1967, Air Command and Staff College, Thesis, An Analysis of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) - Ronald K. Dutton

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 42D AIR BASE WING (AETC)

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE ALABAMA

Major Becky M. Beers 2 5 OCT 2012 Commander, 42d Communications Squadron 170 W Selfridge Street Maxwell-Gunter A F B AL 36112-6610

Mr. Dustin J. Darcy

Los Angeles, CA

Dear Mr. Darcy

We have processed your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated October 2, 2012, for a thesis from 1967 written by Air Command and Staff College student Major Ronald K. Dutton. In your email you indicated that you would accept all releasable information. We processed your request under both the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. We reviewed 65 pages. All o f the releasable information responsive to your request is enclosed; however all third party information was removed.

There is no charge for processing this request since assessable fees are less than $25.00.

Sincerely

B E C K Y M. B E E R S , Major, U S A F

Attachment Thesis (June 1967)

' I

y * LD9SI fi.jL

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE

3 9349 00627 7210

AN A M LYSIS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLTING OBJECTS (UFO'S)

By

A Thesis Submitted to the Air Command and Staff College of Air University in Partial Fulfillment of

The Requirements for Graduation

June 1967

Thesis directed bj George K. Barsom, Lt Colonel, USA.F

AIR UNIVERSITY

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA

Ronald K. Dutton

Major, USAF

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR UNIVERSITY

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE AL 36112-5001

REPLY T O A T T N OF: P A JLJ. 0

jr.?/

SUBJECT: Security & Policy Review

TO: AUL/LDEX A JtnJy*;* J The attached document titled: " /rh / /

r/y^j fLf**?* ( i )

by /PtOizfJ JC. Ss/fa^j is approved for release

in accordance with AFR 190-1.

AttN \j . R0D ' Chief Security & Policy Review

1 Atch Manuscript AU/PA 91 - 2 1 - 3

This study represents the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Air Command and Staff College, Air University, or the Department of the Air Force.

This document is the property of the United States Government and is not to be reproduced in whole or in part without permission of the Commandant, Air Command and Staff College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

ABSTRACT

In the past twenty years, the sitting of Unidentified Flying

Objects (UFO's) has created an aura of mystery and caused widespread

concern among the general public. This thesis is an analysis into

the procedures used for the reporting, investigating and disseminat-

ing of UFO information. The conclusions are that the procedures

used in the past for UFO evaluation and news dissemination have been

inadequate. To solve this problem a change is recommended in the

staff of the Air Force UFO project. Also recommended are new pro-

cedures which include the use of computers and a modified plan for

news dissemination.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS iv

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. A HISTORY OF THE UFO PROGRAM . 9

in. CONFLICTING VIEWS 17

IV. PROCEDURES FOR UFO REPORTING, EVALUATION AND NEWS DISSEMINATION 20

V. NEW METHODS FCR UFO EVALUATION AND NEWS DISSEMINATION 2?

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 36

FOOTNOTES 38

APPENDIX A h2

APPENDIX B $0

BIBLIOGRAPHY 53

iii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1, Graph of Saucer Sightings 19U7 Through 196£ 2

2. UFO Statistics for 1966 . . . «, 3

iv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

By an act of Congress the United States Air Force is charged with the Air Defense of the United States. Rapid identification of anything that flies is an impor-tant part of Air Defense. Thus the Air Force initiated and continues the unidentified, flying object program. Under the program all unidentified flying object sight-ings are investigated in meticulous detail by Air Force personnel and qualified scientific consultants. So far, not a single bit of material evidence of the existence of spaceships has been found.

The above statement was made in I960 by General Thomas D. White,

Chief of Staff, United States Air Force. It applies today in 1966,

but the unidentified flying objects (UFO's) still maintain their

special status and aura of mystery. Sightings of UFO's reported to

the U. S. Air Force reached 6U6 in the first seven months of 1966.

This was nearly twice the number reported in the same period in 1965.

It is at an annual rate that was exceeded only once before—in 1952 2

(Figure 1). The total sightings reported in 1966 reached a near

record 1060 (Figure 2);-̂ this total is second only to the record

1501 reports received in 1952.^ Unofficial UFO reports are running

at two to three times the rate of reports to the Air Force.^ These

unofficial reports are submitted to private investigative committees

with the largest number going to the National Investigations Commit-

tee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). UFO's and the associated reports

FIGURE 1

GRAPH OF SAUCES SIGHTINGS 19 U7 THROUGH 196$

'4? '48 • '49 '50 W M I ' 5 5 '56

''Annual rate, based on 646 sightings in first 1 " months of 1966. J . ;

•59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66

Out of 10,147 sightings over a period of 19 years— 1947 through 1965 — 94 per cent, or 9,501, have been explained by the U. S. Air Force, and 6 per cent, or 646, listed as "unidentif ied." From 1952, when a rash of sightings brought demands for closer study, through 1965, a total of 7,687 sightings were classified as follows:

B 2,412 stars, meteors or pianets a 1,377 aircraft H 1,333 reports dismissed for insufficient data M 1,042 hoaxes, hal-lucinations and mirages, pius birds, clouds, fireworks, mis-siles, searchlights, other phenomena M 701 balloons H 56,9 satellites • 253 unidentified. ' '§ V 'M $$ . : ••• •:•:

•...;*••"••• ' Source: Project. Blue Boole, U.S. Air Force

STATISTICS FOR 1966

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

ASTRONOMICAL 11+ 8 IT IT hi 15 12 20 20 12 38 21 IT ' 255 AIRCRAFT 8 1* ' 32 h2 31 26 29 28 lU 2k 22 10 270 BALLOON 0 0 2 5 3 2 7 IT 2 5 1 1 32 INSUFF DATA 8 3 3^ 27 30 22 19 19 19 3^ 21 6 2U2 OTHER • 5 1 19 15 7 "5 10 5 7 9 8 3 9b SATELLITE 2 0 22 5 12 21 5 23 5 11 2 L 109 UNIDENTIFIED .1 2 5 2 1 b 3 3 IT 3 1 L 30 PENDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 k 2 6 lit 28

TOTAL 38 IET 158 1 W 99 92 93 105 VI- 82 ItO 1060

ASTRONOMICAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SE? OCT NOV DEC TOTAL Meteors 8 1 8 19 5 3 10 7 b 8 8 2 83 Stars/Planets 6 32 23 7 8 9 10 7 29 12 2 llt9 Other 2a la Ita 5a 3a la la 3ab la la lc 23

TOTAL vr~ ~5 sir- 15 12 S o - 20 12 38 21 255 (a) moon (b) unusual 6unset (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 It 3 29 Missiles/Rockets 1 1 2 Search/Gd Lights 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 10 Flares/Fireworks 1 1 1 1 It Reflections 3 1 2 1 2 9 Clouds/ContraiIs 2 3 IP 2p IP 9 Birds l b 1 2 1 9 Radar Analysis In 0 1 Physical Speciman lf 2st lf It Satellite Decay 1 l 2 Photo Analysis 5bcdei • 2ge 2c 1<1 10 Miscellaneous 2 ah U lk lr 5

TOTAL 5 1 19 15 7 5 10 5 7 9 8 3 9lt

(a) svamp gas (b) stellar image (c) no image (d) Insuff data (e) processing defect (f) chaff (g) electric light (h) blown transformer (i) lighthouse (j) blimp (k) plasma (n) anomolous propagation (p) artifical cloud release (r) electric vires sparking (q) Hoax (s) indentations (t) monster

are indeed timely and apparently of great interest to many people.

Almost daily one can read about UFO reports in local papers and

periodicals. The interest reached our highest level of government

when on April 5, 1966, the Committee on Armed Services of the House

of Representatives, Eighty-Ninth Congress, conducted a hearing on

UFO's.

The present Air Force UFO program (Project Blue Book) is lim-

ited in its ability to research and obtain UFO information. When

data is insufficient and not available to classify and explain a

UFO or the description of an object and its motion cannot be corre-

lated with any known phenomena, then it is carried in an unidentified

status. Since 19li7 and the first official Air Force recognition

and investigation of UFO's, the groups in the unidentified status

have been small in number, but they have created many problems

between the general public and the Air Force. The Air Force is often

criticized for improper investigation of UFO's and deliberate with-

holding of supposedly secret information from UFO reports. To solve

the mystery and aura of UFO's, a definite need exists for a more

detailed analysis of UFO reports. Part of the problem of investiga-

tion was recently solved (8 Oct 66) when the Air Force awarded a

research agreement to the University of Colorado for a scientific

study of UFO reports.6 (Appendix B)

Along with the need for a more detailed analysis of UFO reports,

a better system is needed to disseminate information to the general

public on the explanation of UFO's. At present the Secretary of the

Air Force, Office of Information, is charged with the responsi-

bility of disseminating information concerning the UFO sightings,

evaluations, and statistics. During calendar year 1966 the UFO

office was bombarded with a record 10,227 inquiries and additional

queries were handled by Air Force bases.' The heavy volume of

sighting reports and requests for information reflect the heavy

publicity given UFO's during 1966. Many articles were written in

books and magazines and they were very critical of the Air Force's

Project Blue Book. Some of the 10.227 requests for UFO infromation

can be satisfied by disseminating literature, but the demand for

such things as public speaking appearances is beyond the capabil-

ities of the UFO office. The few personnel assigned to UFO projects

throughout the Air Force are kept busy with the large amount of

paper work and the time that is necessary just for the investigation

of UFO reports.

The major objective of this thesis is to explore and hopefully

improve procedures now used to educate the general public in the

identification, classification, and explanation of UFO's. Specifi-

cally it will analyze the procedures used by the Air Force for

identifying and explaining UFO reports and how that information is

disseminated. The validity of UFO reports is often challenged by

the Air Force and quite often the Air Force conclusions determined

from UFO reports are challenged by civilian groups. Both these

areas will be looked into and discussed in more detail. Another

area to be analyzed is the recent period of increased sightings and

5

an attempt be made to find a possible relationship between the

trends of UFO reports and other aeronautical phenomena. In this

study of UFO's it is necessary to make one general assumption and

that is that UFO reports will continue.

It is reasonable to assume that a possibility does exist of

life on another planet and that someday interplanetary space travel

will take place. The coming of the space age and the aerospace

technological advances in the past ten years are a good indication

that the future holds many unknown phenomena. People tend to be

emotional beings and as such are vulnerable to the things that are

unknown. The scientific or reasonable explanation of UFO's is not

going to reach all people and will not satisfy many that it does

reach. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that UFO reports

will continue.

For the limitations on this thesis the writer would like to

make a definite point that the object of research is not to deter-

mine if UFO's are real or imaginary, but rather to improve the

procedures for the identification and dissemination of UFO informa-

tion. Research information will primarily be obtained from the

Maxwell Air Force Ease library. Additional information will be

obtained from individuals who have professed to seeing and report-

ing UFO's. A limitation of time of UFO reports is also necessary

and some reports prior to 19^7 will be mentioned, however research

will start from the first official recognition of UFO reports in

19U7. Another limit will be imposed to just those reports in the

United States.

The approach to the problem of UFO's will be covered in six

chapters. Chapter II will give a brief history of UFO reporting,

investigation, and dissemination of news. Chapter III will deal

with the conflicting views between the Air Force and civilian groups

and Chapter IV will discuss the present procedures for UFO report-

ing, investigation and dissemination of news. Chapter V will be

discussion on possible new methods of identification, classifica-

tion, and explanation of UFO reports and conclusions and recommend-

ations will evolve in Chapter VI.

Throughout this thesis frequent mention will be made to the

official Air Force UFO project (Project Blue Book) and to the main

civilian group associated with UFO reporting, NICAP. These two

groups are the main sources for gathering, explaining, and disseminat-

ing UFO information. Unfortunately they are often in great disagree-

ment as to their conclusions. The definitions of these groups are

as follows:

NICAP. The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena

is a non-profit organization incorporated in the District of Columbia

(19^6). The main goals and purposes are scientific investigation

and research of reported unidentified flying objects. The committee

encourages full reporting to the public by responsible authorities

of all information which the government has accumulated on this

subject.^

Project Blue Book. The United States Air Force has the

responsibility under the Department of Defense for the investiga-

tion of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO's). The name of this

program, which has been in operation since 19U8, is Project Blue

Book, It has been identified in the past as Project Sign and

Project Grudge.

Air Force interest in UFO's is related directly to the Air

Force responsibility for the air defense of the United States.

Procedures for conducting this program are established by Air

Force Regulation 80-17, dated 12 October 1966, as supplemented.

The objectives of Project Blue Book are twofold: first, to deter-

mine whether UFO's pose a threat to the security of the United

States; and second, to determine whether UFO's exhibit any unioue

scientific information or advanced technology which could contribute

to scientific or technical research. In the course of accomplishing

these objectives, Project Blue Book strives to identify and explain

all UFO's reported to the Air Force.'

8

CHAPTER I I

A HISTORY OF THE UFO PROGRAM

Reports of strange objects in the sky have existed throughout

history and have often caused a great amount of popular emotion

among the general public. Before astronomers had discovered the

planets of our solar system, the visitations were attributed to the

gods; in more recent times, the gods have been displaced by the

beings from other planets.1" In the period of World War II and the

Korean War, many pilots reported seeing strange objects in the sky.

These objects were commonly known as "foo fighters" and further

investigation revealed that the objects were probably generated by

static electricity. The phenomenon was known as Saint Elmo's fire.

Up until 19U7 the strange objects in the sky were seldom referred

to as spaceships, flying saucers or physical beings from other

planets and stars. It was Tuesday, 2U June 19U7, that the term

"flying saucer" was bora and the Air Force officially recognized

the phenomenon of UFO's. On that day a civilian pilot, Mr. Kenneth

Arnold, was participating in a search and rescue mission for a

missing transport plane. While flying near the peaks of Mount

Rainier in the 3tate of Washington, Mr. Arnold spotted what looked

like a chain of nine saucer-like objects playing tag among the

2 peaks. Upon landing he reported his sighting to the Air Force

authorities and since that day the Air Force has assumed the respon-

sibility of investigating UFO's. Mr. Arnold's report set off a

chain reaction which has not stopped even to this day.

Following Mr. Arnold'3 report of flying saucers, numerous re-

ports filtered in thru Air Force channels and were directed to the

Chief of Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC), Wright-Patterson

Air Force Base, Ohio. The main task of ATIC was the analysis and

investigation of UFO reports. Initial coordination between ATIC,

Headquarters USVF, and other major commands was by letters, tele-

grams, and telephone calls. This process soon became very laborious

tc ATIC for they had no facilities to properly investigate the

reports and very few standard operating procedures had been estab-

lished. In September of 19U7, ATIC stated, "it is possible within

the present day United States knowledge, provided extensive detailed

development is undertaken, to construct a piloted aircraft which has

the general description of the UFO's being reported.ATIC then

recommended to Air Force Headquarters that a new policy directive

be set up. This directive was necessary to assign a priority,

security classification, code name, and procedures for investigation

of UFO reports. On 22 J a n u a r y 19U8, Air Force set up "Project Sign,"

the first official UFO project with a mission to collect, correlate,

evaluate, and act on UFO information.'

Now the Air Force was set up to investigate UFO reports. Many

reports were evaluated and quite a few were explained to be such

10

things as balloons, searchlights, aircraft, astronomical bodies

and meteorological phenomena. However, there were many reports

that could not be explained usually because of insufficient data

or knowledge. Thus was born two schools of thought on UFO's. On

one side was the group who felt that most UFO's could be connected

with conventional objects while the other group believed that UFO's

were actually "things" from our planet or outer space. It is

interesting to note that each school of thought was supported by

both military and civilian groups. On 11 February 19U9, the code

name of the Air Force project was changed to "Grudge." Some people

feel that the name was changed because of the disagreement about

UFO's, but the official order was supposedly written because the

classified name, Project Sign, had been compromised.- Project

Grudge continued to investigate a few of the new and many of the

old UFO reports and on 27 December 19U9> an official report was

released. The report made the following statements:

1. Evaluation of UFO reports indicate that there is no direct

threat to the national security of the United States.

2. Reports on UFO's are the result of:

a. A mild form of mass hysteria or "war nerves."

b. Individuals who fabricate such reports to perpetuate a

hoax or seek publicity.

c. Phychopathological persons.

d. Misidentification of various conventionsl objects.6

11

Along with the report it was recommended that Project Grudge be

"reduced in scope" and that only "those reports clearly indicating

realistic technical applications" be sent to the project for evalua-

tion. After approval of the report by the Air Force, Project Grudge

folded.7

After the Project Grudge report, the period of 1950-51 was Q

known as the dark ages of UFO investigation. The number of UFO

reports began to increase very rapidly and the Air Force slowly in-

creased its emphasis on UFO investigation. In March of 1952 a new,

revitalised project was formed called the "Aerial Phenomena Group."

The code name was "Project Blue Book" and was headed by a Captain

Edward J. Ruppelt.^ Captain Ruppelt was to be assisted in the proj-

ect by selected qualified scientists, engineers, and other technical

people within the Air Technical Intelligence Center. After the tre-

mendous increase of UFO reports in 1952, the Air Force convened a

panel of top scientists to study the reports and decide whether the

evidence indicated that UFO's were interplanetary, whether it was

all explainable, and whether Project Blue Book should continue and

seek better data.10 On lU, 1$, and 16 January 1953, the panel met

and the conclusions of that panel were declassified and released in

1958. The following conclusions were stated about UFO's:

1. They held no direct physical threat.

2. They were not foreign developments capable of hostile acts

against the United States. 12

3. They were not unknown phenomena requiring the revision of

current scientific concepts.11

The panel further concluded that unless de-emphasised, UFO's, or

the subject itself, could constitute a threat to national security.

The panel felt that a rash of sightings could effect defense com-

munications, national hysteria could be induced by skillful hostile

propagandists, and a mass of false reports could screen planned

hostile actions against the United States. As a result of the 1953

meeting, the panel made the following basic recommendations:

1. That immediate steps be taken to strip the UFO's of the

aura of mystery which they had unfortunately acquired.

2. That the public be reassured of the total lack of evidence

of inimical forces behind the phenomena.

3. That the Air Force investigation personnel be trained to 12

recognize and reject false indications quickly and effectively.

In August of 1953 Air Force Regulation 200-2 was published and

it listed the procedures for reporting UFO's. Late in 1955 the

classification of Project Blue Book was discontinued and the reports

were made available and released to the general public. The reports

gave no evidence that UFO's were a threat to the United States and

this opinion was stated repeatedly by the Air Force through many

different news media. With the declassification and release of

Project Blue Book reports the Air Force used "fact sheets" late in

1955 to answer queries about UFO's. This information came from the

Department of Defense, Office of Public Information, and was issued 13

periodically for news release. Military speakers associated with

the UFO program gave a few speeches on both radio and television

and again emphasized the Air Force position on UFO's. For military

personnel the UFO information and articles were released in the

form of Air Force Inspector General Briefs and Policy Letters to

Commanders.

So far the UFO investigation and reporting described in this

chapter has dealt only with the military. However, there are many

civilian groups associated with reporting and investigating UFO's,

The largest and perhaps most influential of the groups is NICAP,

the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, which is

directed by a Major Donald E. Keyhoe, USMC (Ret). Some of the other

groups are the Borderline Sciences Research Association (California),

Interplanetary Intelligence of Unidentified Flying Objects (Oklahoma),

Intercontinental Aerial Research Foundation (Nebraska), UFO Research

Committee (Ohio), Civilian Saucer Intelligence (New York), Waukegan

Contact Group (Illinois), Saucer Investigative Research Organization

(Georgia),World Society of the Flying Saucer (Idaho), and the Civil-13

ian Research on Interplanetary Flying Objects (Ohio). J The member-

ship of some of these civilian groups is very large and often made

up of people who are recognized as competent and reliable individuals.

Most of the civilian groups publish some form of bulletin with

information on UFO reporting and investigation. The information is

gathered from unofficial reports from all over the world and, un-

fortunately, the civilian findings of UFO investigations are often Hi

in disagreement with Air Force findings. A majority of the civilian

groups believe that UFO's are interplanetary in origin and are under

the control of living beings. They are highly dissatisfied with the

Air Force investigation procedures and they often are very critical

and skeptical of most explanations for UFO's. One of the major

goals of the leading civilian groups has been to force a congres-

sional inquiry that would supposedly reveal an Air Force conspiracy

to deny the reality of flying saucers.1'1 This goal for an inquiry

was reached in 1966.

On 5 April 1966, the Committee On Armed Services of the House

of Representatives, Eighty-Ninth Congress, conducted a hearing on

UFO's. The committee was chaired by the Honorable L. Mendal Rivers

and representing the Air Force were the Honorable Harold Brown,

Secretary of the Air Force, General McConnell, Air Force Chief of

Staff, Dr. J.. Allen Hynek, consultant to Project Blue Book, and Major

Hector Quintanilla, Jr., UFO project officer. Secretary Brown was

first to state the Air Force's continued position on UFO's and then

he introduced a special report from the USA.F Scientific Advisory 15

Board. The Board had very recently concluded a review of Project

Blue Book and had recommended that a panel of scientists be author-

ized by the Air Force to conduct independent investigation into UFO

reports. Dr. Hynek then presented his views on UFO's and pointed

out that enough puzzling sightings had been reported by intelligent

and often technically competent people, to warrant closer attention

than Project Blue Book could possibly encompass at the present time. 15

He also recommended that some civilian group of scientists under-

take a long and detailed stud£ of the UFO phenomena.16 The Air

Force's proposals, recommendations and answers to questions were

well received by the Congressmen.

The Air Force then announced on 7 October 1966, that the Uni-

versity of Colorado had been selected to conduct research into UFO

reports. The agreement was valued at approximately $300,000 and the

research is to analyze the UFO phenomenon and make recommendations

on the Air Force's methods of investigation and evaluation. The

report is expected in 1 9 6 8 ^ (Attachment B) The Air Force Project

Blue Book files will be available to the investigating scientists

and all Air Force bases will assist the team as necessary. The

investigators will, however, conduct their research independently

of and without direction from the Air Force. During the period of

special investigation, Project Blue Book will still be the official

Air Force Program for UFO reporting and investigation.

As this chapter has indicated, from 19h7 through 1966 the UFO

reports and investigations were certainly subjects of controversy.

The next chapter will delve further into some of the views about

UFO's as stated by both the Air Force and civilian groups.

16

\ CHAPTER III

CONFLICTING VIEWS

Since the* inception of Project Blue Book in 19£2, the official

Air Force conclusions about UFO's have been the following:

1. No unidentified flying object reported, investigated, and

evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat

to United States security.

2. There has been no evidence submitted to the Air Force which

indicates UFO's are a technological advance beyond the range of

present day scientific knowledge.

3. There has been no evidence that any unidentified sightings

were vehicles from outer space.1

Based upon approximately 11,207 sightings from 19U7 through 1966,

the Air Force has failed to identify 676 reported sightings.- The

primary reason for the unexplained sightings is that information

available does not provide an adequate basis for analysis.

In contrast to the official Air Force views are the beliefs of

many of the civilian UFO organisations. The largest, most typical, t

and most influencial organization is NICAP, the National Investiga-

tions Committee on Aerial Phenomena. The NICAP Board of Governors

embrace the hypothesis that the unexplained UFO's are real, physical

17

objects rather than the result of imagination, delusions, and

illusions. They also believe that the unexplained UFO's are under

the control (piloted or remote) of living beings.3 Almost without

exception the civilian UFO organizations blame the Air Force for

the practice of reducing the significance of UFO data through the

use of counter-to-fact explanations of sightings and issuance of

misleading statistics. The Air Force is also blamed for the prac-

tice of implying through its public relations program, that all

available information has been disseminated and there is no need

for further investigation. NICAP has blamed both the Air Force and

the government (Congress and the Executive Branch) for failing to

recognize that a scientific problem exists. As a solution to what

it calls an unsatisfactory situation, NICAP, as well as many of

the other civilian UFO organizations, would like to see the Air

Force unclassified UFO files made available to any and all inter-

ested citizens.^

Most civilian UFO organizations cling to the belief that a con-

spiracy exists to conceal the existence of extraterrestrial vehicles,

but they disagree to its precise composition.^ To NICAP and its

affiliates, the chief culprit is the Air Force, helped occasionally $

by other government agencies and by well known civilian scientists.

One of the more extreme views of a civilian UFO organization is that

of APEO, the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization. APRO contends

that nobody in the Air Force, Army or the Navy "has the brains" to

contrive a successful conspiracy and that the alleged plot "could 18

only be borne of minds schooled in deception and conception—the

elite corps of the Central Intelligence Agency."^ In still another

version NICAP itself is a pawn in a superconspiracy so vast that

thousands of American citizens have been made its unknowing tools.7

And so the different views go; many dissent against each other and

almost all disagree with the official Air Force position. To help

understand why there is such a great difference between the views

of the Air Force and those of the civilian UFO organizations, it

is helpful to have a basic understanding of the present procedures

used by the Air Force for UFO reporting, evaluation, and news dis-

semination.

19

CHAPTER 17

PROCEDURES FOR UFO REPORTING, EVALUATION AND NEWS DISSEMINATION

Reporting UFO's

Air Force Regulation 80-17, Unidentified Flying Objects, dated 19

September 1966, is the basic regulation covering UFO reporting proce-

dures (Appendix A). It supersedes Air Force Regulation 200-2, dated

20 July 1962. In the view of this writer the new regulation, com-

pared to the old regulation, is quite an improvement in that it is

more concise, less subject to interpretation and is very detailed in

basic reporting data and format.

The regulation establishes the Air Force program for investigating and analyzing UFO's over the United States. It provides for uniform investigative procedures and release of information. The investigation and analyses prescribed are related directly to the Air Force's responsibility for the air defense 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.^

Prior to a discussion of the actual procedures used for evalua-

tion of UFO's, it is of interest to note a few of the factors which

possibly effect UFO reports.

News Media. In 1966 the UFO's were wildly publicized in the mass-

communications media. Many stories about UFO's appeared in the more

widely read magazines such as Life, look, Saturday Evening Post,

20

Time, and Newsweek. Television added its contribution to the space

age with such shows as Startrek, Lost in Space, and The Invaders.

In March of 1966 the sighting^ of "swamp gas" in Dexter and Hills-

dale, Michigan, was^ given nation wide coverage in the newspapers.

This publicity in Michigan gave new life to the UFO controversy and

UFO reports jumped from a low of 18 in February to a record high of

158 in March (Figure 2). A comparison of UFO reports for 1952 and

1966 is of particular interest. A.s stated earlier in Chapter I,

the year 1952 had the record number of UFO sightings with approx-

imately 1,500 and the year 1966 was second with approximately 1,100

sightings. In April of 1952 Life magazine published an article,

"Have Vie Visitors from Outer Space?" In the same month the Air

Force published a new order that directed bases to make immediate,

high priority reports of all UFO sightings in their area.* In June

of 1952 Look magazine published an article, "Hunt for the Flying

Saucers." During the previous spring and summer the movie, "The Day

the Earth Stood Still" was quite popular. The movie described how

a flying saucer from another planet landed in a baseball field close

to the White House and the visiting spaceman had come to help the

human race. All this publicity by the news media created enthusiasm

and served to incite the general public to look for UFO's. In July

of 1952 the saucers did indeed arrive in Washington, D. C., for a

much awaited visit. The Washington sightings have been called the

most widely publicized UFO sightings in the Air Force annals. How-

ever, in the end the explanation for the sightings by radar and

21

qualified military pilots was concluded to be the mirage effect

caused by temperature inversions.

Reliability. How reliable is the individual giving the UFO

report? In present day investigation this seems to be a big ques-

tion when checking the validity of a report. The high qualifica-

tions of witnesses is often voiced by the civilian organizations.

NICAP states that a large number of reports come from reputable

and competent observers; honest and intelligent citizens. Scientists

and professional pilots are considered experienced observers while

private pilots and police are good observers and other reliable

citizens are considered average observers.^ When the Air Force

explained away the Michigan UFO sightings as "swamp gas," it was

accused of casting doubt on the competency of police officers who

had made detailed reports of the UFO sightings. Often when a UFO

is seen by a number of highly qualified witnesses, then the thought

arises that there might be something to it. This thought may be

a valid assumption, but a report should be analyzed objectively and

in detail for its content with less emphasis placed on the relia-

bility of the witness. Dr. Wernher von Braun stated the following

about the reliability of witnesses:

A lifetime spent with testing of guided missiles has taught me to be extremely careful with eye-witness accounts on rocket firings running into some in-flight trouble. Of three experienced observers questioned after a typical mishap, one swore that he clearly saw a part coming off before the rocket faltered; a second hotly denied this but claimed that the missile oscil-lated violently before it veered off the course; while the third trained observer saw neither a part coming

22

off, nor an oscillation, nor any veering off the course but insisted that the rocket was flying perfectly steady until it was abruptly ripped apart by an internal explo-sion. 5

Faiths. Dr. Carl C. Jung, a noted psychiatrist and analyst,

states that to believe that UFO's are real suits the general opinion,

whereas disbelief is to bo discouraged.^5 In the middle ages reli-

gious or mythological interpretations would have been given to such

signs as UFO's in the heavens. Wow because of our technological

advances and the possibility that man will someday conquer space,

the projects or visions of man are interpreted as spaceships or

saucers, rather than the manifestations of devine intervention.7

The people who believe in UFO's are by no means a small group. In

October of 1966 approximately 5,000 people gathered at Giant Rock

in San Bernadino County, California, for the 13th Annual Spacecraft

Convention. At conventions of this type many speeches are given

with such topics as: "My Four Day Trip to Mars," "I Was an Agent

for the Extraterrestrials" and "A Space Being's Visit to the Pentagon.

One civilian organization of saucer believers is the Amalgamated

Flying Saucer Club of America, Inc. (AFSCA). Gabriel Green, the

director of AFSCA, said in a recent promotional brochure:

Some of the many amazing benefits of the knowledge already received from the Space People, or promised by them if we will welcome them in a friendly manner, are: elimination of disease, poverty and smog; solving the problem of automation and unemployment; a way to finance all public work projects and aid to other countries with-out taxation; an extended life span; a greater measure of personal freedom, economic security and abundance; and for many living today, personal journeys to other planets beyond the stars.

23

This writer's purpose of discussion about faiths is not aimed

at supporting the belief or non-belief of UFO's. It is intended

rather to stress the point that a qualified psychiatrist would be

of benefit in any analysis of UFO reports.

Evaluating UFO Reports

The first phase of UFO investigation begins with the receipt

of the report and the initial investigation by the Air Force base

nearest the location of the sighting. The results of the first

phase of investigation are then sent to the Project Blue Book office.

If the UFO has not been identified or reasonably explained then a

second phase of more detailed analysis is carried out by the Project

Blue Book staff. The staff is headed by Air Force Major Hector

Quintanilla, Jr., and he is assisted by a first lieutenant, a staff

sergeant and a secretary. As stated in the Project Blue Book re-

port, each case is objectively and scientifically analyzed and, if

necessary, all of the scientific facilities available to the Air

Force can be used to assist in arriving at an identification or ex-

planation. At this point one might question the degree of scien-

tific background of such a small staff. To assist the Project Blue

Book staff the Air Force frequently calls on Dr. J. Allen Hynek who

is the official scientific consultant to the Air Force on the problem

of the UFO phenomenon. Dr. Hynek's main academic background is in

the field of Astrophysics.

2U

After receiving UFO reports, the investigation may often take

considerable time to collect proper data for a valid conclusion.

Result: the Air Force is blamed for the delay and accused of cover-

up tactics.^ If the answer or explanation is readily available,

then many UFO addicts deny its truth and assert that the explana-

tion was hurriedly rushed into print in order to deceive the public.

NICAP contends that the Air Force has practiced an intolerable de-

gree of secrecy and withholding of information in its public poli-

cies on the UFO subject, and refuses to allow an independent evalua-

tion of its data. They believe that the Air Force has proof of UFO

reality and is holding back the information until the public can be

psychologically prepared under a program guided by some higher

agency.30

The Air Force evaluation of UFO reports fall into three general

categories: identified, insufficient data, and unidentified. An

identified report is one for which sufficient specific information

has been accumulated to positively identify the object. Often mis-

taken for UFO's are such things as satellites, space vehicles,

astronomical bodies, meteorological phenomena, missiles, aircraft

navigation lights, condensation trails, balloons, birds and search-

lights. More than one thousand objects from earth are known to

be in space now. Of this number six big, light-reflecting U. S.

satellites are clearly visible much of the time. Two-hundred-forty-

three space vehicles are often visible and 870 pieces of space junk

such as rocket casings and satellite parts are occasionally visible.

25

When one or more essential elements are missing in a UFO report

then the report is categorized as "Insufficient Data." Essential

elements are the omission of the duration of the sighting, date,

time, location, position in the sky, weather conditions, and the 1 ?

manner of appearance or disappearance.The additional investiga-

tion for the missing element of information is often very time con-

suming and until such time as sufficient specific data is available,

the report cannot be identified.

News Dissemination

The dissemination of information pertaining to UFO sightings,

evaluations and statistics is the task assigned to the Office of

Information of the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF-OI). As stated

in Air Force Regulation 80-17, private individuals or organizations

desiring Air Force interviews, briefings, lectures or private dis-

cussions on UFO's will direct their requests to SAF-OI. However,

with the record 10,227 inquiries in 1966, the saucer craze has be-

come so great that the Air Force is turning down all requests from

civilian organizations for officers to speak on the UFO program.

Personnel assigned to UFO projects are so busy investigating reports

that the workload does not permit acceptance of public speaking

appearances "at this time."13

Periodically by use of The Inspector General Brief and Air

Force Policy Letters for Commanders, Air Force personnel are re-

briefed on UFO reporting procedures and latest UFO information.

26

The Inspector General briefs stress the fact that flying objects

in the past have posed no threat to the security of the United

States. However, observations aid Air Force readiness and since

the possibility exists that a UFO reported may be hostile, or a

new foreign air vehicle of unconventional design, it is imperative

to report sightings rapidly, factually and completely as p o s s i b l e .

For civilian personnel the source of official, military infor-

mation is rather limited. From 1956 through 1961 the "fact sheets"

with uFO information were issued approximately semi-annually to the

press.Since 1962 the Air Force has periodically issued packets

of information to the press. The message has always been the same;

no evidence that UFO's were outer space vehicles or posed a threat

to U. S. security. However, the civilian populous certainly does

not lack for UFO information. Most of the civilian UFO organiza-

tions publish literature about UFO's and the truths which allegedly

are suppressed by government sources.

Of particular interest is the fact that the Air Force seldom

answers publically the critics of its UFO program and for the one

time that it did try, the results were unsatisfactory. In 1961

Colonel Lawrence J. Tacker, the official Pentagon spokesman for UFO's,

wrote a book Flying Saucers and the Air Force. He later went on pub-

lic tour to give lectures and appear on television. Colonel Tacker

was very adamant in his position on denouncing critics of the UFO

investigation conducted by the Air Force. The result was that many

civilians became highly disturbed at being denounced and they wrote

27

CHAPTER V

NEW METHODS FOR UFO EVALUATION AND NEWS DISSEMINATION

In the previous chapter some of the reasons why people were

dissatisfied with Project Blue Book were reviewed. The purpose of

this chapter is to discuss possible improved methods for UFO eval-

uation and the dissemination of UFO news to the general public

showing the results of that evaluation. In the present day period

of limited resources a lot depends on how much money the government

is willing to spend for personnel and facilities to conduct UFO

evaluation. It is reasonable to assume that the improvement in any

one phase of investigation would certainly effect the accomplish-

ments in other phases.

Civilians Replacing the Military in Project Blue Book

Stability. For a beginning it is important to look at the

stability in the past of the UFO project office. The accomplishments

of any organization are certainly affected by the stability of its

personnel movements. Since 1951 and the beginning of Project Blue

Book, the staff has been under the direction of seven different

chiefs.1 The average length of time for the chiefs has been close

to three years and this is considered normal for a military assignment.

29

In the past Project Blue Book has also been considered well organ-

ized, but the personnel resources assigned to it (only one officer,

a sergeant, and secretary) have been quite limited. The assign-

ment of at least one civilian to the supervisory position could

prove beneficial from the stability angle. A civilian is normally

not subjected to as many moves as a military man. As to the rest

of the military staff being replaced by civilians, it would depend

on the abilities required in certain levels of operation.

Ability. The abilities of the present Project Blue Book staff

might be considered inadequate because of the limited number of

personnel with a scientific background. Major Quintanilla is a

physicist and at times the Air Force calls on civilian scientists

for assistance, principally Dr. H. Allen Hynek of northwestern

University. As noted in most criticism of Project Blue Book, the

degree of scientific investigation has been limited.^ The Air Force'

decision to enter into a research agreement with Colorado University

was a step in providing further detailed scientific research. The

university is making a start by investigating some of the unsolved

cases in the Air Force files and new cases will be passed on to the

group by Air Force if it is unable to find a solution to future

sightings.^ At this point one might ask a few questions. What

happens when the research is completed by the university? Who at

Air Force level (Project Blue Book) is determining what reports

should go to the research group and what is his scientific back-

ground?

30

Feasibility. On 3 February 1966, the Special Report of the

USAF Scientific Advisory Board Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project

Blue Book stated the following conclusions and recommendations:

. . . . In 19 years and more than 10,000 sightings recorded and classified, there appears to be no veri-fied and fully satisfactory evidence of any case that is clearly outside the framework of presently known science and technology. Nevertheless, there is always the possibility that analysis of new sightings may pro-vide some additions to scientific knowledge of value to the Air Force. Moreover, some of the case records which the committee looked at that were listed as "identified" were sightings where the evidence collected was too meager or too indefinite to' permit positive listing in the identified category. Because of this the committee recommends that the present program be strengthened to provide opportunity for scientific investigation of selected sightings in more detail and depth than has been possible to date.

To accomplish this it is recommended that— (a) Contracts be negotiated with a few selected

universities to provide scientific teams to investigate promptly and in depth certain selected sightings of UFO's. Each team should include at least one psychologist, pref-erably one interested in clinical psychology, and at least one physical scientist, preferably an astronomer or geophysicist familiar with atmospheric phys ics .5

To go one step further, it would seem feasible to have on the

Project Blue Book staff someone who is trained in psychology. This

individual could be either a military man or a civilian, but pref-

erably he should come from a civilian source. In the close communi-

cation and coordination between the office of Project Blue Book and

the civilian research groups, it would be one scientist talking to

another scientist and the level of thinking and conversation would

be very compatible.

31

It is not the intent of this writer to degrade the qualifica-

tions of the present chief of Project Blue Book, Major Quintanilla.

His academic background in the field of physics has certainly con-

tributed to the effectiveness of investigations, but like so many

of the past military chiefs he will soon be leaving. The intent is

to stress the point that more qualified experience is needed to

help initially evaluate UFO reports in a scientific manner. This

could be done by assigning selected civilians with specific scien-

tific backgrounds to run Project Blue Book.

Use of Computers

In today's era of advanced technology man has benefited in

almost all scientific fields by using computers. This benefit

could also be realized in the field of UFO evaluation. Project

Blue Book presently uses a system of attaching to each UFO report

one of the following labels:^

(1) Was balloon (2) Probable balloon (3) Possible balloon (U) Was aircraft (5) Probable aircraft (6) Possible aircraft (7) Was astronomical (8) Probable astronomical (9) Possible astronomical (10) Other (11) Unknown (12) Unidentified (13) Insufficient data

This type of classification system is fine for the purpose of main-

taining an orderly file, but of what scientific value is it? Simple

32

observation reveals that very little scientific information could

be gained from statistics derived from such a system.

What is needed is a detailed system of analysis which would ana-

lyze the behavior and patterns of UFO's. The process now used by

Project Blue Book is to separately analyze and classify each report.

A better procedure would be to analyze different reports together

and compare new reports with old ones. Dr. Hynek, the Air Force

consultant on UFO's, suggests that the first step in helping to

solve the UFO problem would be the use of computers.

First, all of the valuable data that we have accumu-lated—good reports from all over the world—must be computerized so that we can rapidly compare new sightings with old and trace patterns of UFO behavior.'

The next logical question would be where is Project Blue Book

going to get a computer? It is of particular interest to note that

the Air Force is considered to be the leading pioneer in computer

development and today they are the biggest user of computer systems.®

The subject of UFO reports has been important enough to require a

Congressional Investigation and the UFO phenomenon is responsible

for the Air Force research agreement to civilian universities in

the amount of $300,000. If the UFO reports are of such importance

then, in this writer's opinion, it should benefit the Air Force to

procure a computer or computer time in an effort to modernize and

keep current its UFO evaluation program.

33

News Dissemination

The primary function of any public information office is to

keep the public informed. This function has received repeated

emphasis by the Project Blue Book staff since the beginning of the

UFO program. Lieutenant Colonel Tacker, who was the Pentagon UFO

Spokesman from 1958 through 1961, stated that the public must be

continually kept informed of the Air Force position regarding UFO's.

If this has been done, then why has a large portion of the public

reacted negatively to the official Air Force position? A possible

explanation could be that the Air Force position has always been

the same and the public does not feel that all UFO's are identifi-

able with relatively known phenomena. The civilian UFO organiza-

tions believe that virtually all of the Air Force's analysis of

UFO's has been conducted in secrecy, affording the scientific com-

munity as a whole no opportunity to cross check and review the

methods and reasoning used. Only the end results have been released

to the public.10

Wow that the University of Colorado scientific committee is, in

part, conducting evaluation of UFO reports, the public should be

made aware of the scientific research taking place. Dr. Edward V*

Condon, who is director of the scientific committee, states that the

investigation will eventually involve some 100 scientists from other

universities and a final report will be made public sometime in 1968.11

It is this writer's contention that progress reports should be sub-

mitted to the Air Force by Dr. Conden's group and this information

3 h

in turn be released to the public. The information would not have

to be the results of the investigation, but merely statements as to

who is doing the investigation and perhaps what procedures are being

used. This would definitely aid to public understanding of the

scientific approach being taken by the Air Force in attacking the

UFO problem.

The idea of contracting research agreements with civilian insti-

tutes was first expressed by the USAF Scientific Advisory Board in

1966 when they reviewed Project Blue Book. Along with the idea of

scientific investigation the following was stated about news dis-

semination:

. . . .The information provided by such a program might bring to light new facts of scientific value, and would almost certainly provide a far better basis than we have today for decision on a long-term UFO program,

The scientific reports on these selected sightings, supplementing the present program of the Project Blue Book office, should strengthen the public position of the Air Force on UFO's. It is, therefore, recommended that—

(a) These reports be printed in full and be avail-able on request.

(b) Suitable extracts or condensed versions be printed and included in, or as supplements to, the pub-lished reports of Project Blue Book.

(c) The form of report be expanded, and anything which might suggest that information is being withheld be deleted. The form of this report can be of great import-ance in securing public understanding and should be given detailed study by an appropriate Air Force office.

(d) The reports Project Blue Book should be given wide unsolicited circulation among prominent mem-bers of the Congress and other public persons as a further aid to public understanding of the scientific approach being taken by the Air Force in attacking the UFO problem.12

35

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As stated previously, a lot depends on what priority UFO's are

given and just how much money the government is willing to spend on

the UFO phenomenon. It is this writer's opinion that UFO's, in all

their ramifications, have been an increasing detriment to the Air

Force and the United States Government. The procedures used in the

past for UFO evaluation and news dissemination have been inadequate

and with this thought in mind the following conclusions and recom-

mendations are submitted:

Conclusions•

1. A more detailed scientific analysis of the UFO phenomenon is

needed.

2. Conflict does exist between military and non-military groups

as to the procedures that should be used to solve the UFO phenomenon.

3. Project Blue Book office has been limited in its ability to

pursue a scientific approach to the UFO problem.

U. Limited research has shown that the procedures used for

reporting UFO's are adequate. When the results of present scien-

tific investigation are complete in 1968, the area of reporting

UFO's should be subjected to further research.

36

The aid of computer systems for UFO evaluation would pro-

duce a more effective, scientific analysis of reports. Further

research would be needed to design a new classification system.

6. There is a need for increased emphasis on the dissemination

of official news pertaining to the UFO phenomena. With the more

detailed investigation by civilian scientific groups, the findings

could be made available to the public through the widespread use

of books, magazines and other news media. The information will be

better received by civilian groups because the detailed scientific

research is not being performed by the Air Force.

Recommendations.

1. Project Blue Book should have an expanded staff and be

under the direction of a civilian scientist with a background in the

field of psychology. The staff should be further complimented by

another civilian or military scientist with a background in the field

of astrology.

2. Computers should be provided immediately for the task of

record keeping, classification and analysis of UFO information. The

cost to procure a computer solely for UFO computations is not feas-

ible. A more practical solution would be to tie into and use one of

the many Air Force computers through the automatic digital network.

3. Official UFO information should be given the widest possible

circulation in an effort to educate the general public on UFO's and

the scientific evaluation of the UFO phenomena.

37

FOOTNOTES

Chapter I 1. Lt Colonel Lawrence J. Tacker, Flying Saucers and the U. S.

Air Force (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van NostranTCompany, Inc., I960), Foreword.

2. "UFO's - They're Back in New Sizes, Shapes and Colors," U. S. News and World Report (22 August 1966), pp. 59-60.

3. "UFO Inquiries Set a New Record," Air Force Times (25 January 1967), p. 22.

li. "UFO's - They're Back in New Sizes, Shapes and Colors," loc. cit.

5. "Air Force Selects University of Colorado to Investigate UFO Reports," Air Force Policy Letter for Commanders (November 1966) p . 32.

6. "UFO Inquiries Set a New Record," loc. cit.

7. Richard H. Hall (ed.), The UFO Evidence (Washington: The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), 196U) p. i.

8. U. S., Congress, Committee on Armed Services, Hearings on Unidentified Flying Objects, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1966, p. 5997. Cited hereafter as UFO Hearings, I966.

Chapter II

1. Dr. J. C. Arnell, "UFO's: Figment, Fact or Fiction," Sentinel (5 June 1966), p. U.

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

3. Ibid., p. 13.

b. Ibid., p. li|. 38

5. Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1956), p. t?5.

6. Ibid., p. 97.

7. Ibid., p. 98.

8. Hall, op. cit., p. 106.

9. Ibid., p. 107.

10. Ibid.

11. "This is Our Position,11 The Airman (5 January 1961), p. 2.

12. Ibid.

13. Donald H. Menzel, Lyle G. Boyd, The World of Flying Saucers (Garden City, Mew York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., lT6jT), p. 276.

1U. Donald E. Keyhoe, Flying Saucers: Top Secret (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, I960), p. 10.

15. UFO Hearings, 1966, loc. cit., p. 5992.

16. Ibid., p. 6008.

17. Air Force Policy Letter for Commanders (November 1966), p. 32.

Chapter III

1. UFO Hearings, 1966, loc. cit., p. 5998.

2. Calculations derived from Figures I & II.

3. Hall, op. cit., p. ii.

U. Ibid.

5. Menzel and Boyd, op. cit., p. 278.

6. C. E. lorenzen, "The Psychology of UFO Secrecy," Flying Saucers (October 1958), p. 12.

7. L. Davidson, (letter), Flying Saucers (October 1958), p. 79.

39

Chapter IV

1. Air Force Regulation 80-17, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) (Washington: Department of the Air Force, 19 September 1966, Change A, 8 November 1966), Introduction.

2. Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 178.

3. Hall, op. cit., p. ii.

U. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, "Are Flying Saucers Real?" The Saturday Evening Post (17 December 1966), p. 18.

5. Werner von Braun, First Men to the Moon (Canada: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I960), Extract.

6. Carl Gustav Jung, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky (London: Routledge and Paul Co., 1959), p. x.

7. Ibid., p. 21.

8. David C. Whitney (ed.), "Flying Saucers," Look Special (New York: Cowles Communications, Inc., 1967), p. 5k.

9. "Trade Winds: USAF Reactions to Recent Sightings," Saturday Review (16 April 1966), p. 10.

10. Hall, op. cit., p. 105.

11. "UFO's - They're Back in New Sizes, Shapes and Colors," loc cit.

12. UFO Hearings, 1966, loc. cit., p. 5997.

13. "UFO Inquiries Set a New Record," loc. cit. 111. "Reporting Unidentified Flying Objects," The Inspector

General (22 May 1966), p. 17.

15. Hall, op. cit., p. 107.

Chapter V

1. Hall, op. cit., p. 107.

2. UFO Hearings, 1966, loc. cit., p. 5995.

3. Hall, op. cit., p. i. I;. Whitney (ed. ), loc. cit., p. 61.

5. UFO Hearings, 1966, loc. cit., p. 5995.

6. Jacques v^llee, Anatomy of a Phenomenon: UP in Space (Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1965), p. 99.

7. Hynek, op. cit., p. 21.

8. Lt Colonel William K. Rogers, Speech before the Air Command and Staff College Class of 1967, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 3 October 1966.

9. Tacker, op. cit., p. 85.

10. Hall, op. cit., p. ii.

11. Whitney (ed.), loc. cit.

12. UFO Hearings, 1966, loc. cit., p. 5995.

ill

APPENDIX A

AIR FORCE REGULATION 80-17

UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO)

AIR FORCE REGULATION NO. 80-17

AFR 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 analyzing UFOs over the United States. It provides for unifotm investigative procedures and release of in-formation. The investigations and analyses prescribed are related directly to the Air Force's responsibility for the air defense 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 — G E N E R A L PROVISIONS

Paragraph Explanation of Terms 1 Program Objectives 2 Program Responsibilities 3

SECTION B—PUBLIC RELATIONS, INFORMATION, CONTACTS, A N D R E L E A S E S

Response to Public Interest ' 4 Releasing Information 5

SECTION C—PREPARING A N D SUBMITTING REPORTS General Information 6 Guidance in Preparing Reports 7 Transmittal of Reports 8 Negative or Inapplicable Data 9 Comments of Investigating Officer 10 Basic Reporting Data and Format 11 Reporting Physical Evidence 12

is a possible threat to the United States and to use the scientific or technical data gained from study of UFO reports. To attain these objectives, it is necesssary to explain or iden-tify the stimulus which caused the observer to report his observation as an unidentified flying object.

a. Air Defense. The majority of UFOs re-ported to the Air Force have been conven-tional or familiar objects which present no threat to our security.

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

(2) Frequently, some alleged UFOs are determined to be aircraft. Air Defense Com-mand (ADC) is responsible for identification

SECTION A—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Explanation of Terms. To insure proper and uniform usage of terms in UFO investi-gations, 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/Phenom-ena. Aircraft, aircraft lights, astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars, comets, sun, moon), balloons, birds fireworks, missiles, rockets, satellites, searchlights, weather phe-nomena (clouds, contrails, dust devils), and other natural phenomena. 2. Program Objectives. Air Force interest in UFOs is two-fold: to determine if the UFO

This regulation supersedes AFR 200-2, 20 July 1962 r\T>T> . A PDOT A

AFR 80-17

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 con-clude its analysis or findings. HQ USAF may arrange for separate investigations.

d. Analysis. FTD will: (1) Analyze and evaluate all informa-

tion 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 evaluat-ing UFO reports, as necesssary.

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 re-port of its findings to AFSC (SCFA) , An-drews AFB, Wash DC 20331, which will send a report to HQ USAF (AFRDC) , Wash DC 20330.

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

SECTION B—PUBLIC RELATIONS, INFORMATION, CONTACTS,

AND RELEASES

4. Response to Public Interest. The Secre-tary of the Air Force, Office of Information (SAF-OI) , maintains contact with the pub-lic and the news media on all aspects of the UFO program and related activities. Pri-vate individuals or organizations desiring Air Force interviews, briefings, lectures, or private discussions on UFOs will be in-structed 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 mis-lead or cause the public to construe these opinions as official Air Force findings.

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

a. Congressional and Presidential In-quiries. The Office of Legislative Liaison will:

(1) With the assistance of SAF-OI, an-

of aircraft. Except as aircraft are deter-mined 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 analyze 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 fac-tors 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 ex-plained all but a small percentage of the sightings which have been reported to the Air Force. The ones that have not been ex-plained are carried statistically as "uniden-tified." Because of the human factors in-volved and because analysis of a UFO sight-ing depends primarily on a personal impres-sion and interpretation by the observer rather than on scientific data or facts ob-tained under controlled conditions, the elimi-nation of of all unidentifieds is improbable. However, if more immediate, detailed, and objective data on the unidentifieds had been available and promptly reported, perhaps these, too, could have been identified.

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

b. Resources. The Air Force Systems Com-mand will support the program with current resources within the Foreign Technology Di-vision (FTD) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to continue the Project 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 investi-gative capability. When notice of a UFO sighting is received, an investigation will be implemented to determine 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.

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

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

b. SAF-OI will: (1) Respond to correspondence from

individuals requesting information on the . TJFO Program and evaluations of sightings.

(2) Release information on UFO sight-ings and results of investigations to the gen-eral 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 in-quiries regarding UFOs reported in the vicinity of an Air Force base, the base com-mander 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 conclu-sions will be released by SAF-OI after the investigation is completed. The commander may also state that the Air Force will re-view and analyze the results of the in-vestigation. 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 direct and immediate interest in UFOs reported within the US. All Air Force activi-ties will conduct UFO investigations to the extent necessary for reporting action (see paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12). Investiga-tion may be carried beyond this point when the preparing officer believes the scientific or public relations aspect of the case war-rants further investigation. In this case, the investigator will coordinate his continued investigation with FTD.

b. Paragraph 7 will be used as a guide for screenings, investigations, and reportings.

- Paragraph 11 is an outline of the reporting format.

c. Inquiries should be referred to S A F -- - 01 (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 con-trol symbol in accordance with paragraph 3k, AFR 300-5. 7. Guidance in Preparing Reports. The use-fulness of a UFO report depends largely on accuracy, timeliness, skill and resource-fulness of the person who receives the initial information and makes the report. Follow-ing 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 con-cerns a valid UFO as defined in paragraph la. Reports not falling within that defini-tion do not require further action. Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airports and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be re-ported as they do not fall within the defini-tion 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 con-tacted the Air Force. (Do NOT solicit re-ports.) News releases should be included as an attachment with the report (see para-graph 8c).

b. Detailed study will be made of the logic, consistency, and authenticity of the observ-er's report. An interview with the observer, by persons preparing the report, is espe^ cially valuable in determining the reliability of the source and the validity of the infor-mation. Factors for particular attention are the observer's age, occupation, and educa-tion, and whether he has a technical or scientific background. A report that a wit-ness is completely familiar with certain as-pects of a sighting should indicate specific qualifications to substantiate such famili-arity.

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

(1) When feasible, contact local air-craft control and warning (ACW) units, and pilots and crews of aircraft aloft at the time and place of sighting. Contact any per-sons or organizations that may have addi-tional data on the UFO or can verify evi-dence—visual, electronic, or other.

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

AFR 80-17

AFR 80-17

balloons or any unusual meteorological ac-tivity that may have a bearing on the stim-ulus for the UFO.

(3) Consult navigators and astrono-mers in the area to determine if any astro-nomical 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 Avia-tion Agency (FAA) can be of assistance in this regard.

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

(6) Consult local and State police, county sheriffs, forest rangers, and other civil officials who may have been in the area at the time of the sighting or have knowl-edge of other witnesses. 8. Transmittal of Reports:

a. Timeliness. Report all information on UFOs promptly. Electrical transmission with a "Priority" precedence is authorized.

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

(1) ADC. (2) Nearest Air Division (Defense). (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 follow-

up action requires a letter report, send it to FTD (TDETR), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433. FTD will send the reports to in-terested organizations in the US and to SAF-OI if required.

d. Reports from Civilians. Advise civil-ians to report UFOs to the nearest Air Force base.

e. Negative or Inapplicable Data. If speci-fic information is lacking, refrain from using the words "negative" or "unidentified" un-less all logical leads to obtain the informa-tion outlined in paragraph 11 have been exhausted. For example, the information on weather conditions in the area, as requested in paragraph l l g , is obtainable from the local military or civilian weather facility. Use the phrase "not applicable ( N A ) " only when the question really does not apply to the sighting under investigation.

10. Comments of Investigating Officer. This officer will make an initial analysis and com-

m

ment 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 offi-cer who receives the initial report is in a better position to conduct an on-the-spot sur-vey and follow-up than subsequent investi-gative personnel and analysts who may be far removed from the area and who may arrive too late to obtain vital data or infor-mation necessary for firm conclusions. The investigating officer's comments and conclu-sions will be in the last paragraph of the report submitted through channels. The re-porting official will contact FTD (Area Code 513, 257-0916 or 257-6678) for verbal au-thority 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. In-clude required data in all electrical reports, in the order shown below:

a. Description of the Object(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 fea-

tures. 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 theodo-lite 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) visi-ble? (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 elec-tronic, specify type of radar.)

(2) Statement as to optical aids (tele-

4

AFR 80-17

scopes, binoculars, etc.) used and descrip-tion thereof.

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

d. Time and Date of Sighting: (1) Greenwich date-time group of sight-

ing 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 refer-ence to a known landmark in addition to the coordinates. For example, use "2 mi N of Deeville"; "3 mi SW of Blue Lake," to pre-clude errors due to teletype garbling of fig-ures.

f. Identifying Information on Observ-er (s):

(1) Civilian—Name, age, mailing ad-dress, occupation, education and estimate of reliability.

(2) Military—Name, grade, organiza-tion, duty, and estimate of reliability.

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

(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 sur-face, 6,000', 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 quad-

rant in which located. (7) Vertical temperature gradient.

h. Any other unusual activity or condi-tion, meteorological, astronomical, or other-wise, that might account for the sighting.

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

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

k. Position title and comments of the pre-paring officer, including his preliminary analysis of the possible cause of the sight-•ings(s). (See paragraph 10.) 12. Reporting Physical Evidence:

a. Photographic:

(1) Still Photographs. 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 origi-nal 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 Infor-mation. Negatives and prints often are in-sufficient 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 supplemen-tal information is unobtainable, the mini-mum 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 print. Title radar-scope 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 ad-dressees.

b. Material. Air Force. echelons receiving suspected or actual UFO material will safe-guard it to prevent any defacing or altera-tions which might reduce its value for in-telligence examination and analysis.

c. Photographs, Motion Pictures, and Neg-atives Submitted by Individuals. Individuals often submit photographic and motion pic-ture material as part of their UFO reports. All original material submitted will be re-turned to the individual after completion of necessary studies, analysis, and duplication by the Air Force.

5 m

AFR 80-17

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

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

V I

R . J . P U G H Colonel, USAF Director of Administrative Services

i f!

urn

Wig y-i

»

sict a A • H . -,. ' v &

/H87

APPENDIX B

NEWS RELEASE AIR FORCE SELECTS UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO

TO INVESTIGATE UFO REPORTS

CHANGE AFR 80-17A

AIR FORCE REGULATION NO. 80-17A

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE Washington, 8 November 1966

Research and Development

UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO)

AFR 80-17, 19 September 1966, is changed as follows:

3c. EXCEPTIONS: FTD at Wright-Patterson . . . for separate investigations. The Uni-versity of Colorado will, under a research agreement with the Air Force, conduct a study of UFOs. This program (to run approximately 15 months) will be conducted independ-ently and without restrictions. The university will enlist the assistance of other conveniently located institutions that can field investigative teams. All UFO reports will be submitted to the University of Colorado, which will be given the fullest cooperation of all UFO In-vestigating Officers. Every effort will be made to keep all UFO . reports unclassified. However, if it is necessary to classify a report because of method of detection or other factors not related to the UFO, a separate report including all possible information will be sent to the University of Colorado. 8b(6). University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302, ATTN: Dr. Condon. (Mail copy of message form.) 8e. Negative or Inapplicable Data. Renumber as paragraph 9. Ilk. Position title, name, rank, official address, telephone area code, office and home phone, and comments of the preparing officer, including his preliminary analysis of the pos-sible cause of the sighting(s). (See paragraph 10.)

B Y ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE A I R FORCE

OFFICIAL J. p . M c C O N N E L L General, U. S. Air Force Chief of Staff

R. J. PUGH Colonel, USAF Director of Administrative Services

DISTRIBUTION: S A97

AIR FORCE SELECTS UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO TO INVESTIGATE UFO REPORTS

The University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., has been selected by the Air Force to conduct independent investigations into uniden-tified flying object (UFO) reports.

A research agreement, valued at approximately $300,000, is being negotiated with the university by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research to analyze phenomena associated with UFO sightings and to make recommendations on the Air Force's methods of investigating and evaluating UFO reports — a program known as Project Blue Book. A report is expected to be made to the Air Force in early 1968.

Dr. Edward U. Condon will direct the scientific phases of the work, while Robert J. Low will serve as project coordinator. Prin-cipal investigators working with Dr. Condon will be Dr. Franklin E. Roach and Dr. Stuart W. Cook.

Dr. Condon, former director of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), is a professor of physics at Colorado and a fellow of the Joint Laboratory for Astrophysics which is cosponsored by the univer-sity and NBS. Mr. Low is an assistant dean of the university's graduate school. Dr. Cook is chairman of the university's psychology department, and Dr. Roach is an astrophysicist with the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA).

Colorado is expected to select several other universities to take part in the research. These and other consultants will bring the number of scientists involved to over 100. The National Academy of Sciences has indicated its willingness to assist by appointing a panel — at the time the Colorado report becomes available to the Air Force — to review the investigating team's work. This panel will not be part of the investigating team, but will provide a further independent check on the scientific validity of the method of investigation.

In announcing the selection, Air Force Secretary Harold Brown said, "We are more than pleased to be able to place this grant with respected individuals in a university of such high standing in the scientific community. Additionally, the location of the university should prove invaluable to the investigators, since the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the research headquarters of the Environmental Science Services Administration are located at Boulder. These organizations conduct research on the properties of man's natural environment, specializing in the physical characteristics of the atmosphere and the near-space medium."

51

Air Force Project Blue Book files, as well as any other UFO information in the possession of the Air Force, will be made avail-able to the team. Additionally, all Air Force installations within the United States will assist the team if requested. The investi-gators will* however, conduct their research independently of and without direction from the Axr Force.

The decision to enter into a research agreement for this work was based on a recommendation of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board which completed a review of the resources, methods and findings of Project Blue Book earlier this year. The Board recommended that the program be expanded to include investigation of selected sight-ings by independent scientists. Within the Department of Defense, the Air Force has the responsibility of investigating UFO reports. The Air Force has been investigating such reports since 19L8 under its role of air defense of the United States, and the university's research does not alter Project Blue Book responsibilities of re-ceiving, investigating and evaluating UFO reports.— OASD/PA News Release wo. 81+7-66, 7 Oct. 1966.

52

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Braun, Dr. Wemher von. First Men to the Moon. Canada: Holt,

Rinehard and Winston, i960.

Davidson, Leon. Flying Saucers; An Analysis of the Air Force Project Blue Book Report. New Jersey: Ramsey-Wallace Coro.,

Flying Saucer Review. World Roundup of UFO Sightings and Events. New York: Citadel Press, 1956.

Fuller, John G. Incident at Exeter. New York: G. P. Putnam's and Sons Inc., 1966.

Girvin, Waveney. Flying Saucers and Common Sense. New York: Citadel Press, 1956.

Hall, Richard H. (ed.). The UFO Evidence. Washington: National Investigations .Committee on Aerial Phenomena, 196U.

Jessup, Morris K. The Case for the UFO: Unidentified Flying Objects. New York: Citadel Press, 1955. ~

(ed). UFO Annual. New York: Citadel Press, 1956.

. UFO and the Bible. New York: Citadel Press, 1956.

. The Expanding Case for the UFO. New York: Citadel Press, 1957.

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

Keyhoe, Donald E. Flying Saucers from Outer Space. New York: Holt Co., 1953.

. The Flying Saucer Conspiracy. New York: Holt Co., 1955.

. Flying Saucers: Top Secret. New York: Putnam and Sons, Inc., 1950.

53

Lorenzen, Coral E. The Great Flying Saucer Hoax; Facta and Inter-pretations. New York: William Frederick Press, 1962.

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

Menzel, Donald H. and Boyd, Iyle G. The World of Flying Saucers; A Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space Age. Garden City, New York: tioubleday Co., VjET. ~~

Michel, Aime. Flying .Saucers and the Straight LineMystery. New York: Criterion Books, *

Ruppelt, Edward J. The Report on UFO. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Co., 1955"."

Tacker, Lawrence J. Flying Saucers and the USAF. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., I960.

Unger, George. Flying Saucers; Physical and Spiritual Aspects. East Grinstea37~l5TgIand* New Knowledge Books, 1958.

Vallee, Jacques. Anatomy of a Phenomena; UP in Space. Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1965. " *"

Public Documents

United States Congress, Committee on Armed Services. Hearings on Unidentified Flying Objects. 89th Cong., 2nd SessT7*T^5§7

Articles and Periodicals

"Air Force Demands Respect for UFO Reports," Air Force Times, XX (9 January I960), 7.

"Air Force Has Jet Saucer," Army Navy Review, LXXVI (29 October 1955), 1. "" ~

Arnell, J. C. "UFO: Fact or Fiction," Sentinel, II (5 June 1966),

Asimov, I. "UFO's—What I Think," Science Digest, LIX (7 June 1966), liU.

Aswell, J. R. "Flying Saucers New in Nature Only," Readers Digest, LXI (July 1952), 7-9.

5U

"ATIG Begins Study of Saucer Reports," Aviation Week, LIX (19 October 1953), 18.

Bassler, Captain R. E. "Scratch One Flying Saucer," Marine Corps Gazette, XXXIV, NO. 12 (December 1950), 32-37.

"Blips on the Scope," Time, IX (U August 1952), UO.

Booth, Colonel Leon. "Flying Saucers," Ordnance, LI (July-August 1966), 30-31.

Clark, A. C. fhat's Up There," Holiday, XXV (March 1959), 32+.

Cohen, David. "Should We Be Serious About UFO's," Science Digest, LVII (June 1965), lil-Uw

"Disputed Central Intelligence Agency Document on UFO's," Saturday Revue, XLIX (3 September 1966), li5-50.

Dorsey, Tom "Balloons May Increase Flying Saucer Reports," Air Force Times, XVI (28 January 1956), U.

"Flatus Season; Sightings at Ann Arbor and Hillsdale," Time, LXXXVII (1 April 1966), 25B.

"Flying Disks Break Out Over the United States,» Life, XXIII (21 July 19U7), 1U-16.

"Flying Saucers," Senior School, LXXXVIII (22 April 1966), 13.

"Flying Saucers Again," Newsweek, XXXV (17 April 1950), 29. "Flying Saucers and Mistaken Identities," McCalls, XCIII (July 1966),

32+. "Flying Saucers; Fact or Fancy," Senior School, LXXXIX (16 September

1966), U-7.

"Flying Saucers; Illusions or Reality," U. S. News, LX (U April 1966), 1U.

"Flying Saucer Myth," Armed Forces Chemistry Journal, XII (November, December 1958), 11.

"Flying Saucer Phenomena," Space World (May 1961), U0-U1+.

"Flying Saucer Reports Drop," Air Force Times, XV (U December 195U), 21.

55

"Flying Saucers Ruled Out by Latest Fact Sheet," Air Force Times, XX (30 July I960), 17.

"Flying Saucer Spots Before Your Eyes," Newsweek, XXX (lU July 19U7), 19.

"Flying Saucers; The Somethings," Time, L (lit July 19U7), 18.

Fuller, John G. "An Abducted Woman Describes Her Incredible Exper-ience," Look (18 October 1966), 111*.

. "Flying Saucers; Fact or Fiction," Flying, XLVII (July 1955), 16-17.

. "Incident At Exeter," Atlantic, CCXVIII (August 1966), TI5=17.

. "Outer Space Ghost Story," Readers Digest (May 1966), 72.

. "Trade Winds; Exeter People Give Accounts of Observations," Saturday Review, XLIX (22 January 1966), lU.

. "Trade Winds; USiF Reactions to Recent Sightings," Saturday Review, XLIX (16 April 1966), 10*.

. "Trade Wings; Report of UFO in Exeter," Saturday Review, XLVIII (2 October 1965), 10+.

Gelatt, R. "Flving Saucer Hoax," Saturday Review, XXXV (6 December 1952), 31.

Girvan, W. "Flying Saucers and Common Sense," Air Force Times, XVI (16 June 1956), 29.

"Gulliable Experiment," Time, LXXXVII (8 April 1966), 70.

"Hard Look at Flving Saucers," U. S. News, LX (11 April 1966), 1U-15.

Hynek, J. Allen. "Are Flying Saucers Real," The Saturday Evening Post (17 December 1966), 18.

"It's Official; UFO's Not Flying Saucers, Most Reports Traced to Aircraft," Air Force Times, XX (13 February 1966), 38.

Jung, Doctor C. G. "Flying Saucer Review," Saturday Review, XLII (8 August 1959), 17.

"Dr. Jung and the Saucers," Time, 1XXII (11 April 1958), 38.

56

Kantor, M. "Why I Believe in Flying Saucers," Popular Science, CLXXXVIII (January 1966), 72-7h+.

Klass, Philip. "Great Balls of Fire," Newsweek, LXVIII (5 September 1966), 78. —

. "Plasma Theory," Aviation Week, LXXXV (22 August 1966),

Keyhoe, Donald E. "Flying Saucer Conspiracy," American Mercury, LXXXIII (September 1956), 153-56.

• "Flying Saucer,* Fact or Fancy," Air Line Pilot, XXII [October 1953), 9-10.

. "Flying Saucers from Outer Space," Air Force Times, XIV (WOctober 1953), 10.

. "The Flying Saucer Conspiracy," RAF Flying Review, XII Ofey 1957), 56.

Kobler, J. "He Runs Flying Saucer Headquarters," Saturday Evening Post, CCXXVIII (10 March 1956), 26-2?+.

Lear, J., Fuller, J. G., and Sagan, C. "Research in America—What Are the Unidentified Aerial Objects," Saturday Review, XXXVIII (6 August 1966), Ul-52.

Mandel, S. "Great Saucer Hunt," Saturday Review, XXXVIII (6 August 1955), 28-29.

"Marsh Gas in Michigan," America, CXIV (9 April 1966), U73.

Menzel, D. H. "Saucers on Radar," Popular Science, LCXII (April 1953), 168-71+. Menzel, D. H. and Boyd, L. G. "World of Flying Saucers," Science

Digest, LVI (September 1966), 61u

Mingus, Ron. "Civilian Specialists to Aid in Probe of Baffling UFO's," Air Force Times, XXVI (20 April 1966), 10.

Mulholland, J. 'Magicians Scoff at Flying Saucers," Popular Science, CLXI (September 1952), 96-98.

"Wo Flying Saucers Yet . . . But," American Aviation, XIX (7 November 1955), 32.

57

"No New Theories, Evidence, Saucers Says Pentagon in Lifting UFO • Lid," Air Force Times, XV (28 August 195U), 9.

Nollet, Lieutenant Colonel A. R. "Flying Saucersj A Hard Look," Marine Corps Gazette, XLIII (December 1959), 20-25.

Norris, Geoffrey. "Something in the Sky," RAF Flying Review, XII (July 1957), lh-16*.

"Out of Blue Believers," New Yorker, XXXV (18 April 1959), 36-37.

Posin, D. Q. "Eye on Space," Popular Mechanic, CXIII (February I960), 103.

"Reporting UFO's," TIG Brief, XVI (22 May 196U), 17.

"Return of the Flying Saucers," Nation, CCI (13 September 1965), 131-3U.

Robey, D. H. "Theory About Flying Saucers," Saturday Review, XLII (5 September 1959), 51-55. "

Ruppelt, E. J. "Inside Story of Saucers," Science Digest, XXXIX (April 1956), 35-Ul. '

. "The Report on UFO's," Marine Corps Gazette, XL (April 6 3 < "

"Saucer Craze Continues Despite Facts," Air Force Times, XXVI (20 October 1965), 3.

"Saucers Downed," Air Force Times, XVI (29 October 1955), 1.

"Saucer Season," Newsweek, XL (11 August 1952), 56.

"Saucer Session for Spaceships Sighters; Interplanetary Spacecraft Convention," Life, XLII (27 May 1957), 117-18.

"Saucer Sightings Fall Sharply," Air Force Times, XIV (5 December 1953), 2.

"Seeing Things," Newsweek, L (18 November 1957), Ul+.

"Service Holds Ground on Flying Saucers," Air Force Times (26 September 1959), h2.

Shalett, s . "What You Can Believe About Flying Saucers," Saturday Evening Post, CCXXI (30 April 191*9), 20-21+.

58

Shanklin, H. A. "Flying Saucers I've Seen," Flying, LVII (September 1957), 38+. —

"Sightings Spur Review; UFO Probe Methods, Findings Studies," Air Force Times, XXVI (6 April 1966), 5.

Tacker, Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence J. "This is Our Position," Airman, V (5 January 1961), 2.

"Taking wo Chances," TIG Brief, XIV (13 April 1962), 18. "Temperature Inversions Cause Flying Saucers," Science Wews Letter,

IXII (20 December 1952), 388.

"Things That Go Whiz," Time, LIII (9 May 19U9), 98.

"UFO's," TIG Brief, XVII (27 August 1965), 17.

"Ufology: Wew Report Debunks Belief that UFO's are Buzzing the Earth," Wewsweek, LXII (5 August 1963), hh.

"UFO's wot from Mars," Science Wews, XC (3 September 1966), 165.

"UFO's Serious Business," TIG Brief, XI (2U December 1959), 15.

"532 UFO Sightings Checked During 196U; 16 Remain Unidentified," Air Force Times, XXV (17 March 1965), 7.

"UFO's, They're Back in New Sizes, Shapes, Colors," U. S. News, LXI (22 August 1966), 59-60.

"UFO's or Kugelblitz," Popular Electra, XXV (September 1966), 81*.

"Washington Blips," Life, XXXIII (U August 1952), 39-UO. "Well Witnessed Invasion by Something," Life, LX (1 April 1966),

2U-31.

Wood, R. H. "Where Are the Flving Saucers," Aviation Week, LTV (25 June 1951), 7U. ~ ~~ '

Whitney, David C. "Flying Saucers," Look Special (1967), 3-67.

"15 Year Air Force Flying Saucer Verdict: They Exist Only in Domesti Spats," Air Force Times, XXII (17 February 1962), 20.

59

Newspapers "Multicolored UFO's Sighted in N. Y. State," The Montgomery-

Advertiser (30 October 1966), B-l.

"Scientific Study Planned on UFO Sightings Air Force Says," The Montgomery Advertiser (8 October 1966), 8.

Other

Telephone interviews with 1st Lieutenant William F. Marley, staff of Project Blue Book, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio.

60