what is claimed to be
an objective investigation. Currently the debate is con-
centrated on what constitutes valid proof and evidence.
The non-believers insist on physical, «scientific» proof
and evidence. they are adamant. The believers maintain
that there is already ample evidence, which should be

5
—————————————————————————

accepted by the non-believers. But among the believers
are those who have taken up positions so far away from
the norm that they have earned nothing but the scorn and
ridicule of the non-believers. These believers have serv-
ed the non-believers well, because it is in the far out
literature that monsters, little green men and ray guns
appear, and the non-believers can point to this litera-
ture as they make their sweeping statements about the
mental condition of believers. And so the debate rages.

Formalities of the Approach to the Subject

The Problem: To investigate the bases for the op-
posing positions taken in the existence of extraterrestri-
al unidentified flying objects in order to determine the
validity of the predominantly negatively oriented position
of the U.S. AIr Force.
The Major Objective: To determine the advisability
of a modification in the Air Force’s public relations
approach to the subject of UFOs.
The Specific Objectives:
– To identify the various camps which are study-
ing the UFO problem and to characterize their attitudes
and consider their arguments.

6
—————————————————————————

– To weigh the divergent positions.
– To assess the political, sociological and
military implications contained in the UFO
debate.
– To analyze the advisability of the current
Air Force approach to the UFO problem in
view of the implications.

Research Limitations: Research will be limited to
source materials available in the Montgomery, Alabama,
area, with the possible exception of written or tele-
phonic contact with Air Force Project Blue Book person-
nel and special project personnel at the University of
Colorado.

Assumptions:
That: –
– The Air Force will not modify its approach
to the problem prior to the completion
of this paper.
– Physical evidence of the type acceptable
to the Air Force will not be re-
ceived prior to the completion of this paper.
– Cognizance over UFO matters will not be
removed from the Department of the Air Force.

7
—————————————————————————

The Plan

In succeeding chapters the author will review the
various schools of thought of the believers, will pre-
sent their respective stands, and will present the types
of evidence offered by each school. He will also present
the position of the non-believers and of the U.S. Air
Force. An analysis will be made of the opposing and non-
committal positions, with an attempt to present the salient
points of each position. In the closing chapters, some
of the debate will be explored, and certain conclusions
drawn and recommendations made for consideration by the
Air Force.

8
—————————————————————————

CHAPTER II

THE POSITION SPECTRUM AND

SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS

The Arena

In the UFO debate there are many shades of opinion,
from the ultra-liberal to the ultra-conservative, with
a graduation of opinion between these two extremes. As
is usual in a debate with high emotional content, and
on a subject with such profound implications, the most
vociferous are to be found at the extremes, with the
middle ground pleading for objectivity on the one hand
and open-mindedness on the other.
Diagrammatically, the position spectrum might be de-
picted as follows. The diagram indicates the names of
the principal spokesmen for the respective positions.
There is no absolute line of demarcation between the con-
tiguous positions of the believers. However, there are
in each group certain rather clearly identifiable central
traits which do not appear as major traits in the other
groups. These key characteristics have been used by the
author as the basis for the position spectrum.

9
——————————————————————————

The Position Spectrum

————–The Family of Believers————— Neutral Non-Beliver

Ultra group Ultra group Normal Converts
(Hostile) (benevolent) Believers

Barker,G. Adamsky,G. Aime’, M. (USAF) – – – USAF – – – – USAF

Edwards,F. Bethurum,T. Girvan,W. Hynek,J. Fuller,J. Airman mag.

Kent,M. Fry,G. Hall,R. Ruppelt,E. Jung,C. Menzel,D.

Steiger,R. Leslie,D. Keyhoe,D. Look mag. Project
Blue Book
Williamson,G. Lorenzen,C. Quintanilla Tacker,L.

Skully,F. Simon,B. Von Braun,W.

Vallee,J. Sagan, C.

Young,M. Time mag.
University—-University
of of
Colorado Colorado

Note: Dashes for USAF, Qunintanilla/Project Blue Book and University of
Colorado indicates that the position is either not clear or tends to
vacillate

10

<<< CUFON Note: original has dashed line between «Qunintanilla» and Project >>>
<<< Blue Book. Original diagram is turned 90 degrees. >>>
——————————————————————————

The Family of Believers

Although there are differences of opinion in some
areas, all groups in the family of believers have cer-
tain characteristics in common. Among these are:
– A belief in the existence of UFOs as extrater-
restrially originating space vehicles controlled by in-
telligent beings.
– Enthusiasm and active attempts through personal
contacts and published material to persuade the popu-
lace that UFOs do exist.
– A general contempt towards the investigative ef-
fort of the USAF and towards its official pronouncements
and findings. This contempt of the USAF effort is the
most important single unifying factor within the camp
of the believers and presents itself to the Air Force
As a common position.
The Ultra Group (Hostile). Although this group is
smaller than the group which believes that space visitors
are benevolent, the members of this group will neverthe-
less be heard. The literature of this group contains
claims of hostile actions by space beings. Hostility
in this context includes instances of death and injury
supposedly related to UFO appearances, abductions, the
appearance of monster-like beings, reconnaissance of

11
—————————————————————————

defense installations, harassment of aircraft and auto-
mobiles, power blackouts, imminent invasion of the world
and other happenings which purportedly take place because
of the basic hostility of the space beings towards Man. [1]
It is this group which publishes the sensational, alarmist
material so often seen at the news stands. The emphasis
is on the threat to mankind. It is claimed that the space
beings have mastered space travel and are using this know-
ledge to menace the Earth. the inference is that the space
beings are sub-humans who are morally and spiritually de-
generate.
Usually the books of this group are of the paperback
type and deal with only one or two alleged incidents of
hostile action on the part of space beings. the writing
is usually not of the highest caliber, and the depth of
thought and of analysis leaves much to be desired. In
addition, care is usually taken by the authors to conceal
the identity of the person or persons involved. [2] This
prevents any reader from pursuing independent investiga-
tion. While this prevents a reader from confirming the
story, it likewise protects the author from exposure. Be-
cause of the sensationalism, the concealment of the identi-
ty of the principals involved, the shallow treatment of the
subject and the general alarmist approach, the credibili-
ty and qualifications of the authors is subject to question.

12
—————————————————————————
One suspects commercial motives in the bulk of this type
of literature
Nevertheless, one does find a few works which are
serious attempts to warn of the malevolent nature of at
least some of the space beings. [3] In any serious investi-
gation of a problem all factors and approaches should be
considered. For this reason, claims of hostile actions
must be considered and not rejected out of hand.
What are hostile actions/ For the purpose of this
paper, hostile actions are defined as actions which re-
sult in the death or injury of human beings and actions
which disrupt the normal flow of human activity in a
manner antagonistic to human interests. There are in
the literature many examples of hostile actions on the
part of space beings: death of two South AMerican tech-
nologists, [4] death of Capt. Mantell (USAF), [5] disappear-
ance of U.S. aircraft, [6] injury to a scout master in
Florida, [7] abduction of a South American farmer, [8] abduc-
tion of Mr. and Mrs. Barney Hill, [9] the appearance of a
monster-like being in Virginia, [10] reconnaissance of de-
fense installations, [11] harassment of aircraft and auto-
mobiles, [12] power blackouts [13] and actions which purported-
ly indicate preparations for an invasion of the Earth. [14]

13
—————————————————————————
members of the group claiming hostility on the part
of space beings take the ominous approach. In addition
to citing examples of distasteful contact with space
beings, they also claim suppressive actions on the part
of mysterious representatives of space societies, and
even threatening visits by individuals who, in the opin-
ion of the visitee, represent such agencies as the CIA,
FBI and clandestine US government agencies. [15] It is
claimed that these visitors issue threats to UFO investi-
gators to terminate their investigations immediately.
It is claimed that the reason for such government interven-
tion is that the implications in the existence of extra-
terrestrial beings are so serious that the government
does not want their existence proved to the public. [16]
The subject of implications is treated in chapter IV of
this paper. Suffice it to say at this point that the
implications are serious enough that the rationale for
suppression is not altogether unreasonable.
Those who claim hostile intent share the burden of proof is
upon them. As with the other camps, the hostile group
has no convincing hardware-type evidence. The evidence

14
—————————————————————————
is circumstantial. Conclusions are drawn from the frame
of reference of the observer. For example, if an indi-
vidual suffers temporary paralysis caused by some action
on the part of a space being, he, as a human being , may
consider this to be undesirable and a hostile act. This
is a subjective conclusion drawn from an act which in it-
self contains no malevolent or benevolent connotation.
In this example, consider that paralysis may likewise be
a beneficial condition to prevent death or injury to the
observer by keeping him a safe distance from harm. The
same rationale can be used for the death, injury, abduc-
tion and reconnaissance incidents cited in the literature.
these acts could be considered benevolent or neutral in
intent as well as malevolent. For this reason, the author
has found that hostile type literature is more interesting
from the standpoint of description of the incident than
from the conclusions drawn. The account of the abduction
of Mr. and Mrs. Barney Hill is one of the most compelling
report in the literature and is highly recommended to in-
terested readers. [17] While such an abduction would admit-
tedly be very unnerving to the abducted, the incident
caused no harm, if one can discount the possible long term
psychological effect of the experience on the Hills.

15
—————————————————————————
In summary, the proponents of hostility tend towards
sensationalism, address only specific cases without re-
gard to the general context, are rather superficial in
their treatment, may conceal the identity od the prin-
cipals and draw conclusions concerning intent which do
not necessarily follow from the incidents. On the other
hand, some of the points made worthy of consideration,
especially those which relate to implications.

The Ultra Group (Benevolent). this group is charac-
terized by claims of periodic personal contact with saucer
beings, trips in flying saucers to other planets, tours
of exotic cities on other planets and discussions with
extraterrestrial beings concerning their way of life, at-
titudes, philosophies and reasons for contact with the
Earth. As a general rule, the extraterrestrial beings
described by this group are similar to Man in physical
characteristics, but of much higher order of intelli-
gence. The space beings are technologically, morally,
and spiritually for advanced and either directly or through
implication attempt to allow Man that he, too, can attain
this higher degree of development. The space beings are
benevolent and urge the spiritual approach to life. [18] They
have a fraternal attitude towards Man. Their visits to
Earth occur either as a part of programmed visits to

16
—————————————————————————
various parts of space for educational or recreational
purposes or specifically for the purpose of enlighten-
ing Man. In addition, there is some concern with Man’s
experimentation with nuclear energy, since atmospheric
detonations modify the lines of magnetic force around
the Earth sufficiently to cause an imbalance of the mag-
netic relationships within the solar system. [19] this dis-
turbs the space beings for at least four reasons: They
use magnetic forces for power for their space ships; [20]
they use magnetic lines of force for navigation; [21] they
do not want to see the planet Earth significantly altered,
since this would cause an imbalance within the solar sys-
tem; and they feel that Man has within himself the poten-
tial for spiritual development, which would suffer re-
gression in the event of world nuclear suicide. [22] So,
the interest of the space beings in humanity is one of
self interest in addition to the more compelling desire
to see Man advance spiritually. It is claimed that through-
out the history of Man the space beings have taken an
interest in the spiritual development of Man. [23] Propo-
nents of the benevolent approach cite many cases of con-
tact between Man and the space beings throughout history.
Classic examples of such contacts, supposedly not proper-
ly recognized, are the miracle at Fatima [24] and Ezekiel and

17
—————————————————————————
the wheel. [25] The cloud by day and fire by night which
guided Moses on his journey out of Egypt is also claimed
to have been a space ship. [26]
the general approach of the benevolent space beings
is to discuss problems of humanity in very broad terms.
Concepts of love for fellow man, cooperation, pursuit
of things spiritual, a downgrading of material wealth….
all these topics are discussed by the space beings with
select Earth beings. The message is that Man’s value
system is in error and that pursuit of his present way
of life is contrary to the universal plan nd prejudi-
cial to Man’s further spiritual enlightenment. Mastery
od space travel, telepathic communication, reception and
display of images three-dimensionally and in color as
exact reproductions of the original, electromagnetic
transmission or power….all these technologies and abi-
lities are presented as only natural consequences of high-
er spiritual development. [27] It is pointed out that Man
does not yet recognize that relationship which exists be-
tween the spiritual and the material and therefore strug-
gles along in his feeble efforts to advance his technolo-
gy without truly understanding what he is doing. The
point is made that Man will continue to ponder the «whys»
in his scientific investigations until he has reached the

18
—————————————————————————
point in his spiritual development where he will be able
to comprehend the interrelationship between the spiritual
and the material, and be able to use this understanding
to further his interests, which he will recognize as spiri-
tual.
Although the emphasis is on the spiritual shortcomings
of Man, as a matter of course during these discussions the
Earth contactee is treated to tours of space vehicles and
contacts with space beings. [28] the space people are usual-
ly described as being similar to Man in stature, facial
features, skeletal structure, etc., but of superior intel-
ligence and ethical development….soft spoken, kind,
gentile, polite and with a radiance which comes from super-
ior spiritual development.
The most convincing writers in this group present
comprehensive, lucid, logical, literate writings in the
highest ethical tradition. Students of philosophy,
world religions, occult sciences and the Bible will find
that the purported statements if the space beings are in
consonance with the major religious beliefs of Man. Ac-
cording to authors of this group, the space beings have
long ago recognized the universal truths scattered through-
out all Earth religions and have been able to synthesize
these truths into an ethic which they live in their daily

19
—————————————————————————
lives. This recognition of and adherence to the Truth
gives the space beings individual powers which we consider
supernatural, but which they claim derive as a natural
result of spiritual development.
Here again, the evidence presented by this group is
not physical. That is, they do not present pieces of
apace ships or other tangible items. They ask us to be-
lieve their accounts on face value because the contacts
did in fact occur as written. In some cases the author
presents affidavits warranting the truth of the story or
has signed statements by the witnesses. [29] Affidavits not-
withstanding, many in contemporary society will find the
spiritual approach to be too rarified to accept and will
continue to insist on physical evidence as the only accept-
able scientific proof.

The Normal Believers. The author has included the
word «normal» in identifying this group because its member-
ship is composed of individuals who would be considered
rational human beings, as opposed to cult-oriented, by
the uninitiated. The Normal Believers are, nevertheless,
believers. As such, they still are targets for the non-
believers, but are not subjected to the intensely sarcas-
tic criticism reserved for the Ultra Believers. The Normal
Believers are convinced that UFOs exist and urge a serious,

20
—————————————————————————
methodical approach to investigating UFO incidents.
In addition, they feel that some attempt should be made
to understand the extraterrestrials: to try to determine
the reasons for their Earth visits.
This group takes an approach acceptable to modern
society. That is, their approach is pragmatic, practi-
cal and in consonance with the scientific method. It is
this group which shows an objective approach to the prob-
lem while at the same time vigorously urging a serious
investigation into the UFO phenomenon.
The emphasis in this group is on establishing for the
populace that UFOs do exist. the interest of this group
is in feasibility, technology and the establishment of
motive or intent. Their general approach is documentation
of sightings, description of incidents, establishment of
witness credibility and sincere requests for a thorough
and methodical investigation.
The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Pheno-
mena (NICAP) is the single best representative organization
for this group. It consists of respected and «normal»
members of society who are specialists in fields such as
the physical sciences, the humanities, psychology, etc.
In addition to members and consultants in the Washington,
D.C. area, the location of the home office, NICAP has

21
—————————————————————————
qualified regional representatives who are on call to
respond to reports of sightings in their respective
geographical areas. Reports of sightings are investi-
gated promptly and documented much in the same format
as is recommended by the Air Force. [30] The NICAP report,
«The UFO Evidence,» is an excellent example of the object-
ive, thorough approach of NICAP. The report consists
of complete reports of sightings: diagrams of space ve-
hicles as sighted, statements on color, size, shape,
maneuvers, direction of movement, etc. Most impressive
are the paragraphs on witnesses. NICAP has collected
sightings from diverse individuals whose testimony can-
not be lightly dismissed. reports come from airline
pilots, technical people and a host of other men, women
and children, either as individual or group witnesses
to sightings. many sighting reports come from indivi-
duals who were skeptics prior to their personal involve-
ment in a sighting. NICAP is thoroughly convincing in
pointing out that UFO sightingg do not only come from
UFO cultists, but come from random sources and from people
of various educational levels and occupations. In one
section of the report there is a table showing compari-
sons of UFO shapes, size, color, maneuvers, etc. The
reader is immediately struck with the consistency in

22
—————————————————————————
characteristics which is apparent among re-
ported at different locations and at different periods
of time by different witnesses. However, these consis-
tencies are apparent not only within the NICAP report
but appear throughout the literature, whether the UFO
is supposedly benevolent, malevolent or neutral. (Ap-
pendix A to this paper describes those characteristics
of UFO sightings most commonly reported throughout the
literature.)
The Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO)
is another organization which uses a «rational» approach,
but organizational discipline appears not to be as re-
fined as NICAP’s. Hover, in addition to being rela-
tively objective, the APRO periodical publication enables
a reader to learn of recent sightings in the world short-
ly after they are reported to APRO. [31]
lest it be assumed that the Normal Believers are all
members of one or the other of the above cited organiza-
tions, the author offers the following examples of the
types of statements which come from independent techni-
cal people:

– Dr. Herman Oberth, noted German rocket expert:
These objects are conceived and directed by intel-
ligent beings of a very high order. They probably
do not originate in our solar system, perhaps not
even in our galaxy. [32]

23
—————————————————————————
– Dr. James E. MacDonald, professor of meteorology at
the University of Arizona and senior physicist at the
Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Tucson:

(UFOs) are probably extraterrestrial vehicles
engaged in something of the nature of a recon-
naissance operation. (This conclusion is) the
least unsatisfactory hypothesis for accounting
for the fascinating array of UFO phenomena that
are now on record. [33]

– from the noted psychoanalyst, Dr. Carl Jung, after
he tried to explain UFOs as a psychic manifestation:

Unfortunately, however, there are good reasons
why the UFOs cannot be disposed of in this simple
manner. It remains an established fact, supported
by numerous observation, that UFOs have not only
been seen visually but have also been picked up
on the radar screen and have left traces on the
photographic plate. It boils down to nothing less
than this: that either psychic projections throw
back a radar echo, or else the appearance of real
objects affords an opportunity for mythological
projections. [34]

– Dr. Leo Sprinkle, professor of psychology at the
University of Wyoming, after having seen «something in
the sky, round and metallic looking:»

«…from a personal viewpoint, I am pretty well
convinced that we are being surveyed.» [35]

Perhaps the key characteristic of the Normal Believers
is their belief that the whole issue of the existence of
UFOs is being suppressed by the Air Force. this allega-
tion is dealt with more fully in Chapter III. There are
various reasons given for this alleged suppression, but
the most popular are the impotence of NORAD against UFOs

24
—————————————————————————
and orders given to the Air Force to debunk UFOs to
prevent mass hysteria among the populace. [36] The Normal
Believers argue that to ignore a reality is to take an
ostrich-like approach to the problem, and furthermore,
the populace would be able to cope woth the realization
that UFOs exist without hysteria. It is claimed that
the Ir Force knows UFOs exist, protestations to the
contrary notwithstanding. SO, the Normal Believers
persist in their efforts to establish the existence of
UFOs. That a congressional hearing on UFOs took place
in 1966 largely because of the pressures of this group
attests to its influence. [37]

The Converts. Those who have been neutrals, skeptics
or outright non-believers but who have eventually sided
with the Believers have been placed in this category.
This group, although relatively small, contains indivi-
duals who speak persuasively, its members having been
at one time in the neutral or negative camp. In addi-
tion, the top level converts have been, or are present-
ly, officially connected with the U.S. Air Force inves-
tigation of UFOs.
The author places in this category Edward J. Ruppelt
(formerly Capt. Ruppelt, chief of Project Blue Book,
1951-1953), and Dr. J. Allen Hynek, (director of Dearborn

25
—————————————————————————
Observatory, director of the Lindheimer Astronomical
Research Center, Chairman of Department of Astronomy
at Northwestern University and consultant to the USAF on
the UFO problem since 1948.) ____ of the understandable
characteristics of this group is the tendency to issue
ambiguous or ambivalent public statements on the sub-
ject of UFOs which st__ _____ t the speaker to
maneuver in response to diverse external pressures.
Their official and public relationship to the Air Force
investigation most likely causes these investigators to
assume this relatively safe, non-commital, fence-sit-
ting position. However, the difference between the pub-
lic position and the private position can be rather easi-
ly detected by the serious researcher.
Let us look at a few of the statements of Captain
Ruppelt and Dr. Hynek as exemplifying this sometimes
subtle shift from non-belief or skepticism to belief.
Capt. Ruppelt (deceased) was the chief of the Air Force’s
Project Blue Book, the project charged with the resonsi-
bility for investigating UFO reports, from 1951 until 1953.
During the course of his tenure in this position, he and
his staff studied over 4500 reports of UFOs. All reports
were subjected to military intelligence analysis proce-
dures. they were analyzed through consultations with

26
—————————————————————————
astronomers, physicists, aerodynamic engineers and
psychologists in the course of the Air Force investiga-
tions. [38] After his release from the Air Force, Captain
Ruppelt wrote a now famous book about these investiga-
tions entitled «The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.» [39]
The following statements by Capt. Ruppelt appear in
the Book.

I know the full story about flying saucers and
I know it has never before been told… [40]

Personally, I don’t believe that «It can’t be.»
I wouldn’t class myself as a «believer» exactly,
because I’ve seen too many UFO reports that first
appeared to be unexplainable fall to pieces when
they were thoroughly investigated. But every time
I begin to get skeptical I think of the other re-
ports, the many report made by experienced pilots
and radar operators, scientists, and other people
who knew what they are looking at. These reports
were thoroughly investigated and they are still
unknowns. Of these reports, the radar-visual
sightings are the most convincing. When a ground
radar picks up a UFO target and a ground obser-
ver sees a light where the radar target is loca-
ted, then a jet interceptor is scrambled at inter-
cept the UFO and the pilot also sees the light
and gets a radar lock on only to have the UFO
almost impudently outdistance him, there is no
simple answer. We have no aircraft on this earth
that can at will so handily outdistance our
latest jets. [41]

What constitutes proof? Does a UFO have to land
at the River Entrance to the Pentagon near the
Joint Chiefs of Staff offices? Or is it proof
when a ground radar station detects a UFO, sends
a jet to intercept it, the jet pilot sees it, and
locks on with his radar, only to have the UFO
streak away at a phenomenal speed? Is it proof
when a jet pilot fires at a UFO and sticks to his
story even under the threat of Court Marshal? Does
this constitute proof? [42]

27
—————————————————————————
Maybe the final proven answer will be that
all of the UFOs that have been reported are
merely misidentified known objects. Or may-
be the pilots, radar specialists, gene-
rals, industrialists, scientists, and the man
on the street who have told me, «I wouldn’t
have believed it either if I hadn’t seen it
myself,» knew what they were talking about.
maybe the Earth is being visited by inter-
planetary space ships. [43]

The reader asks himself, «What does Capt. Ruppelt,
the former chief of Project Blue Book, really think about
the reality or non-reality of the existence of UFOs»
This writer suggests that Ruppelt’s personal beliefs
are rather thinly disguised, if at all.
Dr. Hynek, the present consultant to the Air Force
in UFO matters, makes statements similar in approach
to Ruppelt’s. The following are examples. For the
congressional record, Dr. Hynek made the following
statement:

During this entire period of nearly twenty
years I have attempted to remain as open-
minded in this subject as circumstances per-
mitted, this despite the fact that the whole
subject seemed utterly ridiculous, and many
of us firmly believed that, like some fad or
craze, it would subside in a matter of months. [44]

In a well known magazine, Dr. Hynek made this statement:

In 1948, I was asked by the U.S. Air Force
to serve as a scientific consultant on the
increasing number of reports of strange
lights in the sky. I was then Director of
the Astronomical Observatory of Ohio State
University, and am now the Chairman of the
Astronomy Department at Northwestern. I had

28
—————————————————————————
scarcely heard of UFOs in 1948 and, like
every other scientist I knew, assumed
that they were nonsense. [45]

Hynek’s early skepticism and caution is further reveal-
ed in this statement:

It has come to my attention rather force-
ably through correspondence and personal
contact, that many of my colleagues in
various fields are more than just a little
interested in the «natives», although they
might well disclaim this interest if chal-
lenged. I certainly would not have expres-
sed openly any such interest had I not been
asked to do so officially many years ago,
first under Project Sign and later under
Project Blue Book. [46]

The shift from skepticism to cautious urging that the
subject of UFOs be taken seriously can be seen in the
following statements:

Despite the seeming inanity of the subject,
I felt that I would be derelict in my scien-
tific responsibility to the Air Force if I
did not point out that the whole UFO pheno-
menon might have aspects to it worthy of
scientific attention. [47]

All of this increased my own concern and
sense of persona; responsibility,. and moti-
vated me to urge the initiation of a meaning-
ful scientific investigation of the UFO pheno-
menon be physical and social scientists. I
had guardedly raised this suggestion in the
past and at various official hearings, but
with little success. UFO was a term that
called forth buffoonery and caustic
banter precisely because scientists paid no
attention to the raw data – the reports them-
selves. [48]

29
—————————————————————————
Still, on the average, if several pilots
and/or poicemen concur on the main points
of the story, particularly if the duration
of their experience was long enough (a mat-
ter of minutes rather than seconds) to have
brought their judgement into play, it is
difficult to brush aside their seemingly
hardheaded testimony. And when one gets
reports from scientists, engineers and tech-
nicians whose credibility by all common
standards is high and whose moral caliber
seems to preclude a hoax, one can do no less
than hear them out, in all seriousness. [49]

As a scientist, I must be mindful of the
lessons of the past; all too often it has
happened that matters of great value to
science were overlooked because the new
phenomenon simply did not fit the accepted
scientific outlook of the time. [50]

I cannot dismiss the UFO phenomenon with a
shrug. I have begun to feel that there is
a tendency in 20th Century science to for-
get that there will be a 21st Century science,
and indeed a 30th Century science, from which
vantage points our knowledge of the universe
may appear quite different than it does to us.
We suffer, perhaps, from temporal provincial-
ism, a form of arrogance that has always ir-
ritated posterity. [51]

Referring to a methodical investigatiuon which he proposes,
Dr. Hynek says the following:

Admittedly, I will be surprised if an intensive,
year long study yields nothing. To the contrary,
I think thatr mankind may be in for the greatest
adventure since dawning human intelligence turned
outward to contemplate the universe. [52]

This writer feels that the foregoing statements need no
commentary. It is to be remembered that the statements
come from a man who has been officially connected with
the UFO problem since 1948 and has been privy to most,
if at all, of the data officially reported, in addition

30
—————————————————————————
to having been personally involved in many of the
investigations.

The Neutrals. This group consists of that segment
of the population which has no opinion in the UFO de-
bate, either through personal choice or because of pro-
fessional constraint. Within this large group are con-
tained the astronomers, biologists and other scientists
who speak of the possibility of intelligent life else-
whe5re in the universe, but who are non-committal about
the existence of UFOs. The U.S. Air Force is a member
of the neutral group, at least officially. the Air
Force position is a perplexing one. Al;though the Air
Force has attempted to show officaial neutrality and
objectivity in the UFO debate, it has in reality vacil-
lateed between belief and non-belief, all the while try-
ing to give the impression of neutrality. A reader of
official Air Force pronouncements is left with the prob-
lem of determining for himself what the position is, if
in fact there is a position, since he may read official
Air Force statements which are pro-UFO, neutral, and
anti-UFO. This problem will be discussed at length in
Chapter III of this paper.
Of interest are the statements made by various mem-
bers of the sceintific community relative to the possibi-
lity of the existence of life elsewhere in the universe.

31
—————————————————————————
It is acknowledged that it would not necessarily fol-
low that UFOs exist as vehicles controlled by some extra-
terrestrial intelligence even if it could be proven that
life does in fact exist elsewhere. However, it appears
that the UFO believers would derive a certain degree of
support and the positive UFO position would gain increased
credibility if it could be demonstrated that life exists
elsewhere, since it is assumed that «intelligence» pre-
sumes some type of living form.
Dr. Carl Sagan (Department of Astronomy, Harvard
University; Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,
Cambridge, Massachusetts; and advisor to the armed
services on extraterrestrial life) has this to say:

It now seems quite clear that Earth is not the
only inhabited planet. there is evidence that
the bulk of the stars in the sky have planbetary
systems. recent research concerning the origin
of life on Earth suggests that the physical and
chemical processes leading to the origin of life
occur rapidly in the early history of the major-
ity of planets. The selective value of intelli-
gence and technical civilization is obvious, and
it seems likely that a large number of planets
within our Milky Way galaxy – – perhaps as many
as a million – – are inhabited by technical civi-
lizations in advance of our own. Interstellar
space flight is far beyond our present technical
capabilities, but there seems to be no fundamen-
tal physical objections to preclude, from our own van-
tage point, the possibility of its deveopment
by other civilizations. [53]

In 1962, in an address to the convention of the American
Rocket Society in Los Angeles, Dr. Carl Sagan said that mankind

32
—————————————————————————
must be preapared to face the possibility that the Earth
has already been visited by intelligent beings from
elsewhere in the universe, and that they have, or have
had, bases on the far side of the moon. [54]
Another astronomer, Dr. Jesse Greenstein, staff
member of Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories and
professor of astrophysics at the California Institute
of Technology says:

Fascinating problems of the future will be
concerned with life and intelligence on other
worlds beyond the realm of physical science.
We must try to understand things much more
difficult than the universe, such as future
discoveries of life and intelligence somewhere
out there. [55]

Certain competent lay members of society will also
be heard. One such individual is John G. Fuller, a
journalist recently turned free-lance UFO investigator,
and the author of «Incident at Exeter» [56] and «The Inter-
upted Journey.» [57] Both these works are examples of
objective reportage. Mr. Fuller has added significant-
ly to the UFO literature with his moderate approach.
In «Incident at Exeter» Mr. Fuller very carefully
documents the sighting at Exeter, New Hampshire, in
September 1965. The documentation is exhaustive, con-
taining numerous interviews with people who were wit-
nesses to the sighting, containing a detailed explanation

33
—————————————————————————
of the approach taken by Mr. Fuller, and containing a
detailed discussion of the many factors and situations
surrounding that particular sighting. Incidentally,
Mr. Fuller quotes Frank B. Salisbury, of the Department
of Botany and Plant Pathology of Colorado State Univer-
sity, as having said:

I must admit that any favorable mention of
the flying saucers by a scientist amounts
to extreme heresay and places the one making
the statement in danger of excommunication
by the scientific theocracy. Nevertheless,
in recent years I have investigated the story
of the unidentified flying object (UFO), and
I am no longer able to dismiss the idea light-
ly. [58]

Although Mr. Fuller does not specifically state that he
is convinced that UFOs of extraterrestrial origin exist,
his concluding statements in «Incident at Exeter» are com-
pelling in their appael for release by the government of
any information which it may be withholding and for a
scientific investigagtion an a major scale.
In «The Interrupted Journey», Mr. Fuller once more
meticulously documents the experience of Mr. and Mrs.
Barney Hill in connection with their alleged abduction
by space beings. This account is anything but frivo-
lous, and does not contain the science fiction sensa-
tionalism which one might expect. It is a report of the
circumstances surrounding the abduction as revealed

34
—————————————————————————
independently by Mr. and Mrs. Hill to Dr. Benjamin
Simon, M.D., under rigidly controlled hypnosis. The
book is in large part made up of the transcript of
the tape recorded interviews between Dr, Simon and
Mr. and Mrs. Hill while the Hills were under hypnosis.
Appropriate professional commentary by Dr. Simon is
included. «The Interrupted Journey» raises many trouble-
some questions about the existence of UFOs, the motives
of the space beings (if the in fact exist), and what
the experience which the Hills apparently had portends
for the future of Man.
Of recent, we have seen the entry of the mass news
media into the UFO debate in a posititon of neutrality.
Numerous articles have appeared recently in «reputable»
newspapers and magazine in the form of editorials and
special features, and scientific journals have carried
a few articles on UFOs. There has been a significant
change in the approach that the mass circulation publi-
cations have taken. Whereas early articles were usual-
ly derisively written as human interest stories, replete
with appropriate references to green men, the more recent
articles seriously raise the question of the existence
of UFOs. [59] This change in attitude may be attributable

35
—————————————————————————
to the generally more permissive outlook which the pub-
lic has recently taken. the approach taken by mass media
publications seems to reflect quite accurately the atti-
tudes of the general populace at any particular point in
time.
Those in the neutral camp have made a most signi-
ficant contribution to the UFO debate: they have brought
the subject to the attention of the general public quth-
out taking sides. they have in effect assured the public
that the subject of UFOs can be discussed in public. It
appears that as long as UFO articles did not appear in
mass media in serious form the general public was reluc-
tant to broach the subject for fear of ridicule. Once
the newspapers and magazines began to address the subject
with some seriousness, they seemed to signal to the faint
hearted that it was now all right to discuss the subject.
Popular interest and discussion in a society responsive
to public opinion is usually a precursor of official
action.
One might say in summary that the Neutrals view the
UFO debate from a position which allows them interest
without involvement. It is a position which is politi-
cally equivoacl and more or less professionally safe.

36
—————————————————————————
The Non-Believers

The spectrum for Non-Believers is less definite
than for the Believers, and the author has chosen to
place all Non-Believers in a common category. There
have been, and continue to be, a few spokesmen for the
Non-Believer group, but the output of literature for
this group is quantitatively far below that of the
various believer groups. Generally, the Non-Believer
literature has as its main objective the debunking of
believers, the challenging of witnesses to UFO incidents,
and attempts to demonstrate «scientifically» that UFOs
do not exist. the usual approach is to cite examples
wherein a UFO sighting has been definitely identified
as some neutral or man-made phenomenon or object, and
then by analogy to extrapolate that particular solution
to unresolved cases.
Characteristically, the Non-Believer literature
contains shallow argument, irrelevancies, faulty anal-
ogy and a failure at address knotty cases of UFO sight-
ings without rebuttal in specific or convincing terms.
The author has personally encountered many cases
of non-belief in which the NonBeliever has had little
or no knowledge of the specifics of the debate and of

37
—————————————————————————
the evidence and has merely «felt» that UFOs do not
exist. In these instances, the position of non-belief
is probably taken out of a combination of ignorance
and the desire to be considered normal, conventional
and stable.
Within the anti-UFO group there are various shades
of non-belief: from the doubting to the absolutely in-
transigent. But regardless of the degree of non-belief,
the Non-Believers use «rationality» as a common approach.
That is, they explain sightings in terms of what Man
today considers acceptable as defined by the scientific
method. This group feels that all instances of UFO
sightings can be explained «rationally» as man-made ob-
jects or misinterpretations of natural phenomena, or
mental aberration, or hoax. Even in instances in which
they are at a loss to propose an explanation they are
confident that the explanation lies in one of the cate-
ories cited. they do not deny that many people have
seen what they consider to be UFOs; they say that these
observers are mistaken in their observations and that
what was truly seen was some «rationally» explainable
object or phenomenon. this group will not entertain
the idea that UFOs are extraterrestrial space vehicles.

38
—————————————————————————
The usual approach is to cite examples of positive
identification of something sighted as man-made or
natural and then to attempt to use that particular
example as a plausible explanation for those sightings
categorized as unknown.
The literature of the Non-Believers becomes at times
as caustic about the subject as that of the Believers.
One of the prime weapons of this rational, science-orient-
ed group ridicule. Dr. Hynek, scientist-tuened-con-
vert, properly points out that «ridicule is not a part
of the Scientific Method and the public should not be
taught that it is.» [60]
The attempts by the Non-Believers to explain UFOs
in terms of natural phenomena and mistaken identity is
exhaustive. Let us look at some examples of the approach]
taken as exemplified by the writings of Dr. Donald
Menzel, [61] Professor of Astrophysics at Harvard University,
and Lt. Col. Lawrence J. Tacker, USAF. [62] Both these
writers are placed by the author in the category of in-
transigent Non-Believers and, as such, may not truly
represent the more moderate Non-Believers. However
both Menzel and Tacker are quoted profusely in most of
the Non-Believer literature as authorities – Menzel re-
presenting science and Tacker representing the United
States Air Force.

39
—————————————————————————
Dr. Menzel, in his «Flying Saucers'» [63] sets the general
tone of the book in his first sentence: «Throughout the
ages, apparitions of one kind or another have plagued the
human race.» On page 6 of the same book,. menzel states
that «Flying saucers are real – as real as a rainbow,
and no more dangerous.» From that departure point he
goes on throughout the book to describe how various natur-
al phenomena in the sky behave. he implies in most cases
that UFOs can be accounted for in large measure by these
celectial phenomena. He describes the behavior and ap-
pearance of the setting sun, comets and meteors, solar
halos, mock suns, ice crystals, lenses of air, mirages,
refraction, aurora borealis and conditions causing radar
anomalies. These discussions are very interesting, but
the reader is left to his own resources to try to match
these descriptions of natural phenomena to specific UFO
sightings. In those few instances in which Menzel arrempts
to relate these phenomena to sightings, he does so very
briefly and almost as if he were anxious to move on to
his next topic.
As an example: beginning on page twelve of the cited
work, and continuing through page seventeen, Menzel re-
peats several reports made by pilots in connection with
sightings. The reports are by pilots of Eastern Airlines,

40
—————————————————————————
Mid-Continent Airlines, Lt. George F. Gorman (ANG) and
others. After describibg the various encounters, Menzel
comments only on the Gorman incident. After describibg
«fireball fighter» (foo fighter) cases experienced in
World War II, he extrapolates the observation to the
Gorman case with, «to my mind, the similarity of Gorman’s
object to the foo fighters seems entirely reasonable.» [64]
He gives no specifics and no analysis. He asks us to
accept this as an explanation because it «seems reason-
able to him. Once having established in this manner
that the explanation lies in foo fighters, Menzel then
incorporates this conclusions into the statement, «I
think Gorman was right when he stated that the foo
fighter seemed to be controlled by thought. However,
the thought that controlled it was his own.» [65] Gorman
did not say the object was a foo fighter. [66] Menzel
does not say how he arrived at the conclusion that the
object was controlled by Gorman’s thought; he just comes
to that conclusion. Lest the reader question the logic
of Menzel’s conclusions, he says, «We may not be able to
account for every detail; the impressions of the obser-
ver are hazy and leave many gaps.» [67]
Menzel goes on in the same vein in his attempt to
explain some of the sightings reported throughout history,

41
—————————————————————————
and dispose od Ezekiel’s wheel as a misinterpretation
of a complex solar halo. [68] In like manner, the classic
Lubbock lights case is explained: [69]

. . . a low, thin layer of haze or smoke re-
flected the lights of a distant house or some
other multiple source. The haze must have been
inconspicuous to the eye, because Tombaugh com-
ments on the unusual clarity of the sky. [70]

Capt. Ruppelt comments thus on the Lubbock lights case:

When four college professors, a geologist,a
chemist, a physicist and a petroleum engineer
report seeing the same UFOs on fourteen differ-
ent occasions, the event can be classified as,
at least, unusual. Add the fact that hundreds
of other people saw these UFOs and that they
were photographed, and the story gets even bet-
ter. Add a few more facts – that these UFOs were
picked up on radar and that a few people got a
close look at one of them, and the story begins
to convince even the most ardent skeptic. [71]

Apparently, Menzel was not convinced. In Menzel’s dis-
cussion of radar there is no explanation as to how radar
picks up light reflections.
The above examples illustrate the type of logic used
by Menzel. The approach is one typical of the Non-Believ-
er group. In Menzel’s case, one gets the feeling almost
of desperation. He has so long resisted the idea of UFOs
as space vehicles, has attacked so amny of the Believers,
becoming the champion of many of the Non-Believers, that
he has placed himself in the uncomfortable position of not
being able to gracefully extricate himself from his un-
yielding position. he, himself, best illustrates his

42
—————————————————————————
intransigence and closed mind with these words:

It would be absolutely impossible for an ob-
ject of such a shape to veer or maneuver as
reported. And there is no possible way that
such an object could be immune to the high
resistance of the Earth’s atmosphere at its
reported speeds of movement. [72]

It would appear that the use of the words «impossible»
and «no possible way» is presumtuous and not character-
istic of the inquisitiveness and open-mindedness desir-
able in a scientific investigator.
Another widely quoted Non-Believer is Lt. Col.
Lawrence J. Tacker, a former chief of Public Information,
Headquarters, USAF. He published a book in 1960 titled
«Flying Saucers and the U.S. Air Force.» [73] This book has
been a key publication in the UFO debate. It is used
by the Non-Believers for official support of their po-
sition. Tcaker takes generally the same approach as
Menzel in that he attempts to demonstrate that UFOs are
cases of mistaken identity of man-made or natural objects
and phenomena. Tacker devotes a large part of the book
to assuring the populace that the Air Force is not with-
holding UFO information, a charge constantly levied
against the Air Force by all Believer groups. In Tacker’s
book one encounters what might be called the demented-by-
reason-of-association technique, or the oblique ridicule
method. Also, one encounters false logic in the Melzelian
pattern.

43
—————————————————————————
Let us briefly look at some examples of Tacker’s
approach.
The foreword to the book is by General Thomas D. White,
Chief of Staff of the Air Force at the time. Gen. White
explains that the Air Force is responsible for the air
defense of the United States He goes on to say that
the Air Force is in charge of UFO investigations. The
last two sentences of the statement are subject to quest-
ion if they are based on Tacker’s arguments. These state-
ments are:

1. «. . . all unidentified flying object
sightings are investigated in meticulous
detail by Air Force personnel and quali-
fied scientific consultants.»

2. «So far, not a single bit of material
evidence of the existence of spaceships
has been found.»

In his book, Tacker uses an approach which seems to contra-
dict the first statement about meticulous Air Force investi-
gation. The second statement should have added to it the
words «as far as the Air Force is concerned.» Another
interesting thing about the second statement is that it
illustrates to some degree the ambivalence or equivoca-
tion of so many of the official pronouncements. It will
be noted that the statement does not say that spaceships
do not exist; it merely implies that they do not exist. What
this sentence does is lead the careless reader to a false

44
—————————————————————————
conclusion while at the same time preserving an escape
opportunity, semantically, if the existence of UFOs is
«proven» at some later date. In itself, it may appear
to be a sincere statement, but in the context of the
debate it is evasive.
In his opening chapter, Tacker gives an account of
a sighting near the Hawaiian Islands on 11 July 1959.
This was a sighting reported by five separate observers,
all airline pilots: one from Slick Airways, one from
Empress Airlines, one from United Airlines and two from
Pan American – all reporting the same object. Although
each report varies in some of the specifics, these com-
mon observations were made: very bright lights in a clear
sky, moving at high speed and making a sharp (90 degree)
turn in flight at high speed. Tacker then goes into
some general information about meteors and fireballs
and disposees of this sighting by saying that the opinion
of the Air Technical Intelligence Center was that the
object was a fireball, and that they felt that all ob-
sevvers had seen this same meteor. [74] It should be noted
here that Tacker uses the same device as Menzel, in that
he tries first to establish in the mind of the reader
what the object was and then, using his conclusion, he
incorporates that conclusion into a subsequent statement.

45
—————————————————————————
At the end of this particular narrative, Tacker makes
a footnote comment that he used poetic license in report-
ing this incident, for dramatic effect, and also, that
this narrative «proves» the «fact» that even highly
trained observers can be mystified by what they have
seen. [75]
After dealing with several other sightings, Tacker
closes his third chapter with, «And so it goes. Sight-
ings come in from all over the world from various types
of individuals, with the great majority of sightings
logically explained after objective investigation.
Certainly the experience gained over the last 13 years
points up to the fact that flying saucers are not space
craft from other worlds but, rather, represent con
ventional objects or aerial phenomena seen under con-
fusing conditions.»
Another interesting statement by Tacker appears on
page 47 of his book:

The Air Force emphasizes the belief that if
more immediate detailed objective observation-
al data could have been obtained on the unex-
plained flying saucer sightings in its files,
these too would have been satisfactorily ex-
plained as conventional objects or some form
of aerial phenomena.

Another example of Tacker’s logic is illustrated in
a letter, dated 15 November 1960, which he sent to

46
—————————————————————————
Coral Lorenzen, of the Aerial Phenomena Research Organi-
zation (APRO), and which deals with the famous Trinidade
Island sighting. [76] In his letter Tacker quotes a state-
ment by the Brazilian Navy Ministry, which reads in part,

. . . . This Ministry has no motive to im-
pede the release of photographs of the re-
ferred to object taken by Mr. Almiro Barauna,
who was at the Trinidade Island at the invitation
of the Navy, and in the presence of a large
number of the crew of the ALMIRANTE SALDANHA from
whose deck the photographs were taken. Clear-
ly, this Ministry will not be able to make any
pronouncement concerning the object seen be-
cause the photographs do not constitute suf-
ficient proof for such purpose.

Tacker then says,

This official statement of the Brazilian Navy
Ministry clearly indicates the fact that the
photographs were of no value in proving or
disproving the existence of flying saucers
as space ships. I trust this clarifies any
misunderstanding you may have had concerning
this sighting and the Air Force Conclusion
that it was a hoax.

Let us consider these statements. The Brazilian Navy
Ministry refers to an «object.» They say that
the photographs were taken in the presence of «a large
number of the crew.» They go on to say that the photo-
graphs «do not constitute sufficient proof» to allow
them to rule on what the object was. Tacker’s logic
leads him on to say that «clearly» the photographs
were of no value in proving or disproving the existence
of flying saucers as space ships. The Brazillian Navy

47
—————————————————————————
Ministry did not say this. They said thta the photo-
graphs did not constitute sufficient proof to enable
them to make a pronouncement. In addition, Tacker
qualifies his statement about the existence of fly-
ing saucers by adding. «as space ships.» So, he does
not say that Mr. Barauna and the crew didi not see a
flying saucer. The final twist of logic comes in the
last sentence when Tacker says that the Air Force has
concluded that the whole thing was a hoax.
Mrs. Lorenzen discusses the processing and analysis of Mr.
Barauna’s film in Chapter XI of her book, «The Great
Flying Saucer Hoax.» [77] She says that the film was pro-
cessed immediately after the photos were taken, and that
the processing was witnesses by several of the officers
of the ship, and that the negatives were viewed by the
entire crew of the ship immediately after processing.
She says that the negatives were sent to Cruzeiro do Sul
Aerophotogrammetric Service, where they were analyzed.
The laboratory determined that they were genuine. If this
is true, then this causes one to wonder on what basis
the Air Force has declared this sighting a hoax.
These brief examples illustrate the approach taken
by Lt. Col. Tacker and Dr. Menzel. A was pointed out
earlier. Menzel and Tacker are not in the moderate Non-
Believer camp, but they have become champions of this

48
—————————————————————————
group and are widely quoted as the scientific and of-
ficial authority by the Non_believer group. Some of
the explanations for sightings presented by this group
are easy to accept within the framework of the scienti-
fic method. There is no question that a portion of the
sightings arew indeed misinterpretations or hoaxes. The
Non-Believers cite several cases of sightings which have
been definitely identified as misinterpretations, and
they substantiate these cases. Also, there have been
several cases in which individuals have admitted perpe-
trating a hoax. However, it does not follow that because
some cases can be demonstrated to be misinterpretations
or hoaxes that all sightings can be explained in these
terms. It is most difficult to reconcile many sightings
as reported by reputable and qualified observers with
the explanantions proposed by the Non-Believers.
This group has been severe in its debunking of
witnesses and has incurred the wrath and disgust of
many. The Non-Believers should remember that, while
the Believers must demonstrate that UFOs exist, the
Non-Believers must demonstrate that they do not. the
crux of the debate lies in the definition of acceptable
and valid evidence.

49
—————————————————————————
Summary

very generally, these are the participants in the
UFO debate, which goes on interminably. Unfortunately,
the Air Force is caught in the cross-fire as the Believ-
ers debate the intent of the space beings, the Non-Be-
lievers try to discount the whole subject, and the
Neutrals and Converts plead for level-headed investi-
gation. The Air Force response to, and involvement in,
the UFO debate will be discussed in the next chapter.

Some Observations

Of recent, there seems to be a general shift in
attitude, frequently quite subtle, on the question
of UFOs. Reputable scientists issue statements from
time to time which do not reflect as negative as ap-
proach as they have borne heretofore. There appears
to be among the populace less reluctance to consider
the possibility, at least, of the existence of UFOs.
The shift may be attributable, in part, to advancing
space technology, to more and more sightings by repu-
table individuals and groups, to more photographic
evidence and to a general feeling that there may be
something to the UFO debate if the Air Force has asked
the University of Colorado to study the problem.

50
—————————————————————————

CHAPTER III

THE AIR FORCE AND UFOs

It can be seen from the foregoing discussion that
there is diversity of opinion in the UFO debate. The
populace at large looks to the Air Force as the author-
ity and is apparently willing to accept official Air
Force explanations. The Air Force position on the exist-
ence of UFOs is as follows:

To date, the firm conclusions of project Blue
Book are:
1. No unidentified flyinf object re-
ported, investigated and evaluated by the Air
Force has ever given any indication of threat
to our national security.

2. There has been no evidence sub-
mitted to or discovered by the Air Force that
sightings categorized as UNIDENTIFIED repre-
sent technological developments or principles
beyond the rangee of present day scientific
knowledge.

3. There has been no evidence indi-
cating that sightings categorized as UNIDENTI-
FIED are extraterrestrial vehicles. [1]

The challenge to this Air Force position comes from
those who have studied the UFO problem in some detail
and includes individuals who have been associated with
the Air Force investigation.

51
—————————————————————————
Past Performance

From the very beginning of the current UFO debate,
which is defined as the way Mr. Arnold reported objects
which appeared to him like «flying saucers,» the Air
Force was off to a bad start. [2] Dr. Hynek at that time
suggested that Mr. Arnold’s «saucers» were some type of
known aircraft. Based on Kenneth Arnold’s sighting, and
the interest it generated across the nation, the Air
Force became officially involved with UFOs. [3]
The early years were devoted to investigation of
specific cases and to the development of an organiza-
tion to handle the problem. The pattern for official
Air Force pronouncements seems to have been established
in 1952 when a panel of consultants recommended that the
«Air Force take immediate steps to strip the unidenti-
fied flying objects of the special status and the aura
of mystery they had unfortunately acquired.» [4] The Air
Force has from that time very consistently followed this
advice. One could get the feeling that at no time has
the Air Force been really seriously interested in the UFO
problem. As Tacker states, «The Air Force’s interest,
or program, was born or, one might say, evolved from
necessity.» [5] In this case, necessity could be understood
to mean necessity to quell the public clamor which followed

52
—————————————————————————
Arnold’s sighting. So, one might say that the Air Force
was peressured by public opinion into doing something.
Dr. Hynek, the Air Force’s special consultant on
UFOs, says this about Air Force interest in UFOs in 1948:

. . . The Wright-Patterson group usually con-
sisted only of a captain, who headed the team,
one other officer, a sergeant, and myself as
occasional consultant. The fact that the com-
manding officer was a captain indicates the ex-
tent of the Air Force’s concern for this inves-
tigation. [6]

Since 1948 there has been little change in the staf-
fing of this management office. Today, a major heads the
office, he has a lieutenant, a staff sergeant and a secre-
tary to assist him. However, it must be recognized that
this is a central staff only. Major Quintanilla is assist-
ed in investigation and evaluation by various consultants
and by the Air Force officers located at Air Force bases.
The writer of this paper has serious reservations about the
competence of the officers delegated the duty of acting as
investigating officers at Air Force bases. Although it is
recognized that generalities may not be valid, this writer
was apalled at the ignorance of one such officer who was
interviewed by the writer. He had his equipment: camera,
compass, binoculars, etc., but knew little about what he
was supposed to investigate. He had not read any of the
UFO literature, did not know any of the background of the UFO

53
—————————————————————————
debate, except what had been briefed to him in grossly
general terms, and did not know of the existence of
NICAP, which he referred to as «nightcap» in his brief-
ing notes.
Even if one attributes exceptional competence to
the central Blue Book staff, the grade structure and
paucity of numbers could be interpreted by sensitive
individuals as an indication that the Air Force does
not take the UFO problem seriously and maintains the
Blue Book office to assuage the sensibilities of
the public.
Admittedly, the Air Force is in a difficult posi-
tion. They must try to maintain objectivity; they must
be relatively conservative and operate within the frame-
work of the scientific method as presently defined; they
must consider the effects of their pronouncements on the
American Public, bot the man-at-large and the scienti-
fic community; they must insure that their pronounce-
ments on the are in consonance with natioal policy….and they
must be able to reconcile these constraints with the truth.
In cases where the truth and the constraints are not
compatible, something must be sacrificed. It goes with-
out saying that any official pressure on the Air Force,
an agency of the government, can be quite effective. If

54
—————————————————————————
these pressures dictates that only partial truths be
told, then the Air Force has only three options:
tell that partial truth as best it can, refuse to
comply, or refuse to say anything. The Air Force,
as the official agency for UFO investigations, can-
not remain silent, and it is not realistic to think
that the Air Force is in a position to refuse the
«guidance» of higher authority. This leaves the last
option: tread the hazardous path of partial truth,
ambivalence, ambiguity and vagueness. This, of course,
may be the best path from a national standpoint, in
view of the implications, but organizations like NICAP
and APRO are not satisfied with this approach and con-
stantly remind the Air Force of their displeasure through
publications, letters to the Air Force and agitation
among various congressmen and senators.
A serious investigator of the UFO problem cannot
believe that the AIr Force is satisfied with its solu-
tions. This presumes that the investigations are carried
out with competence. One begins to appreciate the dilemma
of the Air Force when one sonsiders that Captain Ruppelt
spent two years as the chief of Project Blue Book but did
not publish his book until 1956, after leaving the Air
Force. The question could be asked, «Why was the infor-
mation contained in Ruppelt’s book not published as an

55
—————————————————————————
official Blue Book report while he was in charge of the
UFO investigation? Ruppelt speaks his mind in his book.
Why did he not say what he had to say while he was hold-
ing his official position? Was it because he was official-
ly constrained? Tacker has this to say in a rather obvious
reference to Ruppelt:

. . . It is conceivable that some person
or persons associated with the Air Force
program were personally convinced that
flying saucers might be real and could
be interplanetary spaceships.

If this statement is with reference to Ruppelt, it is
indeed astounding. Was it not Ruppelt’s job to make an
evaluation? If not, what was his function as chief?
Was Ruppelt the Air Force’s expert on UFOs? If not,
was he incompetent? If he was incompetent, why did the
Air Force accept his reports during his tenure as chief?
Does a change from active duty to civillian life
change a man’s basic competence? If Ruppelt held the
views which he espouses in his book during his tenure
as chief, why did he not make these views publically known?
Questions such as these are elementary. Unfortunately,
throughout this whole UFO debate the Air Force’s answers
to questions such as these have shown remarkable inept-
itude. In cases in which the Air Force has attempted to
answer such questions, ineptitude has only compounded the

56
—————————————————————————
problem, because the Believers immediately have taken
the Air Force to task. In an effort to clarify and
explain what it really meant, the Air Force has clari-
fied itself into even greater problems by trying to ex-
plain the logic on which the initial statement was based.
As an example of how the Air Force gets into a posi-
tion from which it has difficulty extricating itself,
the writer of this paper has selected at random just
one case from among the almost innumerable cases which
would just as well illustrate the point. This case also
illustrates the problem of credibility, the question of
the thoroughness of Air Force investigations, the prob-
lem of inconsistency, the problem of carelessness and the
problem of community relations. This particular case
has been widely commented on in the UFO literature and
has caused considerable consternation as to the Air Force
approach.
The sighting occurred on January 11, 1966, at
Wanaque, New Jersey. [8] The sighting was witnessed by
entire communities. At the Wanaque reservoir, over
which the UFO hovered for two hours, the police had to
set up traffic controls to handle the volume of pede-
strians and automobiles which converged on the reservoir.
Among the witnesses were the mayor of Wanaque, a city

57
—————————————————————————
councilman, various police officers and the general
public. The UFO hovered over the reservoir from
6:20 PM until 8:58 PM. It was observed with the naked
eye and through binoculars. It was described as a bright
disk between two and nine feet in diameter, silent, and
playing a bright light an the surface of the ice on the
reservoir. Its speed in flight was described as about
1000 MPH as it moved up and down the reservoir (6 miles).
The light was white, changed to green, and at times the
white light had a red fringe. The UFO came to within
twenty feet of the surface of the ice. Those are the
essential elements of the sighting.
This sighting was reported immediately to the near-
est Air force bases (Stewart AFB, N.Y. and McGuire AFB,
N.J.). Stewart Air Base reported no military aircraft
in the area. Later, McGuire Air Base said that the UFO
was a weather balloon which was launched from Kennedy
International Airport. A weather observer at Patterson,
N.J. then said that the UFO might be the planet Venus
or an aircraft. Then Stewart Air Base said that an Air
Force helicopter with a powerful beacon had been on a
mission in the area. McGuire then called the local police
and rescinded their balloon explanation. A Major Sherman

58
—————————————————————————
then called from Stewart Air Base and denied the earlire
Stewart explanation of the helicopter. he said that there
were no aircraft from Stewart in the area. This call took
place after several aircraft were seen over the reservior.
The next day, the Pentagon announced that the UFO was a
helicopter witha powerful beacon. Shortly thereafter,
Wright-Patterson made the announcement that the UFO could
be attributed to the planets Venus and Jupiter and an
Air Force Helicopter.
This narrative need little comment. If one tries
to reconcile the sighting as reported by many witnesses
at any of the explanations offered, there are sever-
al things left unexplained. The inconsistencies in the
official statements are obvious. Of interest is the
matter of the aircraft in the area. There are many cases
in the literature in which it is claimed that the Air
Force has denied dispatching aircraft to investigate,
even though these aircraft have been seen in the UFO
area. As for the object itself and the official explan-
ation, one would question a disc-shaped object able to
move up and down the reservoir silently at 1000 MPH as
a helicopter, a planet, or a weather balloon. How were
these explanations arrived at without an on-the-spot
official observer? If the Air Force did not know what

59
—————————————————————————
the object was, why did they try to explain it? Could
they not have said that they did not know but would
investigate? This is a case of poor judgement and
inept handling. The press was quite caustic in its
comments about the Air Force explanation. Even assum-
ing that the thousands of people had observed some natural
phenomenon, or aircraft, or were suffering from mass
hallucination, or that a hoax was being perpetrated, it
would appear that the Air Force handled the situation
poorly and not in the best interest of Air Force-com-
munity relations. With the way the Air Force handled
this sighting, would it not seem natural for the popu-
lation to wonder, at least, about the efficiency and
coordination of the Air Force?
In another case, several sightings of UFOs occurred
ove the state of Oklahoma during the period 31 July to
3 August 1965. The UFOs were tracked on radar by the
weather bureau in Wichita and were seen by a variety of
witnesses, including many at McConnell Air Force Base.
The Oklahoma Highway Patrol reported watching diamond-
shaped formations of UFOs for half an hour. details in
this case are unimportant, because regardless of the
specifics, the Air Force pronouncement on this incident

60
—————————————————————————
is inexcusable. The Air Force answer to these sightings
was that the observers had seen the stars Rigel, Capella
and Aldebran. There was only one problem: These stars
were on the opposite side of the Earth from Oklahoma
during the period of the sightings. Star locations
were confirmed by Walter Webb, Hayden Planetarium, Boston,
and Robbert Risser, Director, Oklahoma Planetarium, who
said of the Air Force explanation. «This is as far from
the truth as you can get.» [10] This case illusrates the
type of answer provided to the public by the Air Force
in many cases. This type of answer has become so com-
mon that the Believers have come to expect that the Air
Force will «solve» UFO cases in this manner. What this
does to Air Force credibility is obvious.
Another interesting point is that the Air Force
classifies UFOs in three general categories: Identi-
fied, Insufficient Data and Unidentified. [11] In the case
just mentioned, one wonders into which classification it
was placed. the whole matter of the Air Force classifi-
cation system, the basis on which the Air Force classifies
sightings, what constitutes adequate substantiation for
a classification of Identified and the validity of the
statistical approach as a method for determining the
existence or non-existence of UFOs have come under fire

61
—————————————————————————
from a variety of sources. A particularly pointed re-
mark comes from the «Yale Scientific Magazine»:

Based on unreliable and unscientific sur-
mises as data, the Air Force develops elabor-
ate statistical findings which seem impressive
to the uninitiated public, unschooled in the
fallacies of the statistical method. One must
conclude that the highly publicized periodic
Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound
statistics serve merely to misrepresent the
true character of UFO phenomena. [12] (See Appendix B)

The allegation that the Air Force is concealing the
truth about UFOs and knows more than it is telling the
public is a frequent one. In the forefront of the censor-
ship debate is Donald Kehoe (Major, USMC, Ret.),
Director, NICAP. His books, «The Flying Saucer Conspira-
cy» [13] and «Flying Saucers, Top Secret» [14] deal with what is
claimed to be Air Force censorship of UFO information.
One example from the latter book will illustrate the
problem. [15]
Kehoe had been invited to appear on a radio pro-
gram, Armstrong Circle Theater, to participate in a
panel discussion of the UFO problem. He had planned
to bring up Capt. Ruppelt’s claim that UFOs were real,
were interplanetary and that the Air Force knew this,
to the extent of publishing a report to this effect
in an official Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC)

62
—————————————————————————
report in 1948. [16] The individuaL charge of review-
ing the program prior to its airing told Kehoe that he
could not use that material because of time limitations
Kehoe suspected Air Force pressure on the radio station
and asked if this was the case. The answer he received
was that CBS did not want ot get into difficulty with the
Air Force. Kehoe cut the referenced discussion from his
script, but in the heat of the discussion during the actual
broadcast he declared that he would make an announcement
never befor made to the public, at which time his micro-
phone was cut off. There was a public clamor about this
in the press and in letters from individuals to the radio
station. In answer to an inquiry by a NICAP member,
Herbert A. Carlborg, CBS editor of Editing, made this
statement:

This program has been carefully cleared for
security reasons. therefore, it was the re-
sponsibility of this network to insure per-
formance that was in accordance with pre-
determined security standards. Any indica-
tion that there would be a deviation from
the script might lead to a statement that
neither this network nor the individuals on
the program were authorized to release… [17]

This case raises the question: Cleared for security
by whom? It is interesting to note that Tacker claims
that no such report existed, [18] even though Capt. Ruppelt
said that this information was contained in a Top Secret

63
—————————————————————————
ATIC report which he had read while hw was chief of
Project Blue Book. [19] Either Tacker or Ruppeli is in
error.
Direct and threatening official pressure on indivi-
duals who have been involved in UFO sightings is a re-
curring subject throughout the literature. A frequent
charge is that the individual is approached by men in
uniform or plain clothes and threatened with loss of
job if he talks about his sighting. Frank Edwards cites
one such incident in which it is claimed that an indus-
trial worker who had seen an UFO was interviewed by two
military men and asked to maintain silence on the subject.
When the worker appeared hesitant, he was supposedly told
by these military men that his employer had government
contracts and that they would not like to see the work-
er get into trouble with his employer. [20] This pattern
is a frequent one in the literature.
Although incidents such as those outlined above are
cited in the UFO literature as indicating duplicity,
inefficiency and confusion in the Air Force, the offi-
cial Air Force pronouncements themselves are so phrased
that they are subject to question. The very UFO credo
of the Air Force, as stated in Blue Book pronouncements,
is confusing and evasive.

64
—————————————————————————
Let us look at the three-part Blue Book position
statement. [21] This is Blue Book statement:

No identified flying object reported, investi-
gated and evaluated by the Air Force has ever
given any indication of threat to our national
security.

A reader of this statement might ask: Does this mean
that the Air Force has determined that UFOs do exist,
bu that the Air Force is trying to reassure the people
that they are not hostile? Is this the prime concern
of the Air Force. ..to determine the intent of UFOs?
Are they not interested in determining whether or not
UFOs exist, hostile or not? The above statement is
qualified by the words «by the Air Force.» In view of
the way the Air Force conducts UFO investiagtions, as
indicated by some of the examples cited earlier, the
above statement seems to be safe enough for the Air
Force, since the Air Force can control the outcome of
any investigation. That is, if the Air Force says that
a UFO sighting can be explained as a weather balloon,
then they may also say that the weather balloon had no
hostile intent.. The problem here is credibility. Also
one wonders why there is even the need to make a state-
ment about intent, since the Air Force has long maintain-
ed that UFOs do not exist. One might also ask why an
Air Force aircraft would shoot at a UFO if there was no

65
—————————————————————————
The second statement is:

There has been no evidence submitted to or
discovered by the Air Force that sightings
categorized as unidentified represent tech-
nological developments or principles beyond
the range of present day scientific knowledge.

The Blue Book definition of UNIDENTIFIED is:

A sighting is considered unidentified when a
report apparently contains all pertinent data
necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis con-
cerning the cause or explanation of the report
but the description of the object or its motion
cannot be correlated with any known object or
phenomenon. [23]

The Air Force statement admits that UNIDENTIFIED objects
cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena.
The statement says that a report categorized as UNIDENTI-
FIED contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a
valid hypothesis. It also says that the motion of the
object cannot be corelated with any known object or
phenomena. It seems strange, based on the above, that
the Air Force can then say that sightings categorized
as UNIDENTIFIED do not represent technological develop-
ments or principles beyond the range of present day scienti-
fic knowledge. It appaers that the Air Force is saying,
in effect, that even though the object cannot be corre-
lated to anything known, it nevertheless does not exhi-
bit any features that are unknown . . . a difficult
exercise in logic. Also, it is obvious that the Air Force

66
—————————————————————————
does not accept the numerous reports of ultra-high
speed right angle turns performed by UFOs …
or do they? In the official statement why is it
necessary to say «Technological developments or
principles . . .?» Would not «developments» suf-
fice? One could suggeat that use of the word
«principle» has been included to enable semantic
escape for the future. The reason for this suggestion
is that it is claimed by the Believers that UFGOs are
propelled by application of certain principles of magne-
tism. It is true that modern science is aware of the
existence of magnetism. However, to date, it appears
that Man has not been able to apply these principles
to propulsion as exhibited by the flight characteristics
of UFOs. therefore, to say that UNIDENTIFIED objects
do not exhibit any unknown principles could be partial
truth . . . it is just that we have not discovered how to
apply these principles.

The third statement is:

There has been no evidence indicating that
sightings categorized as UNIDENTIFIED are
extraterrestrail vehicles.

There can be no argument with this statement, since the
word «evidence» used in this Air Force statement is evi-
dence as defined by the Air Force. If the Air Force is

67
—————————————————————————
convinced that it has not received acceptable evidence,
then it is pointless to argue the validity of eye wit-
ness reports as circumstantial but adequate.
It can be seen that there are certain inscrutabili-
ties in the Air Force credo. From time to time, the Air
Force tries to clarify its position, all the while cling-
ing to its credo. An article appeared in the July 1967
issue of «Airman» magazine, official magazine of the
Air Force. [24] The magazine is published monthly by the
Internal Information Division, Directorate of Information,
Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. Al though there
is the usual official disclaimer, the editor of the maga-
zine, in a note preceeding the article on UFOs, states that
the author has done admirably in presenting an article
which tells the truth about UFOs and what the Air Force
knows about them. The article uses several of the ploys
encountered in the Non-Believer literature. it begins by
citing examples of UFO reports which were subsequently
definitely resolved as misidentification of common ob-
jects. The reader is then to extrapolate these cases to
the unknowns. hoaxes are emntioned. the planet Venus is
mentioned. The Air Force statistical listing is mentioned.
many of the arguments against UFOs are presented. . . argu-
ments which have become classic over the years. there is

68
—————————————————————————
nothing new is presented in the article. It is unfortun-
ate that this particular article will be read by so many,
from the pages of «Airman» magazine and from the special
«True» magazine reproduction of the article. [25] The author
of the article has attempted to review years of compli-
cated debate in five pages. The article is offered as
the «truth.» The author asks, «Are flying saucers fact
or fiction? What does the Air Force know about them?
Read on, and then form your own judgements.» Unfortun-
ately, amny reders will do just that. Some of the most
intensely debated aspects of the UFO problem are perfunct-
orily brushed aside. How this is done in the article
can be illustrated by the following statements in the
article. Note that the author does several things in
this statement: ridicules the rationality of Believers;
implies that the reader should not associate himself with
the Believers (This is the «demented by association»
ploy mentioned earlier); presents a faulty analogy;ex-
poses his own closed mind with reference to the possibi-
lity that science may progress beyond the Twentieth Cen-
tury; leaves the questions unanswered; tries to cause
the reader to come to an «obvious» conclusion which is
incorrect.

69
—————————————————————————
Why do not UFOs, which reportedly move at
supersonic speeds, produce sonic booms? An
earth aircraft, or any solid object, always
creates an audible «boom» when it exceeds
the speed of sound. Bullets produce a sonic
boom! Missiles cause a «boom» once they sur-
pass the speed of sound! However, not one
of the thousands of reports received by the
Air Force mentions any sonic boom associated
with the reported UFO sighting. How can UFOs
defy Earth’s gravity and perform erratic aerial
maneuvers and square turns at supersonic speeds?
The pilots of our aircraft and space vehicles
haven’t been able to ignore the laws of gravity
and motion!

the above statement illustrates the general tenor of
the article. It can be seen that when the author says,
«read on, and then form your own judgements» that he has
stacked the evidence in favor of the negative position.
No valid judgement can be made based on the article.
It is unfortunate that the writer of the article is
either not familliar with the UFO literature or has chosen
to ignore it. there are several works which deal with
the sonic boom, high speed and right angle turns. [26]
The author of the «Airman» magazine article might also find
it illuminating to check on the status of government-
sponsored anti-gravity research programs. [27]
The rather transparent attempt by the Air Force to
dissuade the public takes a shameless form in project
Blue Book material. As part of this material, the fol-
lowing items are included:

70
—————————————————————————
1. A suggested reading material list which con-
tains thirteen references. Of the thirteen references,
eight deal with astronomy; one with weather; one with
optics; one with the space program, written by Von Braun,
a Non-Believer; one written by Menzel, the classic in-
transigent Non-Believer; and one written by Jacques
Valle, who reviews the history of UFO sightings. of the
thirteen works cited, the book by Valle is the only one
which leaves room for questioning the Air Force’s nega-
tive approach. The references to astronomy, weather,
optics and the space program are not even relevant to the
UFO debate. WAs the Air Force afraid to include pro-UFO
literature? Valle is not pro-UFO; he is neutral. If a
reader were to read every reference in the suggested read-
ing list he would understand more about astronomy but
would hardly see why the Air Force’s position on UFOs is
being challenged.
2. An article entitled «Arriving from Mars by UFO?.
this article discusses the relative positions of Earth
and MArs with reference to favorable periods for the
launching of space vehicles from Mars to Earth. It goes
into several arethmetic discussions and concludes that:

When one goes back to examine the direction
from which the UFOs arrive, we find not a single
case for the UFO coming in from the proper direc-
tion to indicate that it had originated on Mars
or Venus.

71
—————————————————————————
Here we see an example of the refusal to consider that
UFO technology may not be hampered by the limitations
of our own embryo space program. The presumptuousness
of the conclusion is so gross as to be insulting to the
intellect.
3. An interview with Werner Von Braun, in which he
concludes by saying that he will not believe in UFOs un-
til he sees one.
4. A questionnaire that is to be completed by any-
one seeing a meteor or fireball and then mailed to the
American Meteor Society.
Such an irrelevant, one-sided, transparent approach
is demeaning to the United States Air Force.

The Current Situation

The results of a recent Gallup poll [28], would seem to
indicate that the Air Force is having limited success in
dissuading the public. According to the poll, there are
more than five million Americans who are certain that they
have seen flying saucers or other UFOs. A more signifi-
cant figure is the 46% of America adult who believe that
UFOs are real.
Such an indication of belief in UFOs is truly amazing
when one considers the exotic nature of the subject and
the Air Force’s attempts to dissuade the public. However,

72
—————————————————————————
the UFO problem has been with us for a long time, and
some of the sensationalism has worn off. The subject
of UFOs has become a more acceptable topic of conver-
sation. Mass media are addressing the problem openly.
The ridicule index is down. more and more reputable
scientists are making statements which are more permis-
sive and hint at the possibility that UFOs might exist.
Dr. Hynek has done much to reinforce the Believer posi-
tion and weaken the Non-Believer position by his subtle
shift away from the intransigent Non-Believers. Also,
the populace is aware that the Air Force has asked a
University of Colorado team to study the problem.
It appears that the citizenry is at least temporari-
ly satisfied that the problem is being looked into.
Both the critics and the Air Force appear to have de-
clared a truce while they await the results of the
Colorado investiagtion, due for public release in 1968.
The writer of this paper predicts a resumption of
the debate with renewed fury upon release of the Colorado
recommendation. The reason for this prediction is that
in the fall of 1968, the recommendation as to whether or
not the government should invest more money in UFO investi-
gation is csheduled to be made by the Colorado team. If
the Colorado team recommends that the investigation be
pursued, the Believers will feel vindicated and clamor

73
—————————————————————————
for information, and the Air Force will fell the brunt
of the assault and will be placed on the defensive. On
the other hand, if the Colorado tem recommends no further
investigation, this will incur the wrath of the Believers,
who will not be convinced. So, in either case, the de-
bate will continue on some form. It would appear to be
advisable for the Air Force to prepare contingency plans
for either eventuality.
Confidence is apparently running high in some circles
that UFOs are here to stay. In an article in «Air Progress,» [29]
Don Berliner states that civillian industry has been, and
continues to be, interested in capitalizizng on the techni-
cal aspects of UFO construction and propulsion and has been
carrying on research projects aimed at solving such things
as flight principles of a disc form and magnetic field
propulsion. At the end of his article he says,

Numerous large corporations, sensing the re-
search and development potential of UFO in-
vestigation, have quietly begun pilot projects
aimed at cashing in on an expanded government-
financed study which would almost certainly
follow any positive conclusion by the Univer-
sity of Colorado. An example is the instru-
ment loaded microbus now being prepared by a
large West Coast aerospace firm, which hopes
to get it to the site of a major wave of UFO
sightings and get precise trackings and high
quality photographs. Additionally, there are
billions of dollars waiting for the firm which
first solves the puzzles of the UFO propulsion
control and maneuverability.

74
—————————————————————————
This rather commercial approach to the UFO problem
would seem to ignore the Air Force assurance that UFOs
are natural phenomena, man-made objects, hallucinations,
or hoaxes.

Summary

It is really small wonder that the Air Force is
being challenged. Any private citizen, trying to under-
stand the UFO debate, and researching the problem from
materials available at a public library, will soon see
that the manner in which the Air Force has handled this
problem justifies the challenge. The Air Force has suf-
fered poor publicity, has given irrational answers to
the public, has insulted the intelligence of the citi-
zenry, has alienated many commerciial pilots and scientists,
has made careless mistakes, has become officious, has lost
credibility, has been inconsistent, has refused to modi-
fy its basically irrelevent statistical approach to the
problem and continues to insist that even the unknowns
are probably explainable in terms of the familiar Even
Dr. Menzel, the anti-UFO stalwart, has criticized at least
one of the Air Force «solutions». Referring to the Air
Force determination that Gorman’s UFO was really lights
suspended from a balloon, Menzel says, «Of all possible
explanations, the idea of balls of light suspended from

75
—————————————————————————
balloons could account for the observations is complete-
ly at variance with the reports. i should rather accept
the alternative that the objects were interplanetary
saucers.» [30]
The frustration and anger felt by those who believe
that the Air Force is mishandling the UFO problem has
been succinctly, if emotionally, summed up by an author
famous for his acrimonius attacks on the Air Force:

Almost everybody else in the world agrees
that where there is much smoke there must
be some fire. But not the Air Force. To
them we all have soot on our sun glasses
and the moving disck we think we see are
really drops of sweat. Very simple fellows
in the Air Force. Too simple. [31]

76
—————————————————————————
CHAPTER IV

THE IMPLICATIONS

The Air Force has for many years had a special of-
fice staffed for the handling or the UFO problem. Many
specialized disciplines have been called upon to assist
in the analysis of UFO reports. Large civilian organi-
zations have been formed to investigate UFO reports.
There has been a congressional hearing on UFOs. Letters
on the subject of UFOs have been passed between the popu-
lace and the Air Force, the populace and members of con-
gress, and the Air Force and members of congress. Mass
media have sponsored programs and published special issues
on the UFO debate, Currently the UFO problem is being
studied by a team from the University or Colorado. Why
does the interest and concern of the people and the govern-
ment continue over the years at such a high level? The
key reason lies in the implications inherent in the UFO
debate.
For the next few pages the author will outline some
of the major political, sociological and military impli-
cations associated with the existence of UFOs. Unfortun-
ately, even if UFOs do not exist as extraterrestrial space

77
—————————————————————————
vehicles, the implications of the debate have already
been felt by the Air Force to the detriment of that ser-
vice. Irreparable damage has been suffered by the Air
Force in the minds of a large segment of the population
of this country because of the way that the Air Force
has handled the UFO problem up to this point, as pointed
out in Chapter III of this paper.
One finds throughout the UFO literature charges, ac-
cusations and allegations of censorship and suppression
aimed at the Air Force. Usually the critics end their
discussions with a plea for release of the information
which the Air Force is supposedly concealing, There is
usually some statement to the effect that no matter how
dire the implications, the sophisticated U.S. public,
accustomed to a daily existence in a rather dire world,
will be able to cope with the knowledge that other intel-
ligent beings share the universe with us and have been
visiting the Earth. One wonders whether or not the public
has really thought out some of the implications. If the
Air Force is under orders not to reveal what it knows
about UFOs, maybe the implications give us a clue as to why
this is so.

Political Implications

If UFOs are hostile, some of the implications might be:

Demand for protection. Most likely, one of the
first actions on the part of the populace after it has

78
—————————————————————————
had time to assess the situation would be to demand
protection from hostile UFOs, The public would demand
to know of the political leaders what they had done or
are doing to protect the people of the nation. Under
the assumption that UFOs represent a technology far
superior to our own, the answer would most likely be
that programs are under consideration to study the prob-
lem, but no effective defense has yet been devised.
Such an announcement would be politically embarrassing,
since UFOs have been with us for many years. In a situ-
ation in which the populace felt threatened, and consi-
dering that most people would not understand the techni-
cal problems involved, such an announcement would be dis-
advantageous to the incumbent political party.

Transfer of emphasis from current world problems to
the international threat. To that degree this would hap-
pen would depend on the nature of the UFO threat. That
is, if the hostility were moderate, only one or two iso-
lated incidents. then the threat might serve only to add
to the world’s problems; on the other hand, if there were
some significant and larger scale hostile operation then
the emphasis would shift to one of immediacy,

Change in international conflict status. This effect
would most likely follow any significant hostile action
against the Earth at large. Nations would soon recognize

79
—————————————————————————
a common threat to Man and might reassess their posi-
tions relative to international jealousies and conflicts.

Demand for international unity. It is likely that the
peoples of the world would lose interest in internation-
al conflicts and demand international unity to try to
counter the common threat.

Politically, any of the last three effects would be
highly disruptive to the political status quo and to
government programs and plans.

Political implications if UFOs are benevolent;

Assuming that the intelligence behind the UFOs began
to take more than a passing interest in Earth society,
and in consideration that this intelligence would probab-
ly be more advanced not only in technology but in other
areas as well, some of the effects might be:

Loss of allegiance; Existing political organi-
zations might be hard pressed to maintain the allegiance
of their people if extraterrestrial beings of a superior
nature criticized the actions of the existing governments.

Loss or sovereignty; International boundaries and
traditional prerogatives or government may be lost. Direc-
tions issued by an existing government would be subject
to review by an authority which might be considered by
the people to be wiser, and the people might be reluctant

80
—————————————————————————
to comply without the approval of this superior authori-
ty.
Loss of confidence in government might be brought
about by extraterrestrial disapproval of government opera-
tion.
Modification or invalidation of national object-
ives; If national objectives were criticized by higher
intelligences, governments might have to make a choice
between a change of objectives or political chaos caused
by dissension among the populace as to proper national
objectives.

Loss of national ego might result from decline
of nationalism, and an enhancement of international
spirit.
Loss of national prestige: The loss or reduction
or individual and national ego, the weakening of the poten-
cy of government dictates, a decrease in nationalistic
pride, and the realization that Earth civilization is
relatively retarded would probably result in a loss or
reduction of national prestige throughout the world.

Alteration of political systems; Revamping of
entire concepts of government may result because of ad-
vice from superior beings, who could point out deficien-
cies and recommend better forms of government.

81
—————————————————————————
Change in international power relationships:

With a change in national objectives, possibly new forms
of government and a shift in government priorities, power
relationships may drastically change, since the new object-
ives may not be supported by the existing power structures.

Political chicanery and deception: A remote pos-
sibility, but one which is not beyond the unprincipled,
would be an attempt on the part of politicians to per-
suade the people that a certain course of action or pro-
gram was recommended by the superior intelligences, when
in fact it was not.

The effects listed above are far-reaching, sweeping
effects. But one wonders if considerations such as out-
lined above have not been causing feelings of uneasiness
in certain government quarters,

Sociological Implications

The political and military effects and responses have
their foundations in the sociological implications, influ-
ences on the very core of the individual, . . his beliefs,
his understanding of himself and his relationship to others…
in short, his Man-oriented society. An intrusion by extra-
terrestrial beings into this closed society may have the
following effects on the human being.

82
—————————————————————————
If UFOs are hostile;

Initial shock and consternation; Active hosti-
lity on a significant scale by extraterrestrials would
represent an event for which Man is ill-prepared. He
would need some time to realize the magnitude of the
threat. After realizing what this threat meant to Man-
kind, he would most likely be disoriented, since there
is no historical precedent that he can call on to aid
him in confronting the problem. With time, Man would
realize more and more what the implications were, and
shock and consternation would grow into:

Worldwide fear; localized panic; Classical
panic would probably not occur except in the immediate
vicinity of the hostile action, when it was realized
that Man is powerless to defend himself effectively.
With worldwide communications, any hostile action of
significance would become worldwide knowledge. World-
wide reaction, on an individual basis, would probably
take the form of deep fear for the future of Man. This
reaction would probably not be immediate, but would
slowly evolve, becoming more and more intense with reali-
zation.

A turning to religion: on the face of the reali-
zation that Man would be, for all practical purposes, de-
fenseless against hostile UFOs, there may be a turning to

83
—————————————————————————
religion for help and comfort.

A change in human relationships: There may be
more cooperation among the peoples of the world and among
people in the same nation, community and neighborhood as
they join together to face a common threat and to com-
miserate with one another. As General Douglas MacArthur
said in the New York Times, October 9, 1955,

The nations of the world will have to unite,
for the next war will be an interplanetary
war. The nations of the earth must someday
make a common front against attack by people
from other planets.

Sociological implications if UFOs are benevolent:

Again, initial shock and consternation: Man
would need time to sift out for himself what the appear-
ance of extraterrestrial beings means to Man as an indi-
vidual and as a society. Once more, Man is ill-prepared
to do this. He would have to view flying saucers as some
thing more than subjects for TV and comic strips, He would
most likely look to his government for guidance. This
guidance would be either non-existent or feeble and inade-
quate.

Change in human relationships: As in the Case of
hostility, people would probably grow closer together as
they struggled to develop an understanding and modus viven-
di under the new conditions.

84
—————————————————————————
Loss or reduction of ego: An encounter with
superior beings, superior technology and superior under-
standing in all areas which Man considers important would
act to deflate Man’s high esteem for himself. His ac-
complishments would appear rudimentary.

Modification of the human value system: Again,
assuming that extraterrestrial beings took an active
interest in the affairs of Man, certain ends pursued
by Man as worthwhile objectives in life may be demon-
strated convincingly to be either of limited value or
worthless. Man would then have the choice of continu-
ing to pursue objectives which were demonstrated to be
false, or of modifying his value system.

Decrease in status of scientists and world
technology: As in the case with loss or reduction of
ego, world technology and the scientific community which
promotes it would lose some of its luster in the face of
superior technology and understanding of the workings of
natural laws and their application. This factor may be
the basis, in part, for the too frequent reluctance of
scientists to look too deeply into the UFO problem.
There is the chance that the UFOs will not become active-
ly involved with Earth society. If scientists can de-
bunk UFOs with moderate success, and if the involvement
of UFOs with our society remains as it has over the last
few years, then the scientists stand a fair chance of re-
taining their esteem.

85
—————————————————————————
Turmoil in world religions: Religious concepts
based on the notion that Man holds a special and exclu-
sive place in the Master Plan will have to be re-evalu-
ated, not because of the special place of Man, but be-
cause of the idea of exclusivity. Such re-evaluation
will revitalize religion because of a better understand-
ing of concepts presently misunderstood.

Transfer of allegiance from traditional religions
to the philosophy and religion of the extraterrestrials:
While the traditional religions are undergoing a reassess-
ment, and assuming that the extraterrestrial beings are
advanced over Man in spiritual development, there will
most likely be a shift in allegiance from the tradition-
al religions to that of the extraterrestrials. The hunger
for spiritual answers and the inability or traditional re-
ligion to convincingly provide the answers is legendary.
Any religion which makes Man’s purpose clear and which can
provide answers to his questions will gain a large follow-
ing.

Military Implications

Since the Air Force is charged with the responsibi-
lity for assuring the security of the skies over the
United States, it is understandable that intrusion into
U.S. air space by strange air vehicles at any place and

86
—————————————————————————
at any time would cause considerable Air Force nervous-
ness. Although there have been instances in which these
strange vehicles have been pursued and fire upon by Air
Force aircraft (See Chapter III), the Air Force claims
that it has no physical evidence of the existence of these
vehicles. This is a declaration of the impotence of the
Air Force against these craft. However, the Air Force
should not feel that it is remiss in providing air secur-
ity for the nation. The Wright brothers would have had
little success in convincing an F-4 pilot that he should
be escorted to the nearest airfield.
There are two very significant problems confronting
Earth technology today, assuming a military threat from
the UFOs. First, forces in being are demonstrably inade-
quate to cope with any such threat. This inadequacy is
reflected both in the passive role of detection and track-
ing and also in the active role of offense action. De-
tection by radar is thwarted by a combination of small
radar cross-section, high speed, and ability to stop while
in flight. Assuming that the reflective surface were suf-
ficient to give a good return, high speed and an erratic
flight path would make it virtually impossible to effective-
ly pass the track through the radar network or individual
radar stations. Any radar station working on the ballistic

87
—————————————————————————
trajectory principle, or equipped with moving target
indicator (MTI) circuitry would be confounded by the
erratic flight and the ability of the space vehicles
to come to a stop in flight. In the case of MTI, the
UFO would appear to disappear from the scope when it
stopped moving.
Even assuming that a UFO could be detected and
tracked, we have nothing in the inventory, aircraft
or missile, that is capable or coping with the UFO.
Ultra-high speed, angular maneuvers and unlimited
ceiling assure the UFO’s ability to elude any inter-
cepting weapon, provided that the UFO is able to de-
tect an attack. The detection capability of UFOs is
not discussed in the literature available to the public.
The second major problem confronting Earth technolo-
gy is the matter of lead time, both in the laboratory and
on the production line. If we assume that at some point
in time we are able to determine the vulnerabilities of
the UFO , we must then translate this understanding into
a defensive weapon system. It would appear from the de-
scriptions of the behavior of these vehicles that they
employ principles which are rather exotic, in terms of
Man’s understanding of physical laws. If this is so, it
will be no mean task to understand these principles suffi-
ciently to be able to design a counter weapon, to

88
—————————————————————————
produce that weapon, and then to deploy a system to the
field. In such a situation, the time lapse is reckoned
in years. We may not have sufficient time to develop
such a defensive weapon, even assurance that we had enough
information to begin with.
If the UFOs are not hostile, and if they are benevo-
lent, then the problem is not a technical one; it is more
an ego problem and a human relations problem. Military
ego would suffer a severe setback in the face of just one
public demonstration of the capabilities of a disc. The
impotence of the military establishment to cope with the
UFOs would be manifestly apparent to all. Military wea-
ponry and tactics would appear obsolete overnight. In
addition to the blow to military prestige, a far more
significant effect could be felt by military establish-
ments world-wide. If th@ extraterrestrial beings sug-
gested that war between nations was not a valid method
for the resolution of international conflicts, and if they
could demonstrate an alternative and offer guidance. mili-
tary forces would gradually fall into disrepute and the
world would probably see the eventual dissolution of mili-
tary establishments world-wide.

Summary

Any reader would be able to think of almost an in-
finite number of implications in economics, industry,

89
—————————————————————————
the arts . . . across the whole spectrum of human acti-
vity. The point is that we should be thinking about all
these implications so that we can be better prepared for
the day when we might be confronted with an overt approach
on the part of extraterrestrials. The other nagging quest-
ion is the matter of intent. If we could determine intent
this would be a start towards psychological adjustment and
possible accommodation, whether the intent be hostile or
benevolent.
It can be seen that if the question of implications
is explored fully, one gains an appreciation of Dr. Hynek’s
statement that «Mankind may be in for the greatest advent-
ure since dawning human intelligence turned outward to con-
template the universe.
Also, one can begin to appreciate why the Believers
have been so unkind to the Air Force. They feel that any
knowledge which the Air Force may be withholding is right-
fully the property of mankind, and not the exclusive pro-
perty of any one military or political organization.
The thought arises, or course, that in view of the
implications, maybe release of all information on UFOs
would herald the beginning of the dissolution of the world
as we have come to know it. For some, this may be unac-
ceptable, and as was pointed out earlier, if the UFOs have
only a casual interest iu Earth and do not plan to involve
themselves with mankind, then maybe some of the problems
are only academic.

90
—————————————————————————

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is once more pointed out that if the Air Force
is handling the UFO problem properly, in view of the
seriousness of the implications, nevertheless, the
interested researcher is left with the impression that
either the Air Force investigation has been inept or
some important information is being purposely withheld,
giving rise to the many curious statements made by the
Air Force as it tries as best it can to assuage the
public, while withholding the truth.
Based on an exhaustive review of the literature
available to the public, the writer of this paper comes
to the following conclusions:
1. Many objects reported as UFOs are misidentifi-
cations of natural phenomena or man-made objects.
2. Many objects reported as UFOs are space vehi-
cles.
a. These vehicles originate extraterrestrially.
b. These vehicles are controlled by some intel-
ligence either on board the vehicles or at some extra-
terrestrial location remote from the vehicles.

91
—————————————————————————
c. The space technology or the extraterrestrial
intelligence is far superior to ours.
d. It is likely that contact has been made with
Man on an individual and covert basis.
e. It is not known why overt contact with Man
has not been made.
f. The intent of the extraterrestrial beings
is not known.
3. The implications for the world in the existence
of UFOs is presently significant, and will become even
more significant if overt contact is made.
4. The Air Force has been inept in its handling of
the UFO problem.
5. The Air Force has lost some of its esteem in the
eyes of a large segment of the U.S. population because
of the manner in which the Air Force has handled the UFO
problem.
6. Defense of the anti-UFO position has been weak.
Charges and allegations against the Air Force have not
been satisfactorily answered.
7. The gravity of the implications for mankind in
the existence of UFOs may be the root cause for the
puzzling official pronouncements and approach to the
problem.

92
—————————————————————————

Recommendations

1. Conduct an open congressional hearing with the
Air Force, NICAP, APRO and the University of Colorado
represented. Conduct this open hearing upon completion
of the current initial study being conducted by the
University of Colorado, even if results show that fur-
ther study is required.
2. If it is considered inadvisable to conduct an
open hearing because of the implications, then:
a. Quietly call in members of NICAP and enlist
their cooperation. Explain current status and implica-
tions, and have NICAP contact key people in APRO.
b. Disband Project Blue Book.
c. Establish a nationwide official UFO investi-
gative organization independent of the Air Force. Staff
this organization with a broad spectrum of experts.
Train all investigators. The disbanding of Project Blue
Book and the establishment of the investigative organi-
zation should be done without fanfare. These actions
might be justified as a reorganization in order to pro-
vide a more detailed, prompt investigation of reports
by citizens.
3. The United States government should prepare
contingency plans for contact with UFOs (hostile and
benevolent).

93
—————————————————————————
4. After establishment of the new investigative
organization, the United States should actively try
to establish contact with the UFOs and determine
motive. Attempts at contact should not be provocative
or aggressive.

94
—————————————————————————
FOOTNOTES

Chapter II

1. Brad Steiger and Joan Writenour, «Flying Saucers
Are Hostile» (New York: Universal Publishing and Distri-
buting Corp.,l967), p. 66.

2. Malcom Kent, «The Terror Above Us» (New York:
Tower Publications, 1967, p. 15.

3. Steiger, op. cit., p. 10.

4. Ibid., p. 12.

5. Edward J. Ruppelt, «The Report on Unidentified
Flying Objects» (New York: Doubleday and Co. Inc., 1956),
p. 51.

6. Donald E. Keyhoe, «The Flying Saucer Conspiracy»
(New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1955), p. 288.

7. Coral Lorenzen, «The Great Flying Saucer Hoax»
(New York; William-Frederick Press, 1962), p. 32.

8. Coral and Jim Lorenzen, «Flying Saucer Occupants»
(New York: The New American Library, Inc., 1967), p. 42.

9. John G. Fuller, «The Interrupted Journey» (New York:
Dial Press, 1966).

10. Lorenzen, «Flying Saucer Occupants,» p. 116.

11. Frank Edwards, «Flying Saucers Serious Business»
(New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1966), p. 167.

12. Ibid., p. 170 and Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 119.

95
—————————————————————————

13. John G. Fuller, «Incident at Exeter» (New York:
Putnam, 1966), p. 203 and Edwards, op. cit., p. 142 and
Steiger, op. cit., p. 69.

14. Steiger, op. cit., p. 10.

15. Keyhoe, op. cit., p. 38.

16. Vincent H. Gaddis, «Mysterious Fires and Lights»
(New York; David McKay Co. Inc., 1967), p. 11 and Steiger
op. cit., p. 153.

17. Fuller, «The Interrupted Journey».

18. George Adamski, «Inside the Flying Saucers!» (New
York: Paperback Library, Inc., 1967), p. 66.

19. Ibid., P. 69.

20. Ibid., p. 59 and 69.

21. Frank Skully, «Behind the Flying Saucers» (New
York: Holt, 1950), p. 52.

22. Adamski, op. cit., p. 7O and 7l.

23. Jacques Vallee, «Anatomy of a Phenomenon» (Chicago:
Henry Regnery Co., 1965), p. 167.

24. Ibid., p. 148.

25. Cleve Mitchell, «The UFO Saga» (Lakemont, Georgia:
CSA Press, 1966), p. 84.

26. Ibid., p. 84.

27. Adamski, op. cit., p, 64.

28. Ibid., p. 35.

29. George Adamski and Desmond Leslie, «Flying Saucers
Have Landed» (New York; The British Book Centre, 1953),
facing p. 192.

30. Richard H. Hall, «The UFO Evidence» (Washington,
D. C.: NICAP, 1964).

31. «The APRO Bulletin» (Tucson, Arizona)

96
—————————————————————————

32. Gaddis, op. cit., p. 9.

33. Ibid.

34. «A Fresh Look at Flying Saucers», Time (August
4, 1967), p. 32 and Lorenzen, «Flying Saucer Occupants»,
p. 164.

35. «Flying Saucers», (Special Issue by Look Magazine),
(New York: Cowles Communications, Inc., 1967), p. 59.

36. Fuller, «Incident at Exeter», p. 221.

37. «Hearing on Unidentified Flying Objects», Committee
on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 89th Congress,
2nd Session, 1966, Hereafter cited as «Hearing on UFOs».

38. Ruppelt, loc. cit.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid., p. 13.

41. Ibid., p. 314.

42. Ibid., p. 8.

43. Ibid., p. 315.

44. «Hearing on UFOs», op. cit., p. 6006.

45. J. Allen Hynek «The UFO Gap», Playboy, Vol. 14,
No. 12 (December 1967), P. 146.

46. J. Allen Hynek, in a letter to «Science» magazine,
(1 August, 1966).

47. «Hearing on UFOs», op. cit., p. 6007.

48. Hynek, «Science».

49. Hynek, «Playboy», p. 270.

50. «Hearing on UFOs», op. cit., p. 6007.

51. Hynek, «Science».

52. Hynek, «Playboy», p. 271.

97
—————————————————————————

53. Carl Sagan «Unidentified Flying Objects», (an
article copyrighted in 1963 by The Encyclopedia Americana;
reprinted for private circulation), p. 5.

54. Edwards, op. cit., p. 112. .

55. Graham Berry, «Those Mysterious Signals from
Outer Space», Los Angeles Times West Magazine, (January
8, 1967), p. 27.

56. Fuller, «Incident at Exeter».

57. Fuller, «The Interrupted Journey».

58. Fuller, «Incident at Exeter», p. 193.

59. Time

60. Hearing on UFOs, loc. cit.

61. Donald H. Menzel, «Flying Saucers» (Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1953).

62. Lawrence J. Tacker, «Flying Saucers and the USAF»
(New York; Van Nostrand, 1960).

63. Menzel, op. cit.

64. Ibid., p. 18.

65. Ibid., p. 19.

66. Ibid., p. 17.

67. Ibid., p. 19.

68. Ibid., p. 125.

69. Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 133.

70. Menzel, op. cit., p. 38.

71. Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 133.

72. Menzel, op. cit., p. 283.

73. Tacker, loc. cit.

74. Ibid., p. 8

98
—————————————————————————

75. Ibid., p. 10.

76. Lorenzen, «The Great Flying Saucer Hoax», p. 188.

77. Ibid., p. 159.

Chapter III

1. Project Blue Book, 1 March, 1967, p. 4.-

2. Tacker, op. cit., p. 12.

3. Ibid., p. 13.

4. Ibid., p. 17.

5. Ibid., p. 13.

6. Hynek, Playboy, p. 146.

7. Tacker, op. cit., p. 83.

8. Edwards, op. cit., p. 179 and Edward J. Babcock
and Timothy Green Beckly, «UFO Plagues Now Jersey Reservoir»
Fate, October 1966, Vol. 19, No. 10, Issue 199, p. 34.

9. Mort Young, «UFO Top Secret» (New York; Essandess
Special Editions, 1967), p. 101.

10. Ibid., p. 102 and Edwards, op. cit., p. 167.

11. Project Blue Book, op. cit., p. 1.

12. Yale Scientific Magazine, (Yale University,
Vol. XXXVII, No. 7, April 1963).

13. Keyhoe, «The Flying Saucer Conspiracy».

14. Donald E. Keyhoe, «Flying Saucers Top Secret» (New
York; Putnam’s Sons, 1960).

15. Ibid., p. 155.

16. Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 62.

17. Kehoe, «Flying Saucers Top Secret», p. 164.

99
—————————————————————————

18. Tacker, op. cit., p. 83.

19. Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 62.

20. Edwards, op. cit., p. 140.

21. Project Blue Book, op. cit., p. 4.

22. Keyhoe, «Flying Saucers Top Secret», p. 100.

23. Project Blue Book, op. cit., p. 2.

24. George W. Ogles, major, USAF, «What Does the
Air Force Really Know About Flying Saucers?», The Airman,
Vol. XI, No. 7, July 1967, (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 4.

25. George W. Ogles, Major, USAF, «Air Force Takes
the Stand: ‘Just the Facts, Sir’ » The New Report on
Flying Saucers by the Publishers of True, No. 2, 1967
(Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1967), p. 4.

26. Leonard G. Cramp, «Space, Gravity and the Flying
Saucer (New York: British Book Centre, 1955) and Keyhoe,
«The Flying Saucer Conspiracy», p. 247 and Skully, loc. cit.
and Michael Aime, «Flying Saucers and the Straight Line» (New
York: Criterion Books, 1958).

27. Edwards, op. cit., p. 127.

28. Time, op. cit., p. 32

29. Don Berliner, «The UFO from the Designer’s View-
point», Air Progress, Vol. 21, No. 4, October 1967, p. 72.

30. Menzel, op. cit., p. 18.

31. Skully, op. cit., p. 186.

100
—————————————————————————
APPENDIX A
TYPICAL UFO CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS

As was pointed out in Chapter II of this paper, it
is apparent, after review of UFO sighting reports con-
tained throughout the literature, no matter what the
particular persuasion of the author, that there are
certain consistencies in these sightings, regardless
of the stand which has, at least in the past, been
taken by Project Blue Book (Special Report #14). These
consistencies are tabulated below.
If it is felt that within any category of character-
istics there is too much diversity, the author suggests
that these differences are no greater than those which
exist between a helicopter and a commercial jet aircraft.
There are many reports of elongated, cigar-shaped
objects, thought by some authors to be what is termed
a «mother ship» i.e., a much larger vehicle which usu-
ally does not land, but hovers near the area where the
disc-shaped objects descend to lower altitudes or land.
It has been theorized that master control over the disc
shaped objects may be exerted from the «mother ship», re-
gardless of whether or not the discs are remotely control-
led from the «mother ship» or carry intelligent beings

101
—————————————————————————
on board. A modification of this theory suggests an
aircrart carrier type role for the «mother ship», i.e.,
the «mother ship» transports the discs across the ex-
panse of interplanetary space and discharges the discs
upon reaching the near environment of the Earth. The
cigar-shaped vehicles have been reported to be immense
objects…..approximating the length of a football field.
Several other shapes have been reported: bell-shaped
triangular, egg-shaped, rectangular…..but these shapes
are in the minority.
The characteristics and effects outlined on the next
page are applicable to the classic disc-shaped object,
by far the most commonly reported. This is the «flying
saucer» model. The Believer literature usually ascribes
a scouting, probing, investigation, reconnaissance, funct-
ion to this type of object.

102
—————————————————————————

Typical UFO Characteristics and Effects

Physical Characteristics:

Size: From two feet in diameter to over 100 feet
in diameter.

Shape: Circular; disc-shaped; like two saucers, one
inverted over the other. The center of the
disc is thicker than the edges, which may be
sharp or blunt.

Color: Daytime: Brilliant silver color with a sheen.

Nighttime: Intense white light. May also be
orange, red, green, blue. Many reports indi-
cate a gradual change of color as maneuvers
change, i.e., disc may be dull orange while
hovering and change through brilliant orange
to red to white as the disc moves progressive-
ly faster in a horizontal or vertical direct-
ion. The light is usually described as extreme-
ly intense and pulsating.

Construction:

Material: Metal- pure magnesium. (Incidentally,
Coral Lorenzen, of APRO, claims she had a
sample of this material analyzed. Her report,
with several spectrographic tables and discus-
sion, appears in her book, «The Great Flying
Saucer Hoax», p. 89)

Lnnding Gear: Tripod spherical….like ball
bearings; or tripod extensions with flat or
wedge-shaped plates at the end of each of the
three «legs».

Access: Throu@h a panel usually on the under-
side of the vehicle. Panel opens and closes
silently and smoothly. When closed, the fit
with the vehicle body is so precise that seams
cannot be detected.

103
—————————————————————————
Exterior Features: Antenna-like projection
is frequently reported. Center of disc fre-
quently has a cupola. May have running lights
and port holes.

Interior Features: Extremely bright «burnish-
ed aluminum» appearing walls. Compartments in
the shape of a pie wedge, with the point or
the wedge joining a central column. Doors fit
without seams. May have more than one level.
Lighted instrument panels; star charts ( See
«The Interrupted Journey», J.G. Fuller). Source
of light is not apparent, «seems to come from
everywhere.»

Flight Characteristics:

Speed: 0 (hover) to 5000 MPH or greater.

Maneuverability: Hover; vertical ascents vertical
descent; horizontal. High speed departure
from Earth surface is usually on a slant.
Ability to change from hover to high speed
is instantaneous; ability to stop from high
speed movement is instantaneous; right angle
turns at high speed are common.

Special Flight Characteristics: The discs are usual-
ly seen to «wobble» at low speeds (instabili-
ty?). At night, while hovering, the light
emitted by the disc is usually reported to
«pulsate».

Propulsion: Propelled through application of principles
of magnetism as yet not understood by Man.
(Navigation is theorized to be based on a
compehensive understanding of magnetic fields
in space….therefore the concern that Man
may alter the relationships by his nuclear
explosions in space.) The power system is
absolutely silent or may hum much like an
electrical transformer. A high pitched,
intense hum or whine is often reported.

Effect on Immediate Vicinity:

Electrical Systems: Disruption. Lights go out; auto
ignitions fail. Some authors theorize that the
recent power blackouts were caused by UFO experi-
mentation.

104
—————————————————————————

Radioactivity: Low to high readings on radioacti-
vity d@tection instruments.

Human Beings: No effect, to tingling sensation, to
paralysis, to burns on flesh. Some cases
of involuntary compliance with unspoken
orders from space beings.

Animals: Horses panic; dogs cower; insects and frogs
stop chirping. These occurrences are report-
ed many times to have been the reason for the
observer leaving his house to investigate,
and once outside, then seeing the UFO.
(See «The Interrupted Journey» for a descript-
ion of the effect on a dog.)

Vegetation: Matted grass; burned grass and bushes
in the vicinity of a landing.

Other: Many reports of strong metallic odor, some
to the point of causing nausea, in the im-
mediate vicinity of the UFO.

105
—————————————————————————

APPENDIX B

Extracted from Project Blue Book material distri-
buted to Air Force base UFO officers at a meeting at the
University of Colorado on 12 June 1967.

TOTAL UFO (OBJECT) SIGHTINGS
(Con@piled 15 Feb 6?)

TOTAL
YEAR SIGHTINGS UNIDENTIFIED SOURCE

1947 122 12 Case Files
1948 156 7 Case Files
1949 186 22 BlueBook, Page 108
1950 210 27 Case Files
1951 169 22 Case Files
1952 1,501 303 BlueBook, Page 108
1953 509 42 Case Files
1954 487 46 Case Files
1955 545 24 Case Files
1956 670 14 Case Files
1957 1,006 14 Case Files
1958 627 10 Case Files
1959 390 12 Case Files
1960 557 14 Case Files
1961 591 13 Case Files
1962 474 15 Case Files
1963 399 14 Case Files
1964 562 19 Case Files
1965 887 16 Case Files
1966 1,060 30 Case Files
—– —
TOTAL 11,108 676

106
—————————————————————————
L—+—T1—-+-T–2—-T—-3–T-+—-4T—+—T5—-+-T–6—-T—-7–T-+——————-R

STATISTICAL DATA FOR YEARS 1953-1965

TOTAL CASES BY CATEGORY
(Compiled 15 Feb 67)
1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 TOTAL

Astronomical 175 137 135 222 341 231 144 235 203 136 85 123 250 2417
Aircraft 73 80 124 148 218 106 63 66 77 68 73 71 222 1389
Balloon 78 63 102 93 114 58 31 22 37 19 28 20 36 701
Insufficient Data 79 103 95 132 191 111 65 105 115 94 59 99 85 1333
Other 62 58 65 61 120 93 75 94 77 65 58 88 126 1042
Satellite 0 0 0 0 8 18 0 21 69 77 82 142 152 569
Unidentified 42 46 24 14 14 10 12 14 13 15 14 19 16 253
TOTAL 509 487 545 670 1006 627 390 557 591 574 399 562 887 7704

ASTRONOMICAL SIGHTINGS

Meteors 70 92 79 88 179 168 100 187 119 95 57 61 101 1396
Stars and Planets 101 44 52 131 144 56 40 45 78 36 23 55 140 945
Other 4 1 4 3 18 7 4 3 6 5 5 7 9 76
TOTAL 175 137 135 222 341 231 144 235 203 136 85 123 250 2417

OTHER CASES

Hoaxes, Hallucinations,
Unreliable Reports and
Psychological Causes 15 6 18 16 37 29 14 13 17 11 16 34 34 260
Missiles and Rockets 2 1 1 3 2 6 14 12 13 9 13 7 10 93
Reflections 4 6 4 3 2 7 11 9 3 3 0 2 7 61
Flares and Fireworks 1 4 8 6 8 3 5 7 4 3 3 7 4 63
Mirages and lnversions 3 2 4 1 5 2 4 5 6 3 0 2 5 42
Search and Groundlights 9 6 14 9 12 8 5 6 1 3 2 6 9 90
Clouds and Contrails 6 3 2 1 9 5 3 4 5 4 5 0 3 50
Chaff 0 2 0 1 2 6 1 4 3 5 2 1 1 28
Birds 4 7 2 6 1 1 0 3 2 2 2 4 11 45
Radar Analysis 15 7 1 8 27 3 8 6 9 0 1 2 3 90
Photo Analysis 1 1 2 4 1 7 4 6 3 2 3 6 6 46
Physical Specimens 1 6 5 3 5 10 3 7 4 15 3 8 12 82
Satellite Decay 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 3 3 3 4 8 31
Other 1 7 4 0 9 5 3 3 4 2 4 6 13 61
TOTAL 62 58 65 61 120 93 75 94 77 65 58 88 126 1042

107
—————————————————————————

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL

ASTRONOMICAL 14 8 44 47 15 12 20 20 12 38 21 4 255
AIRCRAFT 8 4 32 42 31 26 29 28 14 24 22 10 270
BALLOON 0 0 2 5 3 2 7 4 2 5 1 1 32
INSUFF DATA 8 3 34 27 30 22 19 19 19 34 21 6 242
OTHER 5 1 19 15 7 5 10 5 7 9 8 3 94
SATELLITE 2 0 32 5 12 21 5 23 5 11 2 1 109
UNIDENTIFIED 1 2 5 2 1 4 3 3 4 3 1 1 30
PENDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 6 14 28
TOTAL 38 18 158 143 99 92 93 104 67 126 82 40 1060

ASTRONOMICAL

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL

Meteors 8 1 8 19 5 3 10 7 4 8 8 2 83
Stars/Planets 4 6 32 23 7 8 9 10 7 29 12 2 149
Other 2a 1a 4a 5a 3a 1a 1a 3ab 1a 1a 1c 23
TOTAL 14 8 44 47 15 12 2 20 12 38 21 4 255

(a) moon (b) unusual sunset (c) unusual meteorological condition

OTHER

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL

Hoaxes,Conf.Psy 2 1 6 3 2 2 2 1 3 4 3 29
Missiles/Rockets 1 1 2
Search/Gd Lights 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 10
Flares/Fireworks 1 1 1 1 4
Reflections 3 1 2 1 2 9
Clouds/Contrails 2 3 1p 2p 1p 9
Birds 1 4 1 2 1 9
Radar Analysis 1n 1
Physical Speciman 1f 2st 1f 2st 4
Satellite Decay 1 1 2
Photo Analysis 5bcdei 2ge 2c 1q 10
Miscellaneous 2ah 1j 1k 1r 5
TOTAL 5 1 19 15 7 5 10 5 7 9 8 3 94

(a) swamp gas (b) stellar image (c) no image (d) insuff data (e) processing defect (f) chaff
(g) electric light (h) blown transformer (i) lighthouse (j) plasma (n) anamalous propogation
(p) artificial cloud release (q) time exposure of moon reported to be UFO (r) electric wires
sparking (s)indentations in ground, and soil samples (t) unknown animal

108
—————————————————————————

APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDED READING LIST

Those interested in a relatively rapid survey of
the salient points and the various positions and argu-
ments in the UFO debate will find that the following
publications will provide a good understanding of the
problem across the spectrum.

Ultra Group (Hostile):

Steiger, Brad and Writenour, Joan. «Flying
Saucers Are Hostile». New York; Universal
Publishing and Distributing Corporation, 1967.

Ultra Group (Benevolent):

Adamski, George. «Inside the Space Ships».
New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1955.

The Normal Believers:

Aime’ Michael. «The Truth About Flying Saucers».
New York: Criterion Books, 1956.

Hall, Richard H. «The UFO Evidence», Washington, D.C.
NICAP, 1964.

Keyhoe, Donald E. «Flying Saucers: TOP SECRET»,
New York: Putnam, 1960.

Lorenzen, Coral. «The Great Flying Saucer Hoax»,
New York; William-Frederick Press, 1962.

Vallee, Jacques. «Anatomy of a Phenomenon»,
Chicago; Regnery, 1965.

109
—————————————————————————

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>> CUFON NOTE: Pages 110 and 111 were not sent along with the rest <<<<
>>>> of the thesis from Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, <<<<
>>>> Alabama. CUFON will make every effort to obtain these 2 missing <<<<
>>>> pages and incorporate them in this file. <<<<
>>>> <<<<
>>>> Pages 112 – 120 consist of a copy of the portion of Air Force <<<<
>>>> Regulation 80-17(C1), Attachment 1, (AF Form 117 Aug 67) which <<<<
>>>> is the (blank) «Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena Questionaire» <<<<
>>>> These pages are not included in this file because of the graphic <<<<
>>>> nature of the form. A copy of this reporting form is reproduced <<<<
>>>> in Appendix «B» of «The Final Report of the Scientific Study of <<<<
>>>> Unidentified Flying Objects» (The «Condon Report») E.P. Dutton <<<<
>>>> 1968, published in association with Colorado Associated <<<<
>>>> University Press. (pp. 829 – 837) <<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

—————————————————————————–
AIR FORCE REGULATION 80-17

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Washington, D.C. 19 September 1966
Research and Development
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO)

This regulation establishes the Air Force program for investigating and
analysing UFOs over the United States. It provides for uniform investigative
procedures and release of information. The investigations and analyses
prescribed are related directly to the Air Force’s responsibility for the air
defence of the United States. The UFO Program requires prompt reporting and
rapid evaluation of data for successful identification. Strict compliance
with this regulation is mandatory.
———————–

SECTION A – GENERAL PROVISIONS
Paragraph
Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Program Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Program Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SECTION B – PUBLIC RELATIONS, INFORMATION,
CONTACTS, AND RELEASES

Response to Public Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Releasing Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

SECTION C – PREPARING AND SUBMITTING REPORTS

General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Guidance in Preparing Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Transmittal of Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Negative or Inapplicable Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Comments of Investigating Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Basic Reporting Data and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Reporting Physical Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

SECTION A – GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Explanation of Terms. To insure proper and uniform usage of terms in UFO
investigations, reports and analyses, an explanation of common terms
follows:

a. Unidentified Flying Objects. Any aerial phenomenon or object which is
unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer.

b. Familiar or Known Objects/Phenomena. Aircraft, aircraft lights,
astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars, comets, sun, moon),
balloons, birds fireworks, missiles, rockets, satellites, weather
phenomena

(clouds, contrails, dust devils), and other natural
phenomena.

2. Program Objectives. Air Force interest in UFOs is two-fold: to determine
if the UFO is a possible threat to the United states and to use the
scientific and technical data gained from study of UFO reports. To attain
these objectives, it is necessary to explain or identify the stimulus which
caused the observer to report his observation as an unidentified flying
object.

a. Air Defence. The majority of UFOs reported to the Air Force have
been conventional or familiar objects which pose no threat to our
security.

(1) It may be possible that foreign countries may develop flying
vehicles of revolutionary configuration or propulsion.

(2) Frequently, some alleged UFOs are determined to be aircraft. Air
Defence Command (ADC) is responsible for identification of
aircraft.
———–
This Regulation supersedes AFR 200-2, 20 July 1962
OPR: AFRSTA
DISTRIBUTION: S
121
—————————————————————————
Except as aircraft are determined to be the stimulus for
a UFO report, aircraft are not to be reported under the provisions
of this regulation.

b. Technical and Scientific. The Air Force will analyse reports of UFOs
submitted to it to attain the program objectives. In this connection
these facts are of importance:

(1) The need for further scientific knowledge in geophysics, astronomy
and physics of the upper atmosphere which may be provided by study
and analysis of UFOs and similar aerial phenomena.

(2) The need to report all pertinent factors that have a direct bearing
on scientific analysis and conclusions of UFO sightings.

(3) The need and the importance of complete case information. Analysis
has explained all but a small percentage of the sightings which
have been reported to the Air Force. The ones that have not been
explained are carried statistically as «unidentified.» Because of
the human factors involved and because of analysis of a UFO
sightings depends on a personal interpretation by the observer
rather than on scientific data or facts obtained under controlled
conditions, the elimination of all unidentifieds is improbable.
However, if more immediate, detailed and objective data on the
unidentifieds that have been available and promptly reported,
perhaps these too, could have been identified.

3. Program Responsibilities:

a. Program Monitor. The Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development,
is responsible for the overall program, evaluation of investigative
procedures, and the conduct of separate scientific investigations.

b. Resources. The Air Force Systems Command will support the program with
current resources within the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to continue Blue Book effort.
Other AFSC resources normally used by FTD for this effort will continue
to be made available.

c. Investigation. Each commander of an Air Force BAse will provide a UFO
investigative capability. When notice of a UFO sighting is received,
an investigation will be implemented to determine if the stimulus for
the sighting. An Air Force base receiving the notice of a UFO sighting
may not be the base nearest the locale of the sighting. In that event,
the reported UFO sighting will be referred to the Air Force base
nearest the sighting for action.

EXCEPTIONS: FTD at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, independently
or with the help of pertinent Air Force activities, may conduct any
other investigation to conclude its analysis or findings. HQ USAF may
arrange for separate investigations.

d. Analysis. FTD will:

(1) Analyze and evaluate all information and evidence reported to bases
on those UFOs which are not identified at the base level.

(2) Use other Government agencies, private industrial companies, and
contractor personnel to assist in analyzing and evaluating UFO
reports as necessary.

e. Findings. FTD, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, will prepare a final case
report on each sighting reported to it after the data have been
properly evaluated. If the final report is deemed significant, FTD
will send the report of its findings to AFSC (SFCA), Andrews AFB, Wash
D.C. 20331, which will send a report to HQ USAF (AFRDC), Wash D.C.
20330.

f. Cooperation. All AIr Force activities will cooperate with UFO
investigators to insure that pertinent information relative to
investigations of UFO are promptly obtained. When feasible, this will
include furnishing air or ground transportation and other assistance.

SECTION B – PUBLIC RELATIONS, INFORMATION, CONTACTS, AND RELEASES

4. Response to Public Interest. The Secretary of the Air Force, Office of
Information (SAF-OI), maintains contact with the public and the news media on
all aspects of the UFO program and related activities. Private individuals
or organizationsdesiring Air Force interviews, briefings or lectures, or
private discussions on UFOs will be instructed to direct their requests to
SAF-OI. Air Force members not officially connected with UFO investigations
covered by this regulation will refrain from any action or comment on UFO
reports which may mislead or cause the public to construe these opinions as
official Air Force findings.

5. Releasing Information. SAF-OI is the agency responsible for releasing
information to the public and to the news media.

a. Congressional and Presidential Inquiries. The Office of Legislative
Liaison will:

(1) With the assistance of SAF-OI,

122
—————————————————————————

answer all Congressional and Presidential queries regarding UFOs
forwarded to the Air Force.

(2) Process requests from Congressional sources in accordance with AFR
11-7.

b. SAF-OI will:

(1) Respond to correspondence from individuals requesting information
on the UFO program and evaluations of sightings.

(2) release information on UFO sightings and results of
investigations to the general public.

(3) Send correspondence queries which are purely technical and
scientific to FTD for information on which to base a reply.

c. Exceptions. In response to local inquiries regarding UFOs reported in
the vicinity of an Air Force Base, the base commander may release
information to the news media or the public after the sighting has been
positively identified. If the stimulus for the sighting is difficult
to identify at the base level, the commander may state that the
sighting is under investigation and conclusions will be released by
SAF-OI after the investigation is completed. The commander may also
state that the Air force will review and analyze the results of the
investigation. Any further inquiries will be directed to SAF-OI.

SECTION C – PREPARING AND SUBMITTING REPORTS

6. General Information:

a. The Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development, USAF and the ADC
have a directed immediate interest in UFOs reported within the US.
All Air Force activities will conduct UFO investigations to the extent
necessary for reporting action (see paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12).
Investigation may be carried beyond this point when the preparing
officer believes the scientific or public relations aspect of the case
warrants further investigation. In this case, the investigator will
coordinate his investigation with FTD.

b. Paragraph 7 will be used as a guide for screenings and reportings.
Paragraph 11 is an outline of the reporting format.

c. Inquiries should be directed to SAF-OI (see paragraph 5)

d. If possible, an individual selected as a UFO investigator should have a
scientific or technical background and experience as an investigator.

e. Reports required by this regulation are excluded from assignment of a
reports control symbol in accordance with paragraph 3k, AFR 300-5.

7. Guidance in Preparing Reports. The usefulness of a UFO report depends
largely on accuracy, timeliness, skill and resourcefulness of the person who
receives the initial information and makes the report. Following are aids
for screening, evaluating and reporting sightings:

a. Activities receiving initial reports of aerial objects and phenomena
will screen the information to determine if the report concerns a valid
UFO as defined in paragraph 1a. reports not falling within that
definition do not require further action. Aircraft flares, jet
exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at
night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft
phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the
definition of a UFO.

EXCEPTION: Reports of known objects will be made to FTD when this
information originally had been reported by local news media as a UFO
and the witness has contacted the Air Force. (Do NOT solicit reports.)
News releases should be included as an attachment with the report (see
paragraph 8c)

b. detailed study will be made of the logic, consistency, and authenticity
of the observer’s report. An interview with the observer by persons
preparing the report, is especially valuable in determining the
reliability of the source and the validity of the information. Factors
for particular attention are the observer’s age, occupation, and
education, and whether he has a technical or scientific background. A
report that a witness is completely familiar with certain aspects of a
sighting should indicate specific qualifications to substantiate such
familiarity.

c. The following procedures will assist the investigation officer in
completing the report and arriving at conclusion as required in
paragraph 11.

(1) When feasible, contact local aircraft control and warning (ACW)
units, and pilots and crews of aircraft aloft at the time and place
of the sighting. Contact any persons or organizations that may
have additional data on the UFO or can verify evidence – visual,
electronic, or other.

(2) Consult military or civilian weather forecasters for data on tracks
of weather
123
—————————————————————————

balloons ar any unusual meteorological activity that may have a
bearing on the stimulus for the UFO.

(3) Consult navigators and astronomers in the area to determine if any
astronomical body or phenomenon might account for the sighting.

(4) Consult military and civilian tower operators, air operations
units, and airlines to determine if the sighting could have been an
aircraft. Local units of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) can be
of assistance in this regard.

(5) Consult persons who may know of experimental aircraft of unusual
configuration, rocket and guided missile firings, or aerial tests
in the area.

(6) Consult local and State police, county sherifs, forest rangers,
and other civil officials who may have been in the ara at the time
of the sighting or have knowledge of other witnesses.

8. Transmittal of Reports:

a. Timeliness. report all information on UFO’s promptly. Electrical
transmission with a «Priority» precedence is authorized.

b. Submission of Reports. Submit multiple-addressed electrical reports
to:

(1) ADC

(2) Nearest Air Division (Defence)

(3) FTD WPAFB. (First line of Text: FOR TDETR.)

(4) CSAF. (First line of Text: FOR AFRDC.)

(5) OSAF. (First line of Text: FOR SAF-OI)

c. Written Reports. In the event that follow-up action requires a letter
report, send it to FTD TDETR, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 45433. FTD
will send the reports to interested organizations in the US and to
SAF-OI if required.

d. Reports from Civilians. Advise civilians to report UFOs to the
nearest Air Force Base.

e. Negative or Inapplicable Data. If specific information is lacking,
refrain from using the words «negative» or «unidentified» unless all
logical leads to obtain the information outlined in paragraph 11 have
been exhausted. For example, the information on weather conditions in
the area, as requested in paragraph 11g, is obtainable from the local
military or civilian weather facility. Use the phrase «not
applicable (NA)» only when the question really does not apply to
the sighting under investigation.

10. Comments of Investigating Officer. This officer will make ann initial
analysis and comment on the possible cause or identity of the stimulus in a
supporting statement. He will make every effort to obtain pertinent items of
information and to test all possible leads, clues, and hypotheses. the
investigating officer who receives the initial report is in a better position
to conduct an on-the-spot- survey and follow-up than subsequent
investigative personnel and analysts who may be far removed from the area and
who may arrive too late to obtain vital data or information necessary for
firm conclusions. The investigating officer’s comments and conclusions will
be in the last paragraph of the report submitted through channels. The
reporting official will contact FTD (Area Code 513,257-0916 ot 257-6678) for
verbal authority to continue investigations.

11. Basic Reporting Data and Format. Show the abbreviation «UFO» at the
beginning of the text of all electrical reports and in the subject of any
follow-up written reports. Include required data in all electrical reports,
in the order shown below:

a. Description of the Objects(s):

(1) Shape.

(2) Size compared to a known object.

(3) Color.

(4) Number.

(5) Formation, if more than one.

(6) Any discernible features or details.

(7) Tail, trail or exhaust, including its size.

(8) Sound.

(9) Other pertinent or unusual features.

b. Description of Course of Object(s):

(1) What first called the attention of observer(s) to the object(s).

(2) Angle of elevation and azimuth of object(s) when first observed.
(Use theodolite or compass measurement if possible.)

(3) Angle of elevation of object(s) upon disappearance. (Use
theodolite or compass measurement if possible.)

(4) Description of flight path and maneuvers of object(s). (Use
elevations and azimuth, not altitude.)

(5) How did the object(s) disappear? (Instantaneously to the North,
for example.)

(6) How long were the object(s) visible? (Be specific – 5 minutes, 1
hour, etc.)

c. Manner of Observation:

(1) Use one or any combination of the following items: Ground-visual,
air-visual, ground-electronic, air-electronic. (If electronic,
specify type of radar.)

(2) Statement as to optical aids (tele-

124
—————————————————————————

scopes, binoculars, etc.) used and description thereof.

(3) If the sighting occurred while airborne, give type of aircraft,
identification number, altitude, heading, speed, and home station.

d. Time and Date of Sighting:

(1) Greenwich date-time group of sighting and local time.

(2) Light conditions (use one of the following terms: Night, day, dawn,
dusk).

e. Location of Observer(s). Give exact latitude and longitude coordinates
of each observer, and/or geographical position. In electrical reports,
give a position with reference to a known landmark in addition to the
coordinates. For example, use «2 mi N of Deeville»; «3 mi SW of Blue
Lake,» to preclude errors due to teletype garbling of figures.

f. Identifying Information on Observer(s):

(1) Civilian – Name, age, mailing address, occupation, education and
estimate of reliability.

(2) Military – Name, grade, organization, duty, and estimate of
reliability.

g. Weather and Winds-Aloft Conditions at Time and Place of Sighting:

(1) Observer(s) account of weather conditions.

(2) Report from nearest AWS or US Weather Bureau Office of wind
direction and velocity in degrees and knots at surface, 6000′,
10,000′, 16,000′, 20,000′, 30,000′, 50,000′, and 80,000′, if
available.

(3) Ceiling.

(4) Visibility.

(5) Amount of cloud cover.

(6) Thunderstorms in area and quadrant in which located.

(7) vertical temperature gradient.

h. Any other unusual activity or condition, meteorological, astronomical,
or otherwise that might account for the sighting.

i. Interception or identification action taken (such action is authorized
whenever feasible and in compliance with existing air defence
directives).

j. Location, approximate altitude, and general direction of flight of any
air traffic or balloon releases in the area that might account for the
sighting.

k. Position title and comments of the preparing officer, including his
preliminary analysis of the possible cause of the sighting(s). (See
paragraph 10.)

12. Reporting Physical Evidence:

a. Photographic:

(1) Still Pictures: Forward the original negative to FTD (TDETR),
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433, and indicate the place, time, and
date the photograph was taken.

(2) Motion Pictures. Obtain the ORIGINAL film. Examine the film strip
for apparent cuts, alterations, obliterations, or defects. In the
report comment on any irregularities, particularly in films
received from other than official sources.

(3) Supplemental Photographic Information. Negatives and prints often
are insufficient to provide certain valid data or permit firm
conclusions. information that aids in plotting or in estimating
distances, apparent size and nature of object, probable velocity,
and movements includes:

(a) Type and make of camera.

(b) Type, focal length, and make of lens.

(c) Brand and type of film.

(d) Shutter speed used.

(e) Lens opening used; that is «f» stop.

(f) Filters used.

(g) Was tripod or solid stand used.

(h) Was «panning» used.

(i) Exact direction camera was pointing with relation to true
North, and its angle with respect to the ground.

(4) Other Camera Data. If supplemental data is unobtainable, the
minimum camera data required are the type of camera, and the
smallest and largest «f» stop and shutter speed readings of the
camera.

(5) Radar. Forward two copies of each still camera photographic prints
per AFR 95-7. Classify radarscope photographs per AFR 205-1.

NOTE: If possible, develop film before forwarding. Mark undeveloped film
clearly to indicate this fact, to avoid destruction by exposure through mail
channels to final addresses.

b. Material. Air Force echelons receiving suspected or actual UFO
material will safeguard it to prevent any defacing or alterations which
might reduce its value for intelligence examination and analysis.

c. Photographs, Motion pictures, and Negatives Submitted by Individuals.
Individuals often submit photographic and motion picture material as
part of their UFO reports. All original material submitted will be
returned to the individual after completion of necessary studies,
analysis, and duplication by the Air Force.

125
—————————————————————————
AFR 80-17

By Order of the Secretary of the Air Force

Official J.P. McCONNELL
General U.S. Air Force
Chief of Staff

R.J. PUGH 1 Attch.
Colonel, USAF 1. (Sec. C1)
Director of Administrative Services

126
—————————————————————————–

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Adamski, George. «Inside the Flying Saucers», New York:
Paperback Library Inc., l967.

Aime’, Michael. «Flying Saucers and the Straight Line
Mystery». New York: Criterion Books, 1958.

________. «The Truth About Flying Saucers». New York:
Criterion Books, 1956.

Cramp, Leonard G. «Space, Gravity and the Flying Saucer».
New York: British Book Center, 1955.

Davidson, Leon. «Flying Saucers: An Analysis of the Air
Force Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14.» Ramsey,
New Jersey: Ramsey-Wallace, 1956.

Edwards, Frank. «Flying Saucers – Serious Business». New York
Bantam Books, Inc., 1966.

Fuller, John G. «Incident at Exeter». New York: Putnam,
1966.

________. «The Interrupted Journey». New York: Dial Press,
1966.

Gaddis, Vincent H. «Mysterious Fires and Lights». New York:
David McKay Company, Inc., 1967.

Girvan, Waverly. «Flying Saucers and Common Sense». New
York: Citadel Press. 1956.

Hall,Richard, «Th3 UFO Evidence». Washington, D.C.:
NICAP, 1964.

127
—————————————————————————–

Jessup, Morris K. «UFO and the Bible». New York:
Citadel Press, 1956.

________. «The Case for tho UFO». New York: Citadel
Press, 1955.

Jung, Carl Gustav. «Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of
Things Seen in the Sky». London: Routledge and
Paul, 1959.

Keyhoe, Donald E. «Flying Saucers: Top Secret», New
York: Putnam, 1960 ,

________. «Flying saucers from Outer Space». New York:
Holt , 1953.

________. «The Flying Saucer Conspiracy», New York:
Holt, 1955.

Leslie, Desmond, and George Adamski. «Flying Saucers Have
Landed». New York: The British Book Centre, 1953.

Lorenzen, Coral. «The Great Flying Saucer Hoax», New York:
William-Frederick Press, 1962.

Lorenzen, Coral, and Jim Lorenzen. «Flying Saucer Occupants»
New York: The New American Library, 1967.

Menzel, Donald H. «Flying Saucers» Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1953.

Menzel, Donald H., and Lyle G. Boyd. «The World of Flying
Saucers; a Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of
the Space Age». Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1963.

Reeve, Bryant. «Flying Saucer Pilgrimage». Amherst, Wisc.:
Amherst Press, 1957.

Ruppelt, Edward J. «The Report on Unidentified Flying
Objects», Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1956.

Skully, Frank. «Behind the Flying Saucers». New York:
Holt, 1950.

Steiger, Brad, and Joan Writenour. «Flying Saucers Are
Hostile, New York: Universal Publishing and Dist.
Corp., 1967.

128
—————————————————————————–

Tacker, Lawrence J. «Flying Saucers and the USAF».
Princeton, N. Y.: Van Nostrand, 1960.

Twitchell, Cleve. «The UFO Saga». Lakemont, Georgia:
CSA Press, 1966.

Vallee, Jacques. «Anatomy of a Phenomenon». Chicago,
Illinois, Regnery, 1965.

________. «Challenge to Science». Chicago, Illinois:
Regnery, 1965.

Young, Mort. «UFO Top Secret». New York: An Essandess
Special Edition, 1967.

Articles and Periodicals

Babcock, E. J., and T. G. Beckley. «UFO Plagues N. J.
Reservoir», Fate, Vol. 19, No. 10, Issue 199 (Oct.
1966), 34.

Berliner, Don. «The UFO From the Designers Viewpoint»,
Air Progress, Vol. 21, No. 4 (October 1967), 36.

Berry, Graham. «Those Mysterious Signals from Outer
Space,» Los Angeles Times West Magazine. Jan. 8,
1967), 27.

«Expert Says UFO Pictures Authentic,» Los Angeles Times
(Jan. 17, 1967).

Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, (Mar.- April 1964).

Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 10, No. 6, (Nov. – Dec, 1964).

«Flying Saucers’, Look, Special Edition (1967).

«A Fresh Look at Flying Saucers,» Time, (Aug. 4, 1967).

Gallup, George, and John Davies. «Five Million Americans
Have Seen Flying Saucers», Fate, Vol. 20, No. 10, Issue
211 (October 1967), 41.

Hynek, J. Allen, Letter to the Editors of Science, Fate,
Vol. 20, No. 1, Issue 202, January 1967), 42.

129
—————————————————————————–

________. «The UFO Gap.» Playboy, Vol. 14, No. 12
(December 1967), 143.

Ogles, Major George W. «Air Force Takes the Stand: ‘Just
the Facts, Sir!» The New Report on Flying Saucers,
No. 2, A Fawcett Publication, (1967), 4.

________. «What Does the Air Force Really Know About
Flying Saucers?,» The Airman (July, 1967), 4.

Sagan, Carl. «Unidentified Flying Objects,» Copyright
1963 by the Encyclopedia Americana, Reprinted for
private circulation.

«UFO Reports,» Flying Saucers, No. 1 (1967).

«The World Needs an Enemy,» Alabama Journal, (Sept. 8,
1967), 4.

World Roundup of UFO Sitings and Events, The Flying
Saucer Review, (1958).

Official Documents

U. S. Congress, Committee on Armed Services, Hearing on
Unidentified Flying Objects. #55, U. S. Printing
Office, l966.

Other Sources

Project Blue Book, 1 March, 1967, brochure presented to
Base UFO officers at a conference at the University
of Colorado on 12 June 1967.

130
—————————————————————————–
=============================================================================

—————————
C U F O N
—————————
Computer UFO Network

Seattle Washington, USA

(206) 776-0382 8 Data Bits, No Parity, 1 Stop Bit 300/1200/2400 bps.

SYSOP – Jim Klotz Information Director – Dale Goudie

UFO Reporting and Information Service
Voice Line – (206) 721-5035
P.O.Box 832, Mercer Island, WA 98040, USA

– Please credit CUFON as the source of this material –

============================================================================