Issuu on Google+

"" 159 n.v!Md Oct 80

FILE No

Part No

~~ ~< --L._!s_g._o--1_;--.....~._1____.I[ZJ

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

L__:

SOT£:. ·

Thts co~·rr is to be used only for offic:-2/ file serie> rt-cordt-d uoith Australian Arcbil•es Fonn Number AR Ill is to be used fo r working papas.

SUBJECT.

( T

Folio

Rcrerr'}(J 10

1.'/1. 6

1>.c1 oneo Oy 'lmtsl

f=olto

Retrrr('t(f •o

/

OMe

R~lf!rted

Ac.•t~

11~1&_!

~

~() '~b' ,..

(-\ ~

C)

I I I

'

ARCH IVAL ACTION

I

'


INSTRUCTIONS ON THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE FILING OF CORRESPONDENCE AND THE HANDLING OF FILES ARE CONTAINED IN DEPARTMENTAL AM> SINGLE SERVICE MANUALS

CLOSELY RELATEO FILES File Number

Subject

~"' 路~ ,/.,;,/

v

~ ~~

I I

261!II_, 7 I I /0

路-' 路f'41-


/]~ f\( ~\

1

\

~~-1; I I

I

\


...---

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN TELEPHONE: 69 0550

HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT COMMAND AAAF

TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS: "AIRCOMMAND. MELBOURNE"

IN llEPlY QUOTE

VICTORIA BARRACKS MELBOURNE SC1 VIC

5/6/Af.r ( 83) ~

7 JUI_ l967

UN-IDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS 1. Enclosed herewith is a copy of a lecture given by Professor James E. McDONALD in WASHINGTON regarding the UFO problem. 2. Professor McDONALD has recently been in MELBOURNE for discussions wi th the CSIRO on meteorological problems, and at the same time, took the opportunity to present an address to members of associations interested in UFO activity .

3. The lecture papers enclosed \Vere brought to this Headquarters by a Mr FRANCESWILLIAMS who professes an avid int erest in UFO ' s, for the information of the authorities handling UFO reports .

~

(L . B. BROWN) Wing Commander For Ai r Officer Commanding Encl /

,.

'


that th1s exper1enced pilot had told 1n con- and a JOurnalistic era was thereby

s~ernation

UFOS : GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM Of OUR T!KES? ~~s E. McDonald (Prepared !or presentat1on before the 1967 annual ceet1nq of the ~~rican soc1ety of ~ewspaper Editors, washington, D. c., Apr11 22., 1967. )

SUHHARY - An onte~eio~ ar.aZ~•~• of ~"n~reda cf o"teta~d•ng UPO report•, and pereon~t :n:er- _ ui~ue uith doaene of k•N uitneaeee •n •~porta~. caeee, have Led Me to the ~or:cZ"eion ~hat UFO prabz.,., i• en• of e:z:cc~d.,:gLj! grsat B<aentifi• importance. Inetead a! de~eru~r:g the deecrtption of "noneenae probLe~ , un•oh it ha8 had J"ring tucnt~ ~ears of O{~i~ia~ Mi~ha~­ dl'ng it. uarrante the atte>:'t\011 o; •~••r:.lf, pr~••; and pubLic, not Jue~ ui:hin the ~"~~•d S;a:o~a b•t throu,•ho:.: t ;,. u~r~d, ae a '"'"'oue probleM of firot-arJer eign•f~ca~ue. Zhc c•rioue man~er in uhi~h ~his _prob~•m hae b•en kept au' of aig~t and m~•nta>nad :" dierttp~<~tt ie t~za,lnltd her.,. Batnc r<U>por.s• bititv for ita avatemat£~ ~iDrt~pr•a~ntation liee ui th A I r Fore• ProJect BZwoboo.~ uhich, on ,;,t> baeie of firat~<Jnd knouL<.dgD, I ~a>: on£!f d 11 acri.ba ac 11au~ng be•., carn.,d a:<t •" tho past da:~n Nears in a qutt4 aupltrficia~ and ~r.com ­

:h•

p•te'l.t mann•r.

rsar• of A~r Foratt aeeuranc~a ha~e ~~pt th• pubLic, th• preas, ~onu:•~•· and.thB !ai•n •l~lc ca~unit~ wndsr tnc m•••~prees•on tna~ ;r,~ UFO problc~ uae baing atudicd uit~.thor~ oughnc•• and ocicntific •zportiDe . Tro•a I nau• roun~ :o bo co~plstel~ falee. Illwatratiu• cza-pl•• · dra~r. !ro- a Ultl"IJ Za:ac ea~fl•, wiLL be deecribo1 to dc~onetrate ·h~o. It ia urged that th• tiMe ie Zor.g o~erdue 'o,. a •"uH-•caZ. Congreaeio11al ir.vestigation of thv UFO problc~, an ir.vcctigatior. in which pereon• ot.teidc of o!flci.aZ A~r Force chan,.,z., cau put on l'ecord th• aatoundlng h'i.s:or11 of the :Jay in ~hioh a probZc~ o! potentialty enormoua scientifio: i"'porta'laa hae been auapt ""d"r a ~g o! ridicule a"d M~Cr4p~•sentatiDn ;or :~o d.:cad""· rl:~ hyrotheei• that th11 VFDe might be .:ztztatBrr•atJ"ial prob•tJf d4•pit• it• •uaer.o;ingZy to»~

priori probability, ie

~kggeated

Zeaa: ~n•ati•factDrH h~poth~D~6 th~ oo~-avaiZabt~ VFD ovid•n~c.

far

ae

.e~~

gzpla~n~ng

INTRODUCTION June 24, 1967 , will mark the twentieth anniversary of what we might whimsically call the "birth of the flying saucer . • For just twenty years earlier, on the afternoon of June 24, 1947, Kenneth Arnold, a Bo~se busi nessman fly1nq in his private a1rcraft, r epor ted seeing a formation of nine disc-like obJects sk~•ng ~long at high speed between him and d1stant Mt. Rainier . ue said that they moved in an unconventional manner "like a sauce r would if you ak1pped lt across the water . • A reporter who interviewed Arnold after he landed that even1ng in Pendleton, Or egon , coined the phrase "fly>ng saucers• to add a feature-story twist to an observation

opened.

:.s one d1gs back through the subsequent

of the UFO problem, it becomes ev1dent that a wave of Uf~ aiqhtinq8 actually beqan several dllys prior to Arnold's observatlon, but 1t was not unLil about ~uly 4 that press incerest rose exponentially and "flyinq saucers" were headline news throughout the country. I hAve recently had the opportun1ty o! re•:1ew1ng 11 c:ompllat1on of UFO s~ght1ngs for those first few weeks of what 1s usually reqarded as the beginning of UFO observat>ons, a compilation being prepared by T. R. Bloecher for publicauon later this yeor, probably by the Nat1onal In\~stigat1ons Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAPI. Although 1 was already fam1l1ar w1th much UFO h1story when I beqan to exazune Bloechcr's matenal, t was startled to see the large number of reports of high-speed unconventional objects that flooded into press offices throughout the country 1n that early period, far more than 1 had ever guessed . Only 4 small fraction of the reports were carried by national wire services, so it has been necessary for Bloccher to dig into old newspaper files in many major U. S . cities to ~earth the d1mensions of that wave of siqhtings . I cite this early per1od as exempl1fy1n9 much that has happend subsequently, althouqh most of the reports of that period have never been checked as were later cases, so one cannot yet regard the evidence for all the 1947 sightinqs as conclusive. A mixture of denials led to a rather qu1ck fall-off in news value of the "flying saucers" 1n late 19~7 . Hoaxes were headhned •.;ith about as much ct11phas1s as wer e reports from experienced observers . The pub lished reports fell off, and for awh1le it a9peared that one h~d w1tnessed just another

hi~tory

•silly season

pheno~enon,•

as some newspaper-

described 1t . But, surpris>nqly, the UFO reports began cropping up again . Here and there they r eceived press coverage, ~ostly non - ~ire coverage in local paper. . By 1948, conslderably nore reports were com1ng ~n. and mil1tary concern (which had probably never died out) was responsible for establ1shing an official investigatory project, Project Sign (often loosely called "Project Saucer"). S1gn was set up ~anuary 22, 1948, w1th headquarters a t ~right- Patterson AFB, within the then newly creat~d United States Air force . That date marks the beginning of A1r Force responsibility for 1nvestigating UFO phenomena , a respons1b1lity 1t carries to this date . I think it is rather str1king that USAF was exact~y seven days old when it was handed the UFO problem in 1949 . Project S1gn gave way to "ProJect Grudge" in february, 1949; and, with ups and downs , Grudge cont1nued until about March , 1952 , when it was superseded by "Project Bluebook," an organizational entity that surv1ves today, still headquartered at Wrlght-Patterson AFB . The summer of 1952 brought one of the greatest waves of UFO reports on record, and the first Bluebook Off1cer, Capt. E. J. Ruppclt, has related (Ref. ll the hectic efforts of his staff ~en


2

of 4b~t ten Air Foree p rsonr l t o kceF ~ec w_th the reports t t. pou d 1.nto WP u that su:n:'!er . he famou tl shinQtc, ' a t ona- Airport a_ghtlng. o! July lq and 26, 19S2, wh~~h _nc_uded N\ r dar ob r ationa, ~ re1al a1r!1nes pilot obscrvatior~. nd grour ot3crvat1ons, created the rear st th1no to a ~nic­ stt~~ttor. thAt has c er evolv d fror UFO rqor Aft r hit House Uer"' and r.~ rou conqreas1on 1 nd Fr d mards for an account> q, pres on! r ~ ealltd and the entire series of rv tions ~~re "explained" as ~u to 4" lo r dar Fropagation and rage-type r fraction events. (I have carefully x 1ned Lhese official cx?lanatl.ons and find th ent1rel~ 1n dequatc, 1nc1dent~l~ .J Althoug pr sa attention cuts1ded ~ the race of thea assur ncas, Air Force concer behind-th -sc n s cort1nued, and early 1n tho follaJ1n9 year a panel of scientists was ~sser.bled to review t e situation.

THE

ROBERTSO~

REPORT

A~O Jij(

CIA

T>,e Rob rtson PanC!l (chalred b\' Calteeh theoretical physicist 11. P. Robertson) rret 1n January, !953, end re"iewed selected UFO re1•ort.G - apparently about ci9ht 1n detul and ~~ut fifteen others on ~ briaf•ng-basis . Two ..,ork1ng Clays o! ease-reviews followed by two days of s~~~rl~inq and report-drafting constituted the entire actlvit~· of thi.s Panel during the period January l:-17. 1953 . I describe that P nel's work in more than passing manner because J believe that ~ Rob~rtson £ane1 marked a turnin" 001nt 1n the history of

oro

ln~at1~-

-

--

-

On the first of three visits to Project aluebook at WPAFB last s~-cr. I asked to sec the full report. of tte Robertson Panel and was g_ven that report by the present. 81 ~book of fleer. MAJ . Ifector .u1ntanilla. lie informed me that he had "rout1ncly dec1a&&1fled" it ear11er on the basis of the "1~-year rule" cover1ng DOD doc nts . I made cxtens1ve notes from it And discussed its content w1~h Ksj. Qul~tanilla. On ay next trip to Bluebook, on J "C 20 , 1 request. d a Xerox copy of the report. The copy was prepared for me, but not 91ven to me because a superior office~ suggested that since "another agency• was h:volved. they'dluve to check before releasing it to m • J rem1nded them that I alread~ had ex~ensive no~ s on it and that I had already "i"'"""sed 1ts contents w.th many scientific colleagu s around tho country. I was~swred ~h~t the1r check waa perfunctory and that I ~ould b s nt the copy 1~ a we k or two . In !act, I n v r rec iv< u. T'> "other a~sncy ,• tho Central Intolliq~ncc Agency, ruled that thl.ll document did not como under thoc "12~·c<>r rill~· and reehasihed it. AlthOJgh " soc .. tled "sanitized versior• was later released t he full document r mo1na undisclosed. A ' mlll'.bor of scc~ions of the "san>t>.,cd var.s 4 on" hove been publ1shcd by John Lear, who asked for full rel as but qot only Lhe porti~l vers~on C!lef. 2J. 1 studi d the full version 1n unclaasoficd statas . M1lit3ry on~ sc1 ntiflc staff at WPAFB have be n fully awor of my possession 0 ~ thl.s 1nfor-nt1on for contbs. 1 have d1seuased 1 t

r~ lt as o~ n Wl tD a y sc1~ nt 1 t • I r lnforma t10n >n no ~oy l a r 1nq on the securt~~ of t e ~n-t ed State , d I ~all now describe 1 • 8 cont er:t h r . I ur qo tl >t press and L~1 q res ' d ~" ~fu ll a nd 1mm la te release of the ent l.r c t xt. of the obertson Report, 1 nclud1.r.g the CIA rcco= ndattons wlac>, ha..-e ba d su ch st!"or. b~a r >n'J on the wa:,• in wh1ch the A1r For ce ~ se~u ntl treated the JFO p r obl , t hat c~ r sc1e n t i sts can ake the,r own , a1Lot1ons of the annor in wh1ch sc1ent1f 1~ pursui t o f t.h UFO proble~ wa s der~- l ed 1n 1953 . Th s e ien t>sts cocpr1s1ng the Robertson Pane~ ( Robertson, L"is 1~. Alvarez., Lloyd V. Berkner, Sar.uel A. Coudsreit, Thornton Page}. on the basis of what 1 must re'jard as a far too brief ex~~1nat1on 01 the evidence already 1n Atr Force fl.l s as of January, 1953, ruled ( !~rs~) that t.here was no v~dence of any hostile act1on in the UFO phen~~ena. In par~ieular they ruled (secondly! that there was no evidence for existence of ~ny "artifacts of' a host1le foreign pa•er• 1n any of the records whtcb were subm~tted to them. And (th:a.rdly) they recommended an cdueat>onal program to acqua1nt the general public with the nature of various natural phenomena seen in the skie$ (meteors, vapor trails, haloes , balloons , etc . ), the object1ve be1ng to "remove the aura of mystery" that the un1dent1fied G>bJects had "unfortunat.,ly" acquired . In v1ew of the rather limited ~ample of UFO eVldence 'Nhleh WIIS laid before this Panel, such conclusions were perhaps warranted . The crucial shortcoming was thJ.s: There 1s no evidence !:hat any of these f>ve men had pre vious extens1ve conto1ct W>th the uro probl<:OM . The pr1nc~pal eases they examined excluded s~e of the most interesting and s1gn1f1cant eases already on record (e . g ., Un1ted A1rlines 1947; Ch1les- Rhitted, 1948: C. B. Moore, 1949;' T~baugh. 1949; Farc:ngton, 1950; ChiCago ' Southern Alrl>ncs, !950; TWA Airllnos , 1950; Ser:"our !less, 1950; l·hd-Continent Airlines . 1951; Nash- Fortenberry, 1952; and many other very s1qn>fic~nt 1952 s:ghtings) . And~ mere tw? days of rcv1cw o£ tho UFO data Cpr1or to go1ng 1nto report draft>ng session) would not be enough for all the ~~wtons of science to sort out. the baffling nature ot t.h1s probl~ . The only sc1ent~st present at these sessions who had ~lready exsrn1r.ed a substant1al number of reports was an associate member of the Panel, Dr . J . Allen Hynek . :;hen 1 asked him last June why he d1d not then speak out , on the basis of his then f1vo years oxper1enea as coief scient1flc consultant to the Air Force on OFO matters , hc; told me that he was "only small potatoes then• and that it would have beer ;unpos:&ltle for hirn to s~·ay that ~.:r!llncnt group . In r fleeting on all t~at 1 have learned •n my past. year • s work or t.hia problem , 1 r<><,J rtJ this four- day s~sslor o! the Robertson P4ncl as d p>votal poirt 1n UFO hlstory . For instead of a recommendation that tho problem be t kvn out of Alr Foree hands (on grounds of on - hostility of the UFOsJ and turn d ov r to sam se1 nt!Cic llger.e~· for >dequato s tudy, t'>ec was a ost regrettable fourth reeomm nd t1on mad , 1n add. hon to tiiC'tliroe cit ., abov , a reeomrnendatlor. made at the s pcc1f1c request of CIA representatives present at the final sessions of this


3

Panel. (CIA rcproscntat1vcs ltsted 1n the repor= g1vcn to me on June 6, 1966, tnclud~ or. H. Marshall Chadwell, Hr. Ralp L. Cl-rk, and ~~ . Phtl-p G. Strong. Top-r nk1n9 USA< representative present was Brig. Gc~eral Garland, ch1ef of the Aic Technical In~ll1 qenee C~and. F. c. Durant and J. A. Hynek wc~c •assoctato ~rs• of ~c Pane~.) Whereas tho first three rec~ndat.or.s were later disclosed l~ough not for about ~lvP vcarsJ, the fourth recommendation has never been fully r ported in a manner ~at pr..,.s, public, Congress, and scien<=e can cvAl uate. However, enough of that fourth recomcendat10n 1s described in Lear's suo=ary of ~e "sarttired version• ~ot even p~rsons who have not seen the ent1re document, as I have, can s-nse that a minor tragedy of sc1enee may have been effected 1n January, 1~53. The fo1.rth rec:ommend4t10I\ mad" bJ' the CIA, asked for a aystemilUC "debunltinq o( the flvlnq saucers,• to use tho actual langu~qe or-t~ document. And the stated ObJeCtlvo of ~e "debunk1ng" was to "reduce public lnterest in flv1n9. ~·· --U~~

I W1Bh to make very cl~ar th~t. on the examination of the tull context of recommendation, I do not regard this as a dark and sinister action-Df a covert body trying to dece1Ve the ci ti:enr:,· of the n~tion. Ril~or, the re~son behind th1s roqrett~blc dec.o1on (that appears to h3ve been acted upon so very faithfully by Project Bluebook e•·.,r since) was entirely underatand~le when ~een fron a sdlely national-sccur1ty V1ewnnTnt~c unprcce entCd wave of UFO reports of 19~2. sone 1500 )USt in offia1al Bluebook files alone, tied Up Air For~ 1ntcll1qence P"rsonnel 3nd intelligence machinery to an ala~ing d..-qree . G1v.,n the scientists' opinion that ~e~e was no evidence th~t the UFOs cace from any terrestrial power hostile to the u.s . , 1t seeccd to security people to be urgently lmpertant to reduce ~is "noise• that might cover up r~al "signals" com1nq into intolligen<=e channels. Hence, v1ewed nllrrowly fro= security v"~~:nts, lt mil~ good sense to get th1s noise suppressed. It has indeed been effect!·.·ely suppressed in t.he ensuing fifteen years . ba~is ot my ~is fourth

AtR FORCE

REGULATIO~

ZOC-2 r the CIA recorntl,c Court'> 1 te~:~ 1 port t A1r

av~!lilble;

book.

but all unknOMns were to 90 to Blue-

This had iln effect that ~s well k~own to a!l who have stud1ed th1s preble~ closely. At Bluebook the most outr4gcous•y unsc1cntifi<= "explnnat1ons" were ass•gned to i~portant sight1ngs. Cases bearing not the slightest rese=blance to feathered creatures wore called "b1r~s.• and so= of the ost 1eprob~le "balloon" phe~~na in all the history of balloon1ng can be found in Blueboo~ f>les . "Astrono:_cal" was tilqged onto cases that are no oore astronom1cal ~an orn>tholoqical: ilnd so it "'ent. Tl"e "percentage of unidentifted" wa,, by the f1at of sc1entif1cally untratn~d Bluebook offic rs, stead1ly •reduced to a min• And sctence be damr 1. -

rn=. •

1 could d>seuss, for tours, spec~f1c details of cases reported stncc 1953 fo~ which Bluebook has q1ven Utterly unreaso~able "explannt1ons," C4ses I have gone over 1n det~1l and many 01 whose k y wHnesses I h.ove personally interv1ewed. The onlr ron-mil>tary person who has had cont1nu1ng opport1Jn1ty to examine these cases was the Bluebook consultant, Or . J . A. llynok, who h'!s held that role cont>nuously for e>ghtecn lonq years. I have discussed some of the famous holders with him and with Air For<=c personnel. 1 can onl~· sa;• here that l am qui~o d1ssatisfted w1th such answers ~a I have been able to secure .

In those Oluebook flles have la1n hundreds of cases that received no adequate schnt1hc review, that have often be<>n explained "'"BY 1n such r>diculous manner that even amateur astronomers or untro1ned cit1zens have publ1cly complained over tho absurd~ty of the offoc!al explanat1ons. rtr.d ~uch more distresslng have been the many <=ases 1n wh1ch rc~pcnsible C-tizcns have, 1n all good fa1th, repor<ed s1gn1!1cant enco~~tcrs w1~ unJdenti f~ed obJects at close range, objects defying explanation in convent10n4l sc1ent1f1c or technologlcal terms, only to have the Pent~gon press desk rele~sc offtc~al explanations 1~ terms of "t-..1nkllng star" and ••1nversion, • "rotrages,• "balloon,• "refuel1ng tanker,• ilnd the like. Such explanat1ons, put out as 1! they resulted frao a careful A1r Force c:hec,; , made the c>ttzens who reported see1ng strange Ob)ects !eel, as one Vlctim put it to me, "like 1d1ots . " I truly doubt that Alr For ce personn<>l at WPAFB and the Pentagon can have any notion of tho b1ttcrncns they have created among persons who h~ve beon made the butt of rid1cule by these "debunk1ng .. policies that trace back so clearly to the 19~3 dccis1ons . The net offect, over the ~oars , of such polic1es and procedures has been cnt>rcly understandable. Newspapet- editors, not having stafr to send out to chccl: even the sighttngs 1n the1r own VlCin> ty ln a m~nn<'r thilt could be rcrmcd scientific, an~ havlnq no ~ood reason to suspect that ~c Air Fore would be supcrf~c>ally inventing oxplnnat1ons with cssen tl.all~· no scient~f1c content , quickly grOJ··· c:onVlncea that there must not be an~·tning to th.z UFO phenC>mena. On<= ~.s com'lCUon was fairly well established, tt natur 1 proponsitie~ or JOUrna)lStS to ~re!or wr tl q ! aturo storleS


h hway pol1~ 1 learr_j by ~re~t

xlaho a and Texas. as WG ~ n calls !rom the nt o! P~ 11c Safety in th he1 qht of ~e xeit nt (Ref. 4). But tt.e f~llow1 r. da~. t press w ~old these were d_c to • 1nvcrstons" and "el •tran1c alf~c­ t1ons,• as had happered befor 1n such =port4nt ens s U: Red Bluff, CaHf ., s·ghti~qs of Aug~st 13, 1960 . or th Re~ond, o;egon. case of Sept. 24, 1959. or S~owheqa~. He .• Febr.ary 11, 1966, etc. In the August , • 196S, Mi~ost ep1sode, 1t was interesting tha. ~1eh1ta Weather Bureau radar, unaffected by AF20 -~. also tracked many o! the unknowns and, like the subsequently denied USA< radar observat1onS, atched ground-visual observations cloi>ely. In a01:1e eases FAA radar obs<'rvatlons ave been va1lable to confirm visual stght1ngs; 1n others , on qet tho imprcss1on that ~•~ rc.eases are comprom1sed in so~e manner not unl~k< those at Alr Force bases. oklah~a oepa=~

ho stnqle effect of AF200-2 has be<'n us disastrous as the compro~sing of t rador doto. Here is on already ovolluble ~lcctro~ qnetic sens1n9 device, deployed in larqe numb<'r throughout the country , wh1ch lS known tO be Capable Of detecting Uf'OS . "fhlS ln~ter as.crt1on is fully juat1fied by the prelq53 d1sclosure of man)' /u.r l'oree radar observat1on& of h1gh-speed ob)octs for which no adequate explanotlons were cv r g1ven . 1ndeed , one of the problems that '•liS repeatedly mcnt!oned 1n the Robertson Panel report (see Ref . 2) w~s the "fost-trac;,• problem, wh1ch clo~rl~ both red both CIA ~nd ~ir Force 1n 1953 . And ~ell 1t should, as one can readily leurn for 1 lf by rcadinq Ruppclt 's book (Ref. • •n • long S"-'nlnory of radar sightinos of ob et tracked at multi-thousand- oph sreeds a& 11 t ~ by NICAP (Ref . 3) . A more recor~ c~so, t~ot I have personally checked on. occurred at Patuxent Riv r Naval Atr Stat10n on December 19, 1964, when two un1de~ ­ ~1f1ed objects vore tracked at speeds of ov~r 7000 ~:~ph . h'hereas the :.avy released a state-ent ~ttest1ng to the experience of the r4darman and whereas the operating personnel stated that the set wus not ~alfunctioninq , Air Force spoke SOlen told Ser•. Harry F . Byrd, who qller1ed the Air Fore~ on the case, that an ~nexpe r ~­ enced operator was on duty end the set w~s not work~nq properly (Re[ . 5) . sc1entlf~colly

Thu

was tt r ex

tin

or l .r ::JOUS Klll1an 1 t he, long wtth • 24, 19S9, GDW ~hrcc NICAP f1les and the ~dcncc" (Ref. 3) have 1 a . The effect . by the late 1950 ' s was cl rly ev1dent in the reluc~ancc of atrllnes ptlota to report sight1ngs, a reluctance stronqly enhanc:t:-d, in some insunces . by management d rect\vea from airl1nca offices instructing their pilots that they were not under any c~reumstancea to publicly report any unidenlJ fLed aerial objects that they might see during flight operot1ons. This further reduced the percentage of unldontifiod in an ~rea of q~e~t pot entia! importance . Another exccod1nqly adverso effect of hF200 - 2 has been that radar slghtinqs o! unident1!ied objects cannot be disclosed to press or publ1c by local a1r bose perGonnel . Radar sigh~inga do leak out in the midst of perlods o! oc~1ve siqhtinqs, but then the next day official disclaimers ua~1lly appear, as 1n ~e case of ~e important Midwest wave of early ~ugust, ~96S. Radars at Tinker APB and Car~nll AYB reportedly had un~~owna at pos1t1ons compatible with reports from many state

And not only have American radars tracked hlqh- speed ObJects execut1ng maneuvers defy~ng explonot1on, but so have radars of othe r countries . To c1te one such case , South Afr1can ~ir rorce radar trac;.od ~n object v~k ­ l.ng repeated p~sses at speeds of lOOQ mph over the Cape on M~y 23, 1953, under condit1ons that led the government to declare it off~cially unknown , a status that they have recently reconiirmed . In addition, thoro ~re on record, botr. in USAF files and elsewhere, m~ny cases of combined v1sual and o1r-borno r~dar 81qhtlngs by rnil1tary and commerc1nl aircraft. The f~ous Rapid City, So . oa;,Qtn , case of August 12, 1953 (Refs. 1, 3) could serve as a good example of un~xpl~ined Air f'orce ~1ght­ After a UFO was spotted by a m mbcr o! ~nqs. the Ground Observer Corps on night duty, two F-8~'o were vectored 1n to the location of the ~hJect, wh1ch showed on GCI ground-radar. Both


pilots got airborne radar lock-ons and also saw the glowing obJeCt v~sually, but could not close on ~ t. ~lany more such cases can be cited , but not after August 1953 "·hen AF200-2 shut down further disclosures of military sJ.ghtings .

cases; and one can surely ask whe~her non hostihty dJ.dn't argue need for getting the whole problem out of the mainstrearr of our m1l1tary 1ntell1gcnce channels and into some primar1ly sci~nti!lC channels where the problem could have been more adequately examJ.ned.

C~tation of foreign radar sightings above leads to the 1nevitable question of why fore~gn governments have not conducted independent studJ.es of the UFO problem. There seems absolutely no question but that the UFO phenomenon is a global phenomenon, so why haven't England or France, or AustralJ.a, dug into this problem? I have no final answers, but I asked a French UFO investigator, Dr . Jacques Vallee, about the French situat~on in particular. He explained that whenever French investigators of the UFO problem made any appeal to their government, thPy "'ere told that the United Stetes Air Force had been carefully studying that problem for years and had shown that there is nothing to it! I am told that the situation in Australia is not dissimilar . Is it conceivable that AF200-2 has succeeded in reducing the percentage of unJ.dentifieds not only here but all over the world? I strongly suspect so, though that is an inference I could not prove, only make plausible by many examples .

The iatter suggestion was, unfortunately, not made by the Panel. Probably these were busy men who thought the whole business had actually been well checked out by Air Force personnel and Air Force consultants . Perhaps they were reluctant to accept as scientifically s1gnificant observations made outside the scientific labor.Itory. Perhaps there •,;e;e other considerations .

Air Force Regulation 200-2 was given a new number a few months ago ; J.t is now called AFS0-17. The only significant change was to permit the University of Colorado to gain access to airbase- level 1nformation on un~den ­ tifieds . Let us hope that this single important alteration will soon pave the way to clarification of radar sightings by military radar systems. But for fifteen years, 20~-2 has been a most effective barrier to free disclosure of precisely that type of observational data that would have gone farthest toward arousing scJ.entific concern for the UFO problem - the radar sightings . Much more can be said about the radar problem, but here the blockage effect of the "debunking order" that leo to 200 - 2 has been the point of principal interest. 1953 REVISIHD

Looked at in retrospect, and viewed against the large volume of unexplainable phenomena reported outside of military channels since 1953, the recommendations made by the five scientists who comprised the Robertson Panel seem most regrettable . Are they to be faulted for their action,s?· I think not . The cases they reviewed were selected by someone else, presumably Air Force intelligence officers , or possibly CIA representatives (though I stress that I doubt this and kna..· of no evidence indicating that the CIA then ma~ntained, or now maintains, any scientific scrutiny of the details of the UFO phenomena) . I feel entirely certain that if I had no prior knowledge of details of UFO cases and were suddenly asked to make a recommendation based on a mere three days' look at UFO cases, I would not end up describing them as the greatest scientJ.fic problem of our times . One might, however, w1sh that the Panel ~embers had a~ked for a better chance to review more

But at any event, January, 1953, brought a marked turn of events . Bluebook ooerations under Capt . E. J. Ruppelt seemed to have been heading in 1952 towards some kind of systematic invest1gation methods that might have hre>unht the whole problem out into full glare of scientific light . But after 200 - 2 cam~ out in August, 1953 , and Ruppelt left the Bluebook staff shortly thereafter, a true period of "dark ages" began at Bluebook . Plenty of good reports kept coming J.n, as one can easily see by going over those files . But contr~ved "explanations" became the order of the dav and debunking to reduce public interest the flying saucers went on apace . Organizations such as NICAP attempted to force the problem out into the open, but their efforts were treated by Air Force personnel as if they amounted to crackpot activities, a vie•Npoint which I found rather well established in Air Porce circles when I began an intensive examination of this problem in April , 1966 . Whether this attitude has since altered appreciably behind scenes, I cannot sar . I might note, however, that I have repeatedly stated to Air Force personnel concerned ~ith the UFO problem that the NICAP investigations since its founding in 1958 are far superior to those of Bluebook, and I wish to repeat ~~at assertion here . It is based on a great deal of first-hand experience and on the basis of careful examination of many cases inves tigated h~ NICAP and Bluebook, respectively . Prior to June, 1966 , I had no first-hand knowledge of either NICAP or Bluebook . By July, 1966, it had become very clear that Bluebook has bee n operated on an almost incredibly non-scientific basis, whereas NICAP's work merits high praise, especially when measured against the shoestring budget on which they have operated .

in,

THE CONSPIRACY HYPOTHESIS I must comment next on one very intriguing aspect of the give-and-take between the Air Force and groups such as NICAP, namely the question of the "conspJ.racy hypothesis . " Among those who have done a substantial amount of checking of UFO reports, there invariably develops great concern over what I term t.he "coverup versus foulup" controversy . Some feel, on the basis of considerable knowledge of UFO history, that there are so many well-documented J.nstances in which Air Force personnel have obfuscated in their


6

handling of UFO cases that there must be a grand conspiracy, a high-level coverup of some sort . NICAP, and espoc~ally 1ts Director, ~ajor Donald E. Keyhoe, have cited dozens of instances that seem to suggest such a highlevel coverup . I have to confess that I am not able to rebut these 1ndiv~dual cases w1th specific 1nformation; I agree that, on the face of 1t, many past actions do seem to suggest a pattern of almost consp~ratorial co•.•erup. But, at present, I cannot subscr~be to the grandcoverup hypothesis. I do not believe, as do some UFO ~nvesti­ gators, that the CIA or still higher security groups "know all about the UFOs," know that they are of extraterrestrial origin, and are concealing this from both the public and science . Rather I have seen a large amount of evidence, much of 1t compelling in its nature, that leads me to reject the grand- coverup hypothesis . I believe it is instead a t~and fo~lup, accomplished by people of very 1m1ted sc1entific competence, confronted by a messy and rather uncomfortable problem . (What air force officer, American, British, Russian , or Chinese , would care to adm~t that in h1s country's airspace there are maneuvering objects of unknown nature far exceeding in performance characteristics anything his friends are fly1ng ! ) I have told Air Force personnel quite directly that I think it's a foulup, not a coverup, and until I see new evidence to the contrary I shall 5ubscribe to th1s 'aew . As a result of close scrut1ny of the operating methoes of ~luebook, after seeino at firsthand ho..- little sc1enhiic expertise has been ut~l1zed at Bluebook, and after finding no one 1n any Air Force office that I have v1s1 ted "'"ho exhibits any apprec~able knowledge of doe f'"'l~ h1.story of the UFO problem, I have slowly formed my own picture of what ~as prob<:bly :1-o.ppen.,d 1.n this long- standing coverup vs foulup CO:ltt"ovcrsy. I sense that grouns l1ke NICAP who have been assiduously inve~ti­ ~at~ng t:!':e UFO problE>m over the years have been ~ncapable of imagining how ~ncom?etently the P';Oblerr ~:as actually be1ng handled within the Ai'; Force . They could only imag1.ne that everythl.ng they knew was surely also known to Bluebook inv:stigators , and that all those spurious explanat1.ons defy1.ng elementary scientific principles could only be the efforts of nottoo- careful officers assigned to put out the coverup propaganda . But aft:er seeing what has gone on at Bluebook , after talking 1d th higher-echelon personnel at .I~Pi<FB "''ho ••ere almost unaware of what was be1ng done l.n the 3-man (major, sergeant ~ecretary) operation , and after be1.ng assure6 l.n the most conv1.ncing manner that Bluebook has been an ex~remely lo"' priority proJeCt (one of about 200 1n_the Foreign Technology D~v 1 sion of HPAFB •··here 1 t has lain . in recent years) I fc;mn a ve:~· different p1cture. ~:y pictu~e of a ~ l th1.s lS no cloak-and-dagger consp1racy, no effort,to prevent publ1c panic ever the "real nature' of the UFOs, no front crgan1.zat 1or. narned_Bluebook concca~1ng a higher- level 1nves ~lgat~on of the UFOs. Instead I see JUst one 1.nco~petently and superficial~y investigated

case after another swept under the rug . Bluebook, without conspiratorial f1nesse, has succeeded in hoodwinking us all . One of their most successful tactics m1.ght be called the "five-day delay." After an important sighting that has somehow made the wire services (many of us wonder how it is that certain cases make the grade '"'hile so many others go unnoticed), Bluebook and the Pentagon press desk just wait . Then, when press interest has gone through its characteristic half - life of about two or three days, they put out some "explanation" and add solemn assurance that the Air Force has 1nvestigated such and such a number of cases in the past ten years and of these such and such a tiny percentage have been regarded as unidentified, and the public and the editors shrug their shoulders once again, forget the sightinqs, and decide there sure must be a lot of nuts in the country to be reporting such outlandish things when the Air Force keeps on dutifully checking them and finding them all due to twinkling stars and meteors . It works . As editors , ask yours elves if it doesn't work : . . And all the time groups like NICAP , hav ing d1.l1.gently dug out the facts , usually in faT more detail than has Bluebook or its consultants , are left wondering how such atrocious official explanations could be palmed off on the public unless . . . and their suspicions that there ~ be a top-level coverup grow and grow. I believe that this , combined with inher:nt tendency for military personnel to play ~t safe and play it classified when in doubt about an uncomfortable situation , ha s generated the susp1.cions of a well- designed conspiracy . l~hen Jets are scrambled to t r y to ~o~lo~ a UFO, and all is later denied , I think ~t s JUSt some colonel playing it safe . I do not, in my reJection of the hypothesis, faul t those who have been dr~ven to it by some faint f~1th ~n the l.mage of scientific expertise s o d7hgent~y shaped by innumerable Press Informatl.On Off1cers at the Pentagon and elsewhere . But 1.n the area of the UFOs, that image appea rs to me to be a completely false image , almost laughably false. The United States Air For ce m~s~ assuredly has a lot of top - notch scient~fl.c talent at 1.ts d~sposal . It just hasn 't u~ed any of it on the UFO problem for at leas t f1fteen years, as far as I can see . I have often wondered ~f perhaps t he PIOs at the ~entagon press desks actually believe that, w1th all the engineering and scientific talent that can be found up at Nr igh tPatterson AFB, Bluebook must have a lot of that ~alent, too . This, at least, might expla1n how the Pentagon desk has dutifully passed on to a somet1.mes howling - mad local citizenry "explanations" of the most patently senseless natu:e in recent years . I miqht add t~at one addit1.onal strong argument against the hlgh-level coverup hypothesis is the very 1nept1. tude of Bluebook "explanations . " If Cli'\ and USAF really wished to conceal the UFO, they could very eas 1ly hav: assigned to the Bluebook off~ce clever, sc1ent~f1cally tra~ned officers who could have contrived sensible rather than absurd "explar.at1ons." Th1s has clearly not been done. -lnally, were there some frantic


7

effort on the part of CIA and USAF to plumb the secret of the UFOs, NICAP and even a person who has done as much checking of strong cases of close-range siqht1ngs as I have done, would surely run into many cases "'here the key witnesses had been carefully 1nterrogated by trained personnel out to get every last shred of evidence from a strong case. Quite the ooposite situat1on prevails: Ayain and again one finds that even w~en lee)' ;..-J.tnesses risked ridicule and reported a case to Air Force channels, no 1nvestigation of any kind was conducted. Let me cite a single example that I checked just last week. A reoort 1n the latest NICAP bulletin (Ref. 7) i.nd1cates that: "A i/FO ~ue2• ti., l:'lited l•o.ti.Q'lll ·,: New Y<Jrlc rity ~o~as reportedly e< n on Nov ...c., r · ~ , l~t:o . ;!i tne,·se:t included at Zea;;t (?ht empl?yoe:.- "·'· the Am-?r.:.:an ll<?.ws par:Jer P:,bli,.:h.;rc Ae.:o.:iation, who w~tched fl•om th:Oir o ···i..,. e or. ti: l?eh )"loot' o:· ?SO Third AuenuP ~~ 4 : :0 P.X. on a bright , runny day . Th •. UFO L'a~ a r • .:ta•teuZr;u• , cl<;;;:ion - shaped otJe·: . . . (which) •amo southward c~or tho Eaet It.

"'a ·

~n~>t ;,ovu•ed ove1·

ti" fJ!, Bu:· 'di»p . . . 'l~ ~+ r<a an..J bobrl"d Uk a sl. 'p on agita~ad

llivar•

Witnesses mentioned were D. R. McVay, assistant general manager of ANPA and Mr . 1'1 . H. Leick, manager of the ANPA's Publications Department . I telephoned the ANPA offices and spoke at some length with Mr. Leick about the sight~ng . He conf1rmed that eight or nine persons were out on the 17th floor terrace watching the object hover over the UN Building for a number of r.inutes as it rocked and reflected the sun's rays with a golden glint before rising and mov~ng off. I asked Leick if they reported 1t to any Air Force channels, and he said that A. A. LaSalle called a New York office of the Air Force and was assured that an officer would be in the next day to intervi~~ the~. But no one ever came. This is indicative of the d! ligence ·..;i th which the Air F'orce is seek1ng out the last bit of e\'idence about UFOs. Over a half dozen respons1ble witnesses see an unconventional ObJeCt hover over midtown Manhattan, they tell the Air Force, and it yawns! Le1ck added that they also phoned a New York newspaper "which shall go unnamed," but "they weren't interested . " It got to NICAP almost by accident , and NICAP sent up their standard ·~i tness-quest~onnaires which Leick ~airl they ~11 filled out as carefully as they could .* If this were an isOlated instance, it might be amusing; it is all too typical , unfortunately. so r don't see the earmarks of a frantic race against time to secretly solve the eniqma of the UFOs. 'InCidentally, my phone call to Leick illustrated another point - it turned up on~ more of the many "hldden UFO reports" I have received . Leick and his Wife, driving at night on the Ohio Turnpike several years ago, had seen a luminous, unconventional object with a c1rcular array of l1ghts . After hovering about 5 m1nutes, it took off in an oblique climb at very high speed. "I've never seen anything that fast," Leick told me. lie had never reported it, having no desire to be ridiculed for his observat1on, he expla1ned.

If my view is ~rong, ~f there 1s a highlevel coverup, then I am going to be-one of a ver)' large number of scient~sts , both "'ithin this country and outs1de it, who are going to want to hear some fast explaining as to how a sc1entific problem of the potential interest of the UPO problem could be regarded as the legitimate domain of deception-operations unparalleled in previous history . But, to repeat, I )USt don't believe there have been such operations:--ITn a recentlr published book [Ref . 7], L. J. Stanton also rejects the "conspiracy hypothesis," but for reasons which seem to me to reflect incomplete knowledge of the facts of the case . Stanton's book can be recommended as a generally sound analysis of th.e history of the UFO problem and the shortcom~ngs of the official investigations .) Thus, it 's not the UFOS but the Air Force investigation that is the big joke, as I now see it . 0n June 7, 1966, at the end of my first visit to Bluebook, and after incredulously pouring over perhaps 150-200 cases selected at random from the Air Force UFO files , I stated to Brig. Gen . Arthur \~ . Cruikshank, Jr . , commander of the Foreign Technology Division at NPAFB,that when the full picture gets out as to how the Air Force has mishandled the UFO problem, "the Air Force will look very, very sad . " I still regard this predict~on as sound, ten months later . Gen . Cru1kshank ' s response •,.;as laudable . He put three officers onto the task of carrying out a quick review of Bluebook . I extended all possible cooperation to that trio of officers last summer, and then I heard no more. I subsequently found that Gen . Cruikshank (who seemed to be qu1te interested to hear a real live scientist in his office savlng that there might be much more to the UFO problem than had ever met the Air Force eye) •,.;as transferred to another command on the ;o~est Coast as part of a routine shift of personnel . Therein one sees one more facet of the Air Force problem. No one has ever stayed ~iL~ this problem long enough to sense its true dimensions. There have been a half dozen blueLook officers since Ruppelt . None se~~s to ha~e had any apprec1able scientific background. Only the chief scientific consultant has been present over the whole eighteen years, and until recent months, Dr . Hynek seems not to have taken very seriously the enormous volume of important reports that one finds packed into the huge files in the Bluebook office . And so years have slipped by and the UFO problem is still with us . Norse yet, credible UFO .ll"epo-rts of close-range sightings are on the increase, and this despite the "ridicule lid " which callous Air Force discrediting has imposed .

SCIENTISTS' VIEWS ON UFOs Having suggested that press and public have been m~slcd by the CIA-requested debunking that Bluebook has carr1ed out in the past dozen years, j t is next in order to ask "'hy scient1sts have not seen through the m1srepresentations . Certainly at th1s writ111g one would be rash to suggest t~at rnore than a few per cent of the country's sc1cnt1sts take the UFO problem seriously . If the trde percentage is


8

larger, then I can only sa~路 that most of the supporters are keeping themselves very well concealed . By contrast, those who scoff at the UFOs as a lot of nonsense or as an expression of the hunan need for miracles or as the mis t .....,,. observations of untrained laymen are both r.umerous .:~nd vocal. In seeking an cxplanat~on of this pattern, one must again lay pr~mary respons~b~l~ty on Air Force Project Bluebook for having left scientists with no reason to doubt that the problem was being very thoroughly ~nvestigated . Scientists are busy people, always have more to do than they have t~me for , and when they read in the papers th.:~t Bluebook has explained away all but a tiny percentage of reports and that, for most of those, explanations could probably have been found had there been more adequate information, they are not likely to pursue the matter farther. Scientists, like Congress and the public, had no reason to suspect that all those Pentagon reassurances were baseless, so most of them ignored the problem. Others, unfortunately, without any firsthand knowledge about the actual UFO evidence and without any personal examination of a substan tial number of UFO reports, have felt free to speak ex cathedra that "people have a need for miracLes, so what's more natural in a scientific age than scientific miracles," a ..<A so on. Hany, seeing the highly visible cultist and crackpot fringe of believers in UFO space messengers have baselessly assumed ~~at this was the entire picture. Others have simply opined from their armchairs with scarcely any knowledge of any sort, just speak~ng fro~ scientific orthodoxy at its worst . In NICAP and in other similar groups such as A~RO (Aerial Phenomena Research Organization), there has been a modest number of scienc~sts who have followed the UFO problem with some interest, though none seems to have pursued the matter as a full-time effort . None could be rated at Nobel prize-winning caliber, none are leaders of American science, I suppose; and most have been reluctant to speak out on the basis of theLr personal knowledge, though they have suspected that scientific values were being ignored in the neglect of the UFO question. I was, myself, in roughly that last category until I decided, a year ago, to try to make an intensive study of the problem and see if there really was anything to all thos~ reports that seemed to keep cropping up . Desp~te almost a decade of intermittent checking of local UFO reports near Tucson , I had se"'n too few instances of strong cases to feel free to extrapolate very far . I was entirely unprepared for "'hat I found almost immediately ~pon making a personal check of NICAP's oper atlng methods and case f~les, and upon doing the same at Bluebook . r feel sure that my reaction W!.~l b':l par~lleled by that of many other sc~ent1sts )USt as soon as they can be persuaded to personally look into the actual nature of the UFO evidence in detail . To get th~~ to eo so, I am finding, is not as easy as one might hope. I rn1ght say that I have never met a scientist who has made what I could regard as an

adequate investigation of the UFO problem who is at all inclined to sneer at the problem . If I did find one, I would be extremely interested to hear his arguments . There is one scientist who has written and lectured a great deal about UFOs, an~ who has certainly looked at a lot of cases w~~hout being convinced that the.u~o ~roblem ~nvolves anything of great sc~ent1f~c ~nterest . That is Dr. Donald Nenzel, former Director of the Harvard College Observatory . Dr . Menzel has published two books on t~e UFOS, both. aimed at explaining UFOS chiefly ~n terms of ffi1Slnterpreted meteorological and astronomical phenomena (Refs 8, 9) . I am deeply puzzled by those books, especially the more recent one . ~ly puzzlement stems from realizing that or . ~lenzel' s background in physics and astronomy is well - attested by his authorship of a number of texts and references in those areas . Despite that background , when he comes to analyzing UFO reports, he seems to calmly cast aside well-known scientific principles almost with abandon, in an all-out effort to be sure that no UFO report survives hLS attack. Refract~on processes are quite well understood in optics, and the refracting properties of the atmosphere are surely as familiar in astronomy as in meteorology, if not more so. Yet in "explanation" after "explanation" in his books, ~lenzel rides roughshod over elementary optical considerations governing such things as mirages and light reflections. For instance, the interesting observation made by Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, in August, 1949, who along with two members of his family saw a puzzling array of pal~ lights move rapidly through their zenith ~ky in Las Cruces, Ne\< Mexico, and disappear ~nto the southeastern sky, is casually attributed by Menzel to "reflections of ground lights against the boundary of an inversion layer in the air . " The d~fficulty that these lights were rapidly moving in orderly fashion across Tombaugh ' s sky Menzel explains (Ref. 9, p . 269) by asserting that it was produced by "a ripple in the thin haze layer . " That is "this ripple, tipping the haze laye r at a ' slight angle, could have reflected the lighted windows of a house; as the ripple progressed in a wavelike motion along the layer, the reflection would have moved as did the rectangles of light. " Now this might go down with a layman, but to anyone who is at all familiar with the physics of reflection and particularly with the properties of the atmosphere through which generations of astronomers have successfully watched a large number of astronomical events the suggestion that there are "haze layers" ' with sufficiently strong refractive index gradients to yield visible reflections of window lights is s~mply absurd . But , in Nenzel's explanations, light reflections off of atmospheric haze layers are indeed a sight tv uehold. This, I say, I simply do not understand, since one is not deal~ng here with some subtle shade of opinion . Such a near- normal reflection process JUSt does not occu r in our atmosphere - and no one should know this better than an exper~enced astronomer.

Refractive distort1ons of stellar images are a familiar source of trouble to astronomer~


, . ,. and the circumstances governing these distortJ.ons are rather well known. Certain!~· the order of magnitude of refractive displacew~nt and osc1llations are extremely well known. Yet Or. Menzel speaks in detail (Ref. 9, p . 61) of a "mirage of Sirius" which he, himself, reportedlr observed '"'hile flying in an Air Force aircraft in the Arctic, in which refraction effects arc supposed to have enlarged Sir1us to an apparent angular ~iameter of about 12 m1nutes or more of arc Cequ~valent, he asserts, to a sphere a foot or two in diameter at a d1.stance of 300 feet) . Just how refr active 1ndcx gradients Wlth the axial symmetry necessary to enlarge a stellar 1mage 1nto a circular disc of such relat1.vely enormo us d1.ameter could ever develop '"'i th1.n our atmosphere, Arctic or otherwise, is not hinted by Menzel , nor does he confront ~he puzzl7 of how, as he flew along , h1.s stead1ly chang1ng optical path always provit;l.ed him wi ~h this J<J.nd of a refractive index pattern of ax1.al symmetry despite looking through steadily changing a i r pat.ns ! But having made his point , he use.s it as the basis of discounting UFO sightings by experi enced pilots who, he indicates , repeatedl y see refraction phenomena of just the same type . This 1.s nonsense . The imoortant Nash - Fortenberry sighting of July 14, 19S2 , in wh1.ch the pilot and co-pile~ of a Pan- AmerJ.can DC- 4 observed six red-glo~:ing dis c - shaped objects maneuver at high speed and in unconventional manner below their plane over Chesapeake Bay , is readi 1:; explained by !·!enzel (Ref . 9 , p . 256 ffl as searchlights hitting an "1nvers1.on layer . " He speaks of what "a thor ough stud~· of the situation shO'...ed," but as .one reads along, it becomes clear that all of his arg=ents apply only to formation of the far.til iar nocturnal inversion la)•ers that hug the earth's surface . Yet the two exper ienced Pan A~e r ican p1.lots distinctly describe (and Henzel's book , p . 258 , reiterates this) <:he '"ay in ..,hich the observed luminous objects "abruptly began a steep climb to an altitude above that of the plane , " an appearance quite out of question for an hypothetical searchlight sh i ning on an h:z•pothetical inversion layer near the ea r th's surface . But mam• other details of the s1ght~ng, clearly stated by Nash and For t e nberry , such as the sharp- edged nature of the glowing d1scs, and their impressive formationholding maneuvers , are glossed over i n Menzel 's inversion- layer explanation . Such easy neglec t of salient features of the cases he treats mar ks many other examples that could be ci t ed . Menzel ' s explanation of the famous ChilesWhitted s1.ght1ng is another excellent illus t ration of his methods of argumentation . An Eastern Airlines OC- 3 , piloted by Capt . C. S . Chiles 'A'ith J , B. ~lhitted as second officer, encountered a h1.gh-speed rocket- like glowing obJect approaching them out of the northeas t in the early morning hours over Montgomery, Al~. • on July 24, 1948 . The object was described as having a length of over 100 ft and thickness twice that of a B- 29 fuselage; it had something resembling blue- glowing ports and a fiery wake stre~~ing from 1.ts aft end; and just as it passed the aircraft , rocking the DC- 3 as it did so, it pulled upwards into a steep climb and passed out of sight through the broken cloud

9

deck overhead. All of these details are on recotd with the A1r force and are recounted in :·Senzel'sbook (Ref. 9, p . 108) . Henzel s ugqests that this was a f1.reball (intensely bright meteor) . He glosses over the reported rocking of the DC-3, and completely ignor es the un-meteor1c pull-up and vertical clirnbout. But what ~s most d1ff1.cult to understand, from an astronom1cnl po1~t of v1.ew, 1s that he goes on for several pages indicattng that since that 1nc1dent occurred near the time of the Delta Aquarid meteor shower, these p1.lots were fooled by a fireball from this shower . Now first of all, few showers have meteorotds large enough to reach the fireball class (brighter than -5 magnitude), and the Delta Aquar1.d stream i s not one of the showers noted for this . But much more surpris.1ng is that t•lenzel clearly failed to check his computations of the position of the shower radiant , for had he done so he would have found that lhe Delta Aquarid r ad i ant t•as at culmination about 40" above the southerr. horizon, whereas tne Eastern Airlines oc-3 was heading towards the northeast . Had Chi l es and l~hitted seen an Aquarid meteor i n the skies ahead of them, it would have given the appear ance-of moving in the same general heading as their plane, whereas all accounts , including ~lenzel's own version , describe the huge glowi ng object as coming directly to1~ards the aircraft ! Thus there l.S a clean- cut error of about 180" in Menzel's Aquarid meteor explanation . But ~lenzel closes his pat discussion of t.nis case (Ref . 9, p . 1121 w1th the statement that " . . . there can be no doubt that ChJ.les and Whitted m1s1.nterpreted t!-,e appearance of an unusually brtlliant meteor ... ·• The phenomenon of anomalous pro~agation of radar Wlthin layers of strong grad~ents of humidity and temperature 1s well understood . To determine whether stgnificant beam- refractton can occur, one consults radtosonde data t o see just what tnd,~x gradients prevailed . ~lenzel d1scusses a nl.ll!lber of UFO reoorts i n which he 1.nvokes anomalous pro~agation , but in no tnstance docs he present evidence that he has examined any quantltative aspects . l~ith qual.1tative arguments , false arguments are easily built up ; quantitative considerat1.ons are what one finds almost non- ex1stent in Menzel ' s disposal of UFO sightings . In some instances , he attributes airborne rada r e choes to phenomena which are unknot~n to militar y pilots and unexplainable in terms of me t eorol ogy and physics . fvr example , in the importan t Port Hur on , ~lichigan, case of July 29 , 1952, ground radar detected a high-speed unknolm and then the radar in the nose of one of the F- 94 's vectored into the unknown picked up an echo and locked- on ; f~nally the pi~ot himse~f s aw a fast - moving glowing object in that l oca tion . Menzel (Ref . 9, p . 160) easily explains the visual effect as the star, Capella , and the ground- radar fix ~nd radar lock- on he e x plains away as "phantom returns caused by weather conditions . " Evtdently he did not examine t he available rad1osonde data for that date and area, as I d1d, for chere was absolutely no chance of anomalous propagation causing false ground-returns on the ground-based radar that originally picked up this fast-moving and oddlr maneuvering target . But still more perplexing is his suqgestion that the ~~rborne lock- on by


10

the F-9~ '"'as due to "weather cond1 t1ons." Index grad1ents adequate to g1ve apprec1able super-refractJ.on or subrcfract1on are unknown in the free a~osohere. St1ll more sign1!~ ­ cant, is that one· cannot qet a return even ·-.ith powerful 1ndex grad1ents unless there is so~e solid radar - rcturn1ng obJeCt in the bent beam . Near the earth's surface, it is ground objects of one sort or another that provide these false targets of sol~d nature; but aloft there are no such solid objects ly1ng around to throw back a spurious echo. The result 1s that "ground returns" are entirely unknown aloft, and one need only ask ar. experienced Air Force p1lot to confirtr. that ~lenze l is here (and 1n other sJ.milar cases such as the outstanding B-2 9 case o\•er the Gulf of ~:ex1co, December 6, 1952, dis cussed on p . 5 of Ref. 9) J.nvoking a phenomenon that just ~ !:..£.!: ~· Hany other such examples of loose reasoning , failure to check the relevant weather data, and casual neglect of key features of the reports could be cited. He speaks (Ref . 9, o . 179) of the "freak weather" and of severe electrical activ1ty near Levelland, Texas, on the night of November 2/3, 19~7, when observations by 10 independent "itnesses 1~ere made "ithin a two-hour period of a large luminous egg- shaped object that hovered over fields or roads and stopped ignitions of engines in eight or n1ne vehJ.cles . Having asserted , without doc\l!:lentation, that there •.ras severe lightning in the area, he goes on to say that the objects, estJ.:nated by various witnesses at from 100 to 200 :eet in length, '"'ere just "ball light.nlng." And wet 1gnitions stopped the cars . fact tr.at the engines could be re started JUSt as soon as the object darted off would, of course, be entirely incons1stent with wet ~gnitions; but that feature of the observations is ignored . 1\orse, the actual weather data for the night and locale in question are ignored . I dug out the weather maps and rain fall data. A large high-pressure area was moving southward over the Texas Panhandle , completely antithetical to convective activity and lightning of any sort - and a check of half a dozen stations in the vicinity revealed that there was not even any rain falling during this period, nor had more than a small amount fallen hours earlier that day when a cold front went through . ~he

The Air Force offers the same absurd explanation of the Levelland UFO reports ~ncioentally, and Dr. J. A. Hynek, who w~s 1nvolved in formulating the Air Force explanation of this one, has stated to me that this explanation was a bit "unfortunate." The Levelland case affords an excellent J.llustration of how the press has been used by the Air Force in J.ts "debunking" efforts. The ~velland case, plus several others else~here 1n the Southwest on the same n1 ght ~er~ headl1ne news all over the country ~n ~ovember 3 and 4, 1957 . No response came fram the Alr Force for another four days, long enough for editor1al interest to wane a b 1 ~ . The~ an ~ssociatedPress dlspatch of Nov . 7, 195., re:terated the usual: "Tne Air Force says its 1nvestigations of 5,700 reported

s 1 ght1ngs of fly1n9 saucers 1n the past 10 years have produced 'no ph}'Slcal or material ev1dencc' that such things exist." In the •· ': , that d1spatch was headed "5700 Duds . " Turning the page from Menzel's disposal of the Levelland case, one finds him re-using the ball l1ghtn1ng explanat1on to account, on the next page, for another case, the Loch Raven Dam case of October 26, 1958. He ignores completely the po~nt that here, too, the car engine \oo"as stopped, but the witnesses' report of a large luminous object, estimated at 100 feet or so in length, hover ing over a bridge structure, he attribute> to more ball l1ghtning . To make the latter seem to fit better, he refers to the object as a "ball," despite the witnesses' remarks that it looked much like "a Navy blimp" {Ref . 10 , p . 192) . Also ball lightning is a luminous mass only a foot or two 1n diameter, so how ~lenzel feels it can atta1.n a size of 100 ft is far from clear . But the real 1rrelevance of the entire "explanation" emerges only when one runs down the weather map for the day in question and finds that a large high - pressure area sat over the East Coast, precluding anything like the kind of atmospheric electrical activity so casually invoked by Menzel . I could easily go on at much greater length with specific objections to Dr . Menzel's methods of explaining UFO cases, but the above should suffice to suggest the nature of my strong objections to hJ.s writings on this subject . I simply do not regard them as substantial scientific analyses of the UFO phenomena . I believe they should be ignored . However, they have not been ignored at all . One can find references in the writings of other scientists who c1te his work as the authoritative analysis of the UFO problem~d I can only presume that those others who have accepted h1s conclus10ns have not examined the actual details of his arguments , for the latter ju~t w1ll not_wJ.thstand close scrutiny . In my 0p1n1on, and 1n the opinion of a number of oth others familiar with the UFO problem , Dr . Menzel has had a baleful influence on scientific progress towards solution of the puzzle of the unidentified flying objects . I bel1eve that Bluebook officers have patterned many of their "twinkling star" and "fireball" explanations after those to be found in Menzel's books - an~ perhaps one can only say that for off1cers w1th very limited scientific background to take his wrJ.tings as r eliabl e was not_u~re~sonable, ~n view of his prestigious af~1l1~t7ons a~d h1s past publications on many scJ.entJ.flC top1cs . But the latter considerations notwithstanding, his writings on the UFO problem are, in my opinion , scientifically unsound . The sooner a large numbe r of other scientists take a close look at the astonishing nature of his analyses, the sooner thev will be put as1de as having no real relevance to the solution of the UFO mystery .


11

Recently another writer has launched an attack on the UFOs 1n a manner bearing many resemblances to Dr. Menzel's approach. Whereas or. Menzel feels that opt1cal effects probably e>~la~n the bulk of the UFO reports, Philip J . ~lass, of the Aviation " <K staff, has attempted to argue that cssent1ally all UFO reports can be accounted for 1n terms of plasma phenomena assoc1ated •a th corona discharges on power lines or ball lightn1ng (Ref. 11). L1ke Menze~ he sidesteps quantitative cons1derations. Also l:!.ke Nenzel, he rather freel)· i g nores many salient features 1n the reports of witnesses wno have seen unidentified objects, or else freel~· tw1sts them to f1 t his O~o.'Tl interpretations. Finally, I bel1eve he has ignored most of what is known about ball lightning. This still leaves open the likelihood that a few UFOs out of the thousands that have been reported were corona phenomena or ball lightnings, but Klass' efforts to explain the whole problem away with plasma-type phenomena cannot ~e taken seriously . I have discussed his approach with several colleagues active in the ~ielc of atmospheric electricity , several of whom have had personal exchanges with Klass, just as I have, and all share my rejection of his main arguments. Ball lightning, to be sure, is a very poorly understood atmospheric phenomenon. But if there are any ...,orkers in atmospheric electricity who hold, as does Klass, that ba~l lightning can be generated without presence of intenselv active thunderstorms, I have failed to ~~cov~r such v1e~~oints in a recent extensive review that I have carried out on the ball lightning problem, thanks to Klass' prodding . Klass has cited a half-dozen cases of clear- air lightning as if this so~ehow proved his contentions, but none of those cases sounded l1ke what is normally termed ball lightning . He ignores the fact that ball l1ghtning reports involve luminous plasmoids of diameter seldom exceedJ.ng a few feet, usually about the size of a basketball or smaller; J.nstead he feels willing to say that objects reported as having diameters ten to a hundred times large r are "ball lightning." cases like the interesting Red Bluff, Calif., sighting of August 13, 1960, where two California Highway Patrolmen stood less than a hundred yards from an object of metallic luster estimated at about a hundred feet in length, with huge lights on it, or the well-reported Exeter case (Ref . 14) of Sept . 3, 1965, could not, by wildest stretch of any reasonable scientist's imagination, be attributed to ball lightning - and the more so when one notes that the weather conditions were so stable that the official Air Force explanation used that circumstance to try to blame each of those cases on inversion-refraction of stars . ~or could dozens of other sightings, many made under daylight condicions WJ.th perfectly clear skies, where the observers reported solid, metalliclooking objects moving rapid!}' 1n the free atmosphere (far from Klass' corona- producing power lines and defying reasonable explanation as "ball lightning") . ! know of no atmospheric scJ.entists who give serious credence to Klass' efforts to

shoehorn all UFO reports 1nto the corona- andball-lightning p1geon-hole; but a large amount of magazine and press coverage has recently been given to hJ.s arguments, which is ~ost regrettable in that this will further confuse the real issues . This readiness of editors to pick up the dubious arguments of engineers or scientists who offer arguments attacking the OFOs as nonsense, contrasts sharply w1th theJ.r general unw1llingness to take seriously the much more solid efforts of groups like NlCAP who are, in a sense, do1ng the very job that the journalists might well be doing - carefully reporting unusual events going on recurrently all over the country. But can one fault the journalists heavily on this score? Probably not, sJ.nce once more one sees,at the bottom of all thJ.s, conv1ct1on that there really cannot be anything to all this talk about unidentified flying objects or else our Air Force would have found it out years back .

THE NATURE OF THE UFO EVIDENCE Like most scientists , I prefer to base scientific conclusions on quantitative observations obtained from controlled experiments in the laboratory . But scient1sts don't always get their problems handed to them in such neat packages. Seismologists frequently have to go out and interview lay witnesses in earthquake • areas in order to fill in details of their isoseismal patterns . Meteorologists can't make tornadoes in their laboratories; they must study them as they randomly occur, and re~y frequently on anecdotal accounts by eye- witnesses . ~!eteori ticists who try to locate the fall points of suspected meteorites often find laymen's reports confused and marked by certain characteristic errors of underestimate of dis tance, etc.; yet meteoriticists do manage to locate strewn-fields and impact- points by putting together large numbers of lay reports and working carefully to sort out the grain from the chaff. S1m1larly, in the case of the UFO problem, it is unfortunately going to be necessary for scientists to begin by listening carefully to the accounts of many untrained observers and to do their best to sort out the grain from the chaff. t~ith experience, one learns to immediately drop off an interview with a poor observer, an inarticulate witness, or one who is over-dramatic about his account . With dili gent searching, one finds that mixed in with the lay observations are some real ~ems of observation made by quite experienced observer~ often with a considerable scientific training . And slowly one develops a body of evidence that indicates an impressive deg ree of general consistency. NICAP, working in just this manner, found some years ago that the evidence for the reality of the UFOs was very weighty - but 30 one in science paid much heed because they were not a scientific body . The danger of rejecting reports that originate predominantly from non-scientists is a danger science has fallen 1nto in the past . The most notorious parallel concerns the history of the "discovery" of meteorites . Prior to about 1800, recurrent reports of peasants who clairned that stones had fallen out of the


l2

sky were scoffed at b)• the llCadeJu.cians. In many parts of Europe, iron objects that had reportedly fallen out of the skies were venerated as church relics, and this bothered the academicians of the Enlightenment who •.:ere trying to break away from the supernatura1ism of the past. Hence for years scarcely any scientists gave credence to these lay claims of witnessed falls . But f~nally, in 1802, at L'Aigle, France, an unusual shower of meteoritic fragments occurred, and not only all the peasants attested to the fall, but many churchmen and local pol1tical officials added their testirr~ny. So the French Academy sent an eminent physicist, Biot , to L' Aigle to investigate . His report, based on many persons' accounts, finally convinced the sc1ent1fic world that stones do fall out of the sky . The Academy's initial reTuctance to believe so odd a contention was heav1ly influenced by their notion of a beautifully simple , Clock- winder theory of the solar sys tem bas ed on the Newtonian synthesis . The idea of rocks and other debris skimming around amongst the orbi ts of the planets whose motions Lapla ce and Lagr ange had so firmly accounted for , was t o t hem distinctly uncomfortable . But Biot ' s analys is carried the day , and in 180~ , the ye ar of his report , the subject of meteoritics was opened as a legitimate scientific s ubject . Similarly today , most of us find it uncomfortable to think that in our atmosphere there may be r eal objects of a most unconventional nature operating and maneuvering in a way that we cannot account for in terms of present- day knowledge . In our discomfort, most of us seem to take the easy way out and say it just can't be , and we even suspect as slightly unbalanced those who cla1m to have seen these things. liilliam James put it painfully well when he said : "By far tl: nost .,6:.aZ way o; handZing pncno:::c>:a .·o na~:cL tr.at the!! :.JouLd ma;<c .fo'!' a ,cri?ue rearrangG~cnt of o:.r preccnceptions ie ·o 'gnorc t~cm aLtogathsr, or +o ab~a• thc1e who ocaz• :.J:tnccn to th""' · " Let me hasten to add that I'm not in any pos1tion to sermoni ~e on th~s theme ; I ' m sure l ' ve been guilty of the same error in my own scientific work . The d i ffe r ence 1S solely that , in the case of the OFOs , I have now seen too much evi dence t o be able to ignore any longer the serious ness of t he probl em of our collective turning - away from all of these reports . The 1803 episode chat led to acceptance of meteor ites is actua l ly only a weak pa r al l el to t he present- day case of the UFOs , for the UFOS do no t appear to constitute just one mor e geophysical or astronomical phenomenon of st i ll obscure nature . Almost everyone who has car e f ully sor ted through the evidence is forced t o consider quite seriously the hypothesis that the UFOs are some form of extraterrestrial probef . That-rs-an-KYpotneS1S very much more ortable, I fear, than anything like "rocks falling out of the sky . " It has so much more far- reaching consequences if true · its ! pr1ori probability seems so much mor~ remote than was that of rocks falling from che sky ; it ~arr1es so mu~h more dynam1te co explode cher1Shed concept1ons of our place 1n the universe .

Nevertheless, trying to put aside al l the preconceptions that I tend to 7hare with o r thodox fellow-scientists, and try1ng to keep my eyes fixed on the astounding na~ure and the astounding volume of the UFO ev1dence that I have examined in the past twelve mo~ths , I am forced to JOin many other7 who see 1n the extraterrestrial hypothes1s the only presently olausible explanation for the now- available facts . I repeat, however, that I treat it only as an hypothesis, subject to rejection if facts so rule . Even to hold this as merely an hypothesi s is to invite the charge of going far beyond t he available evidence, I've found . This is an understandable charge, yet not really a defensible charge . I have noted some of my colleagues making the mistake of judging the "available evidence" by the insignificant fraction of the actually available evidence that ~7Y are aware of . They tend unconscious l y to 1 k that the total existing evidenc e cannot be more conclusive and consequential than t he scraps of information they have thems elves read , mostly in newspapers. Thi s reactio~ pl us the very low a pfAori probabili ty of the extr aterrestrial hypo es1s tend inevit ab l y t o make most scientists balk at taking that hypothesis seriously . I understand this . But the actually availabl e evidence pointing rather strongly in that strange direction is an iceberg of credible reports of closerange sightings by reliable people, an iceberg whose tiny visible portion belies i ts true bulk and significance . The heart of the problem is how to get large numbers of top- notch scientists to dive down and e xamine wi t h great care the enormous bulk below the surf ace , t he large body of evidence that e xists but has not been pasteuri~ed for acceptance by t he body scientific . As long as scientists think t ha t al l this is just a lot of nonsense , they wi l l largely ignore it . This is pr ecise ly where you editors can play an exceedingly important r ole , by doing some checking on your own , reading some of the substantial references o n UFOs (e. g ., Ref . 3 , above all} , and p r ess i ng i n every way you can for an adequate and muchexpanded investigation of the UFO pr oblem.

NEED FOR A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION Because , as I have now s a i d a lmost ad nau s eam , so much of the misrepr e s entatian-of th is problem mus t be laid a t the door o£ Ai r For ce Project Bluebook , I urge t hat a f ulls cale Congressional investigati on be prepared immediately to examine the actual nature of this problem . Following t he protests of many c i ti zens in the Michigan ar ea (after some moderately interesting sightings i n March , 1966), some Michigan Congressman pressed for and secured a hearing before the Kou se Committ ee on Armed Services last year . But i f ther~ was ever a one-sided hearing , this was i t. The three persons testifying were persons a l ready having an obvious vested interes t in tel ling Conqress that the problem has been in fair ly good hands - Air Force Secretary Brown , Bluebook Officer Major Quintanilla , and Bluebook Chief Consultant, Dr . J . Allen Hynek (see Ref. 12). ~~ereas NICAP has been press ing


13

for a chance to present its (strong) case before a Congressional committee for years (see, for example, the summary of those efforts in REf. 3, p. 173 ff), they were not invited to testify before the April, 1966 hearings befoxe the Armed Serv1ces Committee. Fortunately, a number of NICAP members sub~itted material for the record, somewhat alleviat1ng the otherwise Air- force dominated record of those hearings, but no NICAP representatives were asked to test1fy in person. I would emphasize that,at this very date, NICAP and many serious investigators of this problem have information enough on hand for a half- dozen Congressional investigations . What is needed is some pressure from the press for immediate clarificat1on of the status of this 20- year-old mystery that has been swept under a rug of ridicule and misrepresentation by Proj ect Bluebook. And the fastest way to get clarification will be, I now believe, a Congressional investigation . Clearly this will not solve the problem as a sc1entific problem ; but I fear that the existing scient1fic faith in 20 years of Air Force assurances is so strong that we shall not see anything like adequate scientific attention given to the UFOs until Congress sorts out the incredible his t ory of Bluebook mishandling of the UFO problem and thereby awakens scientists to the fact that they have been misled for two decades about what may well be the greatest scientific problem of our times.

THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO PROGRAM Some will surely object that to urge a Congressional investigation at a time when the ne"' t;n1versity of Colorado program is just getting underway is out of order . I do not think so. First of all, I have repeatedly said and continue to say that the Colorado program is not nearly large enough to cope with the apparent dimensions of this problem . I believe that,once that program gains some momentum, it will move towards the same serious concern for the UFO problem that I now hold . But I am uneasy, frankly, at the very limited manpower resources available to the Colorado group , and they are now about a third of the way through their Lnitial contract-period of 15 months . As I understand it, there are, at present, only four full-time persons on that program, none with training at the Ph . D. level; and the fractional-time of the several others (mainly psychologists) contributing to the program averages, as I understand it, less than 30 or 40 per cent. Several weeks ago I spent several days "'ith three of the full-time members of the Colorado team and made directly to them the same point I am here making, namely, that this problem warrants far more scientific attention than their program is currently able to provide. It is most encouraging that they will soon add two or three more members with considerable scientific training, but even this will scarcely make the Colorado effort at all commensurate with ~he importance of the UFO problem. Even if the Colorado program could quad ruple its scientific staff in the next few weeks, I would still be saying that we must get more good people onto this problem. It is far

too important a problem to leave in its present sta~e, and only a large increase in highcal1ber scientific manpower attacking the UFO enigma will suffice to make real progress on it.

TRANSFER OF RESEARCH RESPONSIBILITY I believe that the primary responsibilLty for UFO investigations ought to be taken from Air Force hands and turned over to some strong science-or1ented agency. NASA would se~~ to be a very log1cal group for this . Curiously, I have said this both in NASA and fairly widely-reported public discussions before scientific colleagues (e . g ., Ref . 13), yet the response from NASA has been essentially nil. Perhaps they, too, are sure that this is just a nonsense problem and has no relation to their space programs, their "seaxch for life in the universe ." NASA i s busy telling us that there is high probability of life in the universe, but it's all fax out ther.e , not here. Frankly , when one looks long and carefully at the UFO evidence , one wonders if perhaps it's not conceivable that some of it has found us, rather than vice versa . But, to date, my own efforts to ge~A to consider that intriguing possibility seem to have been ignored . Even attempting to get a small group within NASA to undertake a study- group approach to the available published effort seems to nave generated no visible response . I realize, of course, that there may be semi-political considerations that make it awkward for NASA to fish in these waters at present - but if this is what is holding up serious scientific atten tion to the UFO problem at NASA, this is all the more reason why Congress had better take a good hard look at the problem and reshuffle the deck . Interestingly, in the course of my months of digging into the UFO problem, I have learned from a number of unquotable sources that the Air Force has long wished to get rid of the burden of the troublesome UFO problem and has tried twice to "peddle" it to NASA, but without success . I regret that I am not free to quote my sources on this, but I regard them as entirely credible . An Air Force "'ish to be rid of the UFOs would be entirely compatible with the firm impression I have formed from many lines of evidence that no one in any position of importance within the Air Force views the UFOs as real or significant . Such a position is compatible, too , with all that I have been able to learn about how the University of Colorado program came into being . Everything points to this: that the Air Force regards their UFO responsibilities as a public relations liability that they would like to have done with, once and for all, and Colo~ado may help them unload it. The request for a group within the Air Force Sc1entific Advisory Board (AFSAB) to meet and review tbe UFO problem did not come from the Systems Command within which Bluebook operates. It came from Gen. E. B. LeBa1lly, Director of Information, Secretary of Air Force Office of Information (SAFOI). Gen. LeBailly's request was made on Sept. 28, 1965 (see Ref . 12,


14

p. 5995), some weeks after a large wave of UFO s.i.ghtings all over t:he Midwest. That wave made headline news throughout the country, and Bluebook's "twinkl1ng star" explanation was held up to ridicule when the Director of the Oklahoma City Planetarium gently po1nted out that ~!aj. Quintanl.lla was (once again) misread1ng his star charts and blaroing the sightings on stars that weren't even in the Midwest skies. This made headlines, too, and many editorials in the :1idwest were critical of USAF's handling of the incident. If the behind-scenes response to this had been Air Force concern to try to do a better JOb of checking a real sc1entific problem, the systems Command could eas1ly have found several dozen men right there at WrightPatterson AFB who could have stepped in and ~nstantaneously upgraded the Bluebook operation by one or two orders of magnitude. No such action followed. Instead, it was the general in charge of USAF public relat1ons who asked AFSAB to review the situation, which they did on February 3, 1966 (Ref . 12, p . 5996). An AFSAB-appointed group, the O'Brien comm1tte~ devoted only a day to their deliberations and did not even invite the testl.mony of Bluebook's chief scientific consultant, both of which points may be some kind of measures of their scientific concern for the seriousness of the UFO question. It was th1s group that recommended establishment of a "university team" approach, whl.ch eventually became the oneuniversi t~¡ approach now centered at Colorado. All that I have seen points to the conclusion that this whole effort was directed chiefly towards getting the Air Force out from under an onerous burden, the public- relations liability of the UFOs . I know of no one on the O'Brien Committee who took the UFOS seriously. (I might add that I got a small chuckle out of the Bluebook scientific consultant's patting himself on the back, Ref. 15, about his "small sense of personal tr1umph and vindication" when USAF announced the Colorado program . I had firsthand contact with some of the thinking that lay behind the search for a university to head up the Air Force's UFO review. I am afraid it warrants vanishingly "small sense of personal triumph and vindication" in the mind of the one person who might have put this problem on the right track soon after he began his 18- year consultantship in 1948:) Lest some of that sound like a charge of "whitewash," let me interject that I do not mean that at all . First of all, I know that Dr . Edward P . Condon and the University of Colorado group would not have touched the problem if it had been brought to them in such a context . But, secondly, l have found nothing to make me suspect that the Air Force views the UFOs as anything but a lot of misinterpreted natural phenomena, balloons, aircraft, and all of the rest of the things they say in the Pentagon press releases. I would not hesitate a moment to say it if I truly thought they were d1ssembling; but I do not think so at all . I believe that today USAF really believes there's nothing to all this talk about unidentified flying objects. I believe that they want to get r~d of the annoying business once

and for all, and that they sincerely wanted to select an unl.mpcachable scientist and a school of good reputation to take on the job of showing once-and-for-all that there's nothing to it, and then forget about it and go back to what they regard their proper business , defend1ng the country against host1le forces . All this is not a po1nt of view that I have formed overnight . I have puzzled over the curious history of the Air Force handling of the UFOs almost as much as I have puzzled over the UFOs themselves in the past year . And I have discussed these matters with many knowledgeable persons in forming the above opinion . I would be quick to agree that much evidence points to a time, back in the early 1950's, when many USAF people, some in high places, suspected that the UFOs might be extraterrestrial, though I cannot begin to lay out that evidence here . But once the turning point of the Robertson Panel and the 1953 C!A debunking order was rounded, and personnel had been rotated and shuffled a few times, l believe that the Air Force fell victim to its own UFO propaganda. 1 think that, as one Bluebook officer was replaced by another and high - level commands changed, no one was left, except the chief scientific consultant, who had any knowledge of how things had gotten switched over to the debunking policy . And, from my discussions with the chief scientif1c consultant, Dr . J. A. Kynek , I gather that even he paid little enough attention to the entire problem that he did not regard the 1953 events as very critical . Pointing further in the same direction is the fact that I found no evidence that anyone at higher levels at WPAFB was, by 1966, even aware of the Robertson Panel report . In my third visit to Bluebook, on July 30, 1966, Haj. Quintanilla informed me that the CIA had reclassified the Report and that consequently I would not be getting my Xerox copy (they sent it down to Washington by courier, since the CIA had no copy, and evidently didn't know what I~PAFB was talking about when a clearance to release the copy to me was requested of CIA!) . So at that point I asked Quintanilla if the then commanding general of the Foreign Technology Division within which Bluebook has operated Brig . Gen. A. 1¡1. Cruikshank, had ever asked him' for the Bluebook file on the Panel . He said Cruikshank had not. Then I asked if the Division's Chief Scientist, Dr . A. J , Cacciopo, h ad ever asked to see it, and Quintanilla said he had not . It is my belief that personnel turnover has occurred so fast that, for a good many years, none of the people having direct responsibility were clearly aware of the role of the CIA decision of 1953, that the task had simply been downgraded to its low present status, and that Bluebook has been run by people who believed what they read in the papers - their own UFO propaganda. If there had been anyone looking at the continuing input of UFO reperts in a competent scientific manner, if anyone had been thoroughly familiar with radar propagation physics, meteorological optics, meteor phenomena, aerodynamics, etc .â&#x20AC;˘ and testing each new report against the broad spectrum of scientif1c considerations that one has to invoke to sort out


15

the plausible from the implausible "explanations" of UFO reports, then I doubt that the downh~ll trend that set in after 1953 could ever have cont"nued. But no such competence appears to have been operat~ng, and ! bel~eve that things just naturally slid down to the point where each new Bluebook officer must have merely followed along in the pattern set by the man before him, talking about "stellar sc~tillation" and "weather ~versions" and "mirages" without any real scientific knowledge of these matters, feeding information to the PIO's at the Pentagon who -sround out the reassurances we've now had so much opportunity to read. So, to summarize, I think the Air Force yawningly views the UFO problem as a PR preble~ not a scientific problem. I think the present Air Force support of the small effort now unde~ way at Colorado is fjne - but far from adequat~ I think that, until the truth about past mishandling of the problem is laid out and stamped with at least Congressional authority, we won't see much escalation of scientific effort to attack this probl~ . And this worries me . For in the UFO oroblem I see the dimensions of an unprecedented challenge to science . I am un comfortable that we s~ientists are, as a whole, blandly ignoring it as if it weren't there, while the reports keep pouring in - pouring in at what seems to some of us to be a markedly increasing rate, and shaping themselves into patterns that give some of us pause . some of us are just a bit uneasy about what we know and what you editors, the Congress, and the nation at large do not know . lie wish that some means could quickl¥ be found to get the world's really outstand~ng scientists to come to grips with this problem - not second- raters such as myself who will never be capable of plumbing the depths of so complex a problem. Thus I ask you to join in urging immediate Congressional hearings if you can agree with me that this is probably the fastest way to force the problem out into full light of scientific investigation, both in the United States and abroad.

THE GLOBAL NATURE OF THE PROBLEM I cannot, of course, vou~~ personally for UFO reports from all parts of the globe, as I can for a sizeable number of U. S . reports that I have personally checked . But after studying a large number of foreign reports, I cannot draw any other conclusion than this: the nature and density and frequency of UFO reports is evidently about the same in other portions of the globe as here in our country. We are not being singled out for any special attention. I have been intrigued by hearing Dr. Jacques Vallee's discussions of the French reports, and will spend this evening at his home in Chicago carrying on still further discussions of the French investigations . French UFO reports are about the same as ours, briefly. I have recently been in rather close communication with the leading non-governmental Australian UFO-investigatory group, centered in Melbourne. They have been sending me press

report~ of Australian sightings, and again they are much like those occurring over and over in this c~untry - discs and cigar-shaped objects , metallic looking structures often with do~es on them, etc . Persons whose reliability I am g~ven to accept describe UFO reports in south America with freq~ency and nature like those in France, Australia, England, and elsewhere .

American newspapers print very little domestic news from foreign countries and virtually no UFO reports from abroad , so most Americans are startled when told that it appears that UFOs are appearing all over the world . I just received a carefully prepared 45-page report from New Gu~nea, written by an Anglican missionary in the Papuan Territory there, summarizing a fascinating series of reports, several at close-range, in New Guinea in 1959. I had heard of these before, but seeing Rev. Cruttwell's lengthy original report increased my readiness to believe that all those sightings· at Boianai, Menapi, and Samarai may actually have occurred! When I get packets full of current Australiaq press clippings on sightings from outback sheep stations and the like, I find it hard to maintain my provincial skepticism.and grow suspicious that perhaps all those reports are every bit as real as the ones I'm continually checking by telephone from Tucson . Before you accuse me of gullibility, take a look at the foreign UFO clippings your selves . They may make you a bit queasy, too . There is a danger here that I'd better confront. You editors probably think that you know what is going on in this country, and that you're aware of an occasional UFO report from here and there, but you may be thinking that my remarks about reports "pouring in" are rather overdone . ~1y reply is simple - ~f you read only what comes over your wires, you'd never guess wha~ is really going on in the world of UFO reports, here or abroad. The only way to get a glimpse of what is actually happening is to subscribe to a clipping service that is cutting local press stories from the Ezcecsio~ Springs Da<Zy Stanaa~d, the ~ag~e VatLey Ente~pri&s, the Marior. ~eckly L~a'er and so on {just to read off the names of a few on the clippings I just received, courtesy of NICAP's clipping-service arrangements. If you read only the .~·eu ·o1•1< ~:,..ea, your own paper, and the wire copy, you won't have even a tiny fraction of the cases - because wire editors long ago came to realize that UFOs are a lot of nonsense and almost never file wire stories on such a lot of nonsense . Once in awhile they will , for reasons that are not al,.·ays clear; but , by and large, I'd estimate that only one or two per cent of the locally- reported UF0 sightings are read about beyond the readership area of the nearest small- town paper . This is part of the reason why ~s problem is being ignored . If each day's paper in each major city carried an adequate account of all of the U. S. UFO reports for the preceding 24ihours, the citizenry would be up in arms in a week demanding that Congress find out what is going on . But the bott~~ of the iceberg floats along unseen because wire editors have long since learned that these reports are just "silly season" stuff; so who cares what some farmer out in Sauk Center sa" just above his barn last


16

night. (I am reminded that Ruppelt rnenti~n~ in his book, Ref. l, that for a brief per~oo in 1952 Bluebook subscribed to a clipping service but they got so many reports they couldn't file them all and were obliged to cancel the subscription.) I talked with an African student on our campus recently and was amused to hear that sightings not dissimilar to those occurr~ng . rather regularly in Iowa and Oregon and Georg~a are reported in Africa. Yes, I believe that when all the facts are in, it will be clear that unconventional objects are hovering lm< over farmhouses and power plants and vehicles in nearly every corner of our globe, and have been doing so with mounting frequency during recent years - while officialdom and journalists and scientists have ignored the "peasants!' Must we wait for a L'Aigle? or will you editors press for action now?

SOME ILLUSTRATIVE UFO REPORTS There is no satisfactory way of presenting a fair picture of the now-available UFO evidence without going into much detail in recounting many cases, discussing credibility of witnesses, and carefully assessing the plausibility of each of a number of alternative hypotheses to account for each given sighting. Space w1ll not permit such an exhaustive presentation here. If you seek a published summary that goes a long way towards that goal, see Ref. 3, ~he IJFO Evids·cc-. , edited by R. H. Hall of NICr~. It describes over 700 cases from the NICAP files, and has the material cross- filed in a number of very useful ways . I have personally checked on a fairly large sample of the cases discussed in that publication and can state on that basis that the accuracy and reliability of the book is impressively high. No single publ1cation on UFOs compares with this one for 1ts level of documentation, completeness, and authenticity though there are a number of other quite good references that are available . I shall discuss, rather briefly below a number of UFO reports, most of which I have personally checked in some manner . \~here I cannot personally vouch for the report, this will be indicated. Because there are now many thousands of UFO reports on record in Air Force, NICAP, and other files, it must be reme~ered that the followin9 comprise a minute fract1on of the full record . The points emphasized will vary from one case to another, since they have been selected for a variety of reasons. Case .i.

Po10tage County, Ohio, Ap1'i Z I?, 1966 .

_Near 0500 on 4/17/66. two Portage County shen.ffs deputies, Dale Spaur and 1~. L. Neff, were rout1nely checking an abandoned car south of Ravenna, Ohio . Suddenly a large luminous a1rborne ObJect advanced from a wooded hill, hovered over them illuminating the pre-dawn darkness, and then moved off a short distance. The deputies radioed the desk and were told by the dispatcher to follow the obJect until a camera car could overtake them. Then began a

peculiar pursuit that eventually took the deputies ent1rely out of Ohio int~ Pennsylvani~ and stretched over more than 70 miles and lasted almost an hour and a half . Two other law enforcement officers, Wayne Ruston of the Palestine, Ohio, police force and Frank Panzanella, Conway, Pa ., police officer became involved in the pursuit before it was over. The object was described by the officers as about 40 feet 1n diameter, brightly l~~inous, and seemed to have something like a fin on its rear upper surface. A diffuse conical luminosity extended from 1ts undersurface . I have personally interviewed Neff, Huston, and Panzanella,and NICAP's Pittsburgh Subcommittee has done a very extensive (125 p . ) report on many aspects of this one 1mportant case . The object varied 1n elevation from a few hundred feet above terrain to an est1mated 2000 ft as it moved along, and it reportedly moved from one side of the highway to the other in motions that match no conventional object . Huston joined the chase when he intercepted the transmissions to the Portage Co . dispatcher's desk, realized Spaur and Neff must be coming his way on Route 14, went out and parked to watch up the highway to the northwest, and s oon saw a luminous object moving along followed by a speeding Ct\r. As the object and car passed, he swung in behind, got into radio communication with the deputies who were in the car ahead, and stayed with them until the end of the chase in Conway, just northwest of Pittsburgh. At Conway, the officers spotted a local policeman, Frank Panzanella, who was observ~ng the object, and they pulled up beside Panzane~la. Shortly thereafter the object s hot up vert1cally at.very high speed and passed out of s~ght, accord1ng to the testimonv of all four officers . • The Bluebook investigation of this case would have been left at no more than an origina~ four-minute phone call from Major Ou1ntan1lla to Spaur (in which Quintanilla sought to convince Spaur he had seen Echo satellite go over and then transferred visual attention to Venus which was then rising in the southeast) except for local press concern over the case . Local and public interest ~enerated by detailed reporting of the in~ident 1n the Ravenna Rccord- Cour•ier , led , through several stages, to a request from Ohio Congressman William Stanton for Bluebook to send someone to Ravenna to make a personal c~eck. NICAP taped that interview, and, having l1stened carefully to it, 1 can summarize it as a rather bulldozing attempt of Maj . Quintanilla to persuade the officers that it was only Echo and Venus that they saw. They were not impressed. Th~ ~cho-Venus explanation still stands as the off1c~al Bluebook explanation of this case desp1te the eff~rts of NICAP, Dr. J. A. Hynek,' ~e Re~o10d-Cou10~er and myself to secure reviS10n. The fact that Officer Huston saw the object coming in out of the northwest clearl rules out his seeing Venus, yet at that time¥ the first two officers had been following the ObJeCt for a much longer tirne than Echo re quires_to transit the full sky. This, plus the four-w1tness descript1on of vertical ascenc at


17

the termination of the sighting are calmly s"·ept aside by Bluebook with its Echo-Venus "explanation."

On September 30, Col. Hayden P. Mims, Congressional Inquiry Division, sent a letter to Congressman Stanton telling Stanton that a further review of the reports confirmed the original Echo-Venus explanation . My own interviews with three of the principal w1.tnesses were made subsequent to Hims' letter and I carefully quer1ed each man as to whether' the Air Force had ever gone back to them to check further on their accounts . Not one of the three had been interrogated since the original interviews in May . In late July, 1966, I asked Quintanilla to let me see Huston's crucial testimony, but was not permitted to examine 1t in full . Huston told me in October t hat he had been interviewed by an investiga tor sent by USAF who took full notes on the crucial point that Huston saw the object comi ng down Route 14 from the northwest . Yet thi s po i nt is blandly ignored in the Bluebook Ec ho- Ven us e xplanation . Despite the absurdity of the Echo- Ven us explanati on a nd despite open criticism o f i t from t he cited sources, that e xplanation s t i l l stan ds in the official Bluebook records . Congressman Stanton was forced to accept the as sur~nces tendered him that the Air Force ha d c a r efully evaluated this case, and the lawe nfo r cement officers had to take the brunt of s uc h r idicule and pressures as all this brought t o them . There are many more details pertinent t o this ca se that are fully documented in the 125- page report prepared by William B. Weitzel, a Uni ve r s ity of Pittsburgh instructor who headed the Pittsburgh NICAP Subcommittee's thorough investigations of this case . Few ca ses better illustrate the unreasonableness of Bluebook's approach to the UFO problem and the ir incompetent and superfic1.al investigations. My memorandum and my correspondence to 11PAFB asking for rectification of this case have ne ver been answered . It was my dismay ove r the Mims letter and Bluebook ' s refus a l t o al ce r their stand on this case that led me t o begin open and pointed criticisms of the Ai r Fo r ce investigations in October 1966 (Ref . 1 3) .

this was "twinkling stars . '' Nhen the officers w7ote t~ Bluebook, protesting such an explanatl.on whlch would hold them up to ridicule and place in jeopardy their reputations as reliable officers, the explanation was sw1.tched t o involve a night- advertising aircraft . When i t w~s next determined that the aircraft in questlon wa~ not even ope7ating that night , Maj . Qu1.ntan1.lla altered h1.s explanation to one involving a B-47 refueling operation near Pease AFB . lo;hen, finally, the policemen secured the actual.tlme of that operation and thereby establ1.shed that the refueling operation wa s ov7r by. the 0~00 time of the main sighting , Qu1.ntan1.lla f1.nally classified it as Unknown . A revealing history . ~·

Many more cases are on record in whi c h the witnesses did not so assiduously press for correction of Bluebook ' s unreasonable explanation~ One witness in an ~kron sighting , owner of a local air service company , Ernest S tadvec (Ref . 17) , told me in an interview concerning his sighting that once Bluebook came out with a pres s release that he had been look i ng at the star Capella and that this was the corr~ct e xplanation of two fast- moving luminous object s he s ighted from the air in his private plane, he wanted to forget the whole thing and s ave himself further embarrassment . His descri ption would not remotely fit "Capella, " s i nce one object descended rapidly from a high elevation angle , the other climbed out under his plane and shot off in directions not even close to Capella ' s location at the time . Stadvec s aid the Air Force explanation "made me look like an idiot , " and he went on to tell me of othe r s ubsequent pilot sightings in that area that were not reported publicly because of the way the Air Force had handled hl.S sighting. After the second object sped off at very high speed, Stadvec states that he contacted FAA Cleveland and the control tower o perator told him by radio that a fast luminous object had been sighted visually and on FAA r adar; but the latter was denied to the press t he next day . Case 4 .

Th i s case has been rather fully r eported i n many pl aces , notably in a book by J . G. Ful l e r (Ref . 16) ; and a number of o the r goo d r epo rts and discussions of it can be found in House Document 55 (Ref . 12) . After sever a l preliminary sightings that I shall omit to save s pace her e , the principal sighting by Exeter po l i cemen Eugene F . Bertrand and David R. Hunt and by an 18- year- old boy , Norman J . Muscarel l~ took place at about 0200 on Sept . 3rd . I ha ve personally interviewed Bertrand and Hunt and ha ve di s cussed their reliability with Exeter Chief of Police R. D. Irvine . Omitting many details , the men saw an object, estimated at almost 100 feet long, carrying a number of bright blinking red lights, maneuvering and hovering silently over a farmhouse until it soundlessly went away. Maj . Quintanilla's first explanation for

Ezm e ct Stadvec, Akron , Ohio, JuZy ~/5, 196l.

R~d

BZuff, CaZif . , August 13, 1960 .

A rather detailed account of th i s sighting can be found in Ref . 3 (see p . 61, 112 , and 17~. I have intervieW'ed one of the two Califo~nia Highway Patrolmen who were the principal wi t nesses and have spoken with two other persons i n that area who were involved in t he incident . CHP officers C. A. Carson and s . Scott, drivi ng east at 2300 on a back road south of Red Bluff suddenly sighted what they first took to be a n aircraft about to crash just ahead of t hem . Pulling their patrol car to a rapid s top and jumping out to be ready to render whateve r assistance they could , they were astonis hed to see the long metallic- looking object abruptly reverse its initial steep descent , climb back up to several hundred feet altitude and then hover motionless . Next it came silently towards them until, as Officer Carson put it to me, "it was within easy pistol range. • They


18

had their p1stols ready and were debating whether to fire when it stopped. Attempts to radio bac~ to the nearest dispatcher failed due to strong radio interference, an occurrence that recurred each time the object came close to them during the remainder of this 2- hour-long sighting. Huge bright lights at either end of the object swept the area. Carson stated to me that one light was about six feet in diameter; other smaller lights were also discernible on the object. After some initial Minutes of hovering only 100 to 200 feet away from them and about that same dis tance above the ground, the object started moving eastward away from them. They then contacted the Tehama County Sheriff's office that handled their night-dispatching work, and asked for additional cars and for a check with Red Bluff Air Force Radar Station. Then they began to follo•: the object. The full account is too involved to relate here (see Ref. 3), but it is important to point out that a number of witnesses confirmed the object from various viewing points in the county , and a call to the AF Radar unit brought confirmation that they were tracking an unknown moving in the manner reported by Carson and Scott . When, however, Carson and Scott went next day to talk with personnel at the Red Bluff radar base, they were informed that no such radar sighting had been made. Their request to the officer in charge to talk with the radarman on duty at the time of the incident was denied. The Bluebook explanation that came out after a few days attributed this very detailed, closerange sighting of a large object, seen by two exoerienced officers, to "refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betelgeux . " NICAP referred the question to one of their astronomical advisers, who found that ~ of the three celestial objects were even in the California skies at that time. Bluebook then changed the explanation to read Mars and Capella! Capella, the only one of those celestial bodies that was even in the California skies at 2300, was nowhere near the location of the sighted object, and could not, of course, give the impression of the various maneuvers clearly described by the officers . Carson subsequently stated, " .• . no one will ever convince us that we were witnessing a refraction of light." And to me, he wryly remarked on the Bluebook explanations that ''! 'd sure hate to take one of my cases into court with such weak arguments . " Dr . MenzeL (Ref. 9, p . 254) concurs •11ith the Air Force explanations and speaks of this being a night of "fantastic multiple inversions of temperature and humid1ty," such that he would have eY.pected many more reports of UFOs . I should l1ke to know ~hat radiosonde data Dr . Menzel is citing, since the data I obtained does not fit that description. And any such casual putting-aside of the details of the basic report has no scient1fic justification in the first place. If Menzel and Bluebook think California H1ghway Patrolmen draw their .~ 4's 1n uneasiness over looking at a refracted image of Capella, and misinterpret it as a ~00-ft object w1th huge bright lights hover1ng over the road nearby, I am afraid I cannot share their readiness to so easily discred1t

and discount reliable witnesses . When 1 spoke with Carson a few months ago, I found him still deeply impressed by this incident , oveY six years after it occurred. "I've never see-n anything like it, before or since," he emphasized. The northern California va~ley area was the scene of a number of other very interesting sightings in the period August 13- 18, many of which NICAP has documented and cited . In my own checking of the Carson-Scott sighting, I ran onto one additional interesting "hidden UFO report" involving a sighting of a low- altitude hovering disc with red lights , seen ~y a Red Bluff physician during that same per1od, but will omit details here.

BeverLy. Mass., ApriL 22, 1966

Just one year ago today, an exceedingly interesting sighting occurred at about 210~2130, well within a populous urban area, near the intersection of Salem Road and Sohi~r Road, Beverly, Mass . one of NICAP's most thorough investigators, R<t-ymond E. Fowler of Nenhal'l\, ~lass ., checked this case carefully , and it was from his detailed report to NICAP headquarter s that I obtained the supporting information to back up my o~n interview with one of the key witnesses, Mrs. Claire Modugno . As in all cases worth citing, the full detail is so great that it is impossible to do justice to it in a brief summary such as this . The incident began when Nancy Modugno, age 11, was frightened by a hovering red light outside her bedroom window. Just as she called to her father, ne happened to note tnat the TV picture he was viewing became scramb~ed. To quiet the girl's near-hysteria at whatever she had seen, !>Irs . Claire ~lodugno and her two neighbor-women went outside to establish that it was only an airplane light . However they found instead that about 200 yards from'tne adjoining ~ntersection, viewed directly across the athlet1c f1eld of Beverly High School, three br1ghtly l1t oval-shaped objects, estimated to be perhaps 20 feet in diameter were circling in an oddly pulsatory motion directly above the high school building . Mrs. ~odugno estimated they were only about 20 feet above the roof, when I queried her on this point . 0n7 o~ the women, Miss Brenda Maria, age 22, wh1ms1cally waved her hands as if to beckon them toward the group; one object immediately ~eft the circle and moved towards them, hover1ng only about 20 feet above one of them. Fowler ' s full report conveys some of the fright these women evidently felt , and Mrs . Modugno emphatically confirmed this to me. The women ran back to the Modugno home and phoned the Beverly police, who sent a patrol car with two policemen (Officers Boss 1e and Mahan) . Then the two policemen and several neighborhood adults all observed the three unidentified objects, whose movements and locat1on had changed somewhat . The officers got on their radio and called for Air Force jets, but the UFOs moved away before any jets could get there . No Air Force check has ever been made of this case, to Nrs. Modugno's knowledge . This is an example of a case that was not even reported 1n local newspapers, yet is clearly an 1ncident of great interest. I call attention


19

to the fact that this case contains actions that. might be loosely d~scribed as "con tact" i拢 one ~nterprets t~e seem~ngly imme~iate response of on7 of the Ob)ects to MJ.ss Nar~a's waving as anyth:~.ng more than adventitious. Other such 1nstances, involving seeming "response" can be c~ted, thQUgh they are too few in number to )USt~fy any strong generalizations. ~路

GoodLand, kans., March 8, l967

I have interviewed both Editor Tom Dreiling of the Goodland Eai~y 1/s<.Js and Goodland patrolman Curl Rouse concerning their joint s~ght1ng of a torpedo-shaped object that maneuvered over that western Kansas tQwn not many weeks ago. Rouse had been observing the object (or possibly more than a single object) for some time before contacting Dreiling about 0200 . It had multicolored flashing lights and an intensely bright beam fore and aft on its 50-60 foot main body. This object is in the category of the non- silent UFOS: it made a noise that Dreiling described as like a "huge vacuum cleaner," adding that he'd never heard any aircraft or helicopter making a noise remotely res embling this. The object passed over the Dreiling residence at an estimated altitude of 1500 ft. Rouse, using field glasses , saw structural details including a central shaft with a red light on top and an odd color-banding. I am unaware of any official explanation of this sighting ; Bluebook investigates only cases reported directly to the Air Force . Case 7 .

Davis,

Ca~if .,

February 13, 1967

At about 1915, two young women driving back to their homes in Woodland, Calif., after a Sacramento shopping trip, noted a bright light which both took to be an aircraft landing light at first, before they even exchanged comments on it. As they left the Sacramento Freeway (Hwy . 80) to turn off on Mace Blvd . to head north to Woodland, the object seemed to head for their location, and continued to close with their car until it came to within a (very roughly) estimated 100 yards. By this time, the driver, ~liss Karen Prather, and her passenger, Miss Carol Richied, both of whom I interviewed, had become somewhat frightened, and Miss Prather had accelerated to over 80 mph in a futi1e effort to move out of what had seemed like the diving approach of an aircraft. But as the object approached, both knew it could not be an aircraft, for the "big light" beca111e resolvable into three, separate lights in triangular array. Both described these lights as "huge." Just as it appeared that it might move right into their car, the object tipped up, displaying a disc-like base with one central red light and five or six dimmer white lights . As the disc tipped its nearer edge up, it simultaneously executed a quick turn tothe southwest qnd sped off towards Davis, eventually passing out of sight in the lights and haze over that city. No sound was audible over the noise of Miss Prather's speeding Mustang, they stated. The girls reported the incident immediately to the Woodland office of the California High-.ay Patrol, and from the latte1: office it

got to. the Woodland Dai~y Democrat. The follow1ng day a California Highway Patrolman contacted them and stated to them that they should not take seriously the kidding they were probably receiving, for he had seen an object answer1ng to the same description at about 1945 only about 30 minutes after the girls' sightin~ To date I have been unable to secure the name of.that officer . A Davis NICAP member is pursulng the case, I understand, and hopes to get an open conhrmation of his sighting. Reports that other motorists in the same area saw this o~ject are being investigated, but no other w1tnesses have been located to date .

fE!!.!.....!.

!lear Cincinatti, Ohio, Februal'Y 11 , 196?

.A number of independent sightings on the even~ng of February 10/ll, 1967, in suburban areas north and east of Cincinatti were checked by L: ~路 St~ingfield of that city. After rece~vJ.ng h1s report, I personally interviewed three witnesses , confirming the highlights of Stringfield's more complete report. At several localities that night, a glowing, reddish, c1gar- or football-shaped object was described as moving overhead or hovering . But most interesting were the accounts given to me in telephone interviews with Michael McKee, age 21, and ~!iss Sharon Hildebran-d, age 19. They had seen what appeared to them as a domed or disc-shaped object hovering over a creek-bed in a wooded area near Milford at about 0145 on the 11th. McKee, using a railroad searchlight he had in his car, illuminated the weakly-glowing object and found it to be highly reflective . No sound came from it as it hovered only an estimated 100 feet away. He started to walk toward it to examine it more closely, but Miss Hildebrand became very frightened and ~ried to him not to go, so he returned to the car. (McKee felt willing to say to me that he did not need very much persuading to return to the car. ) Miss Hildebrand 's father mentioned to Stringfield that his daughter was still in a state of shock when the two returned to her home . Police were notified and investigated about an hour later, finding no object, but noting that tree branches were broken off in a roughly circular area matching the 30-ft diameter estimated by the two witnesses . One of the other witnesses who reported seeing only airborne objects, Mr. George Oovoer, of Nyoming, Ohio , told me by telephone that he had seen a red-glowing object pass near his house, heading towards the general location of ~!ilford just before 0100 that same night. Other accounts will not be cited here, since I have not personally checked them. Case 9.

Richmond, Va., June 24, l96G

This is another sighting by a law-enforcement officer. In general, one notices the pattern that UFO reports tend to come primarily from persons whose vocation takes them out of doors a great deal or who are engaged in some form of observational work . There are more nighttime UFO observations than daytime observations (reasons unknown), and a substantial


20 number of nighttime cases involve sheriff's deputies, police officers, and watchmen . There ~s nothing surprising in this. At about 0330, Richmond patrolman William L. Stevens was cruising on the edge of Richmond when he spotted some yellow and green lights a few hundred feet in the air . Driv~ng closer in his patrol car to secure a better look, he found that the lights appeared to surround the edge of a "dirigible-shaped" object, which he estimated at perhaps 100-125 feet long and over 30 feet in diameter. The lights were alternately green and yellow, in a string around the object, and the entire object seemed to be enveloped in a haze or m~st of some unusual nature. As he neared it, the object moved off ahead of him. He continued following and stayed with it for over six miles before it acceleratee and sped away. When I interviewed stevens by phone, he stated that it moved as if it "were playing a game" with him, always maintaining about the same lead-distance ahead of him, despite his altering speed several times. At one point he was driving at 110 mph . Two other officers in Henrico County also reported seeing moving lights in that area at that general time, but no other witnesses reported seeing the object at as close a range as did Stevens. A young couple reported a somewhat similar object north of Newport News that night. This case was reported in the Richmond !t'e:.Je ~eader some weeks later (July 21); Stevens feared ridicule and had not volunteered a report earlier. As a postscript to this latter point, and

further commentary on the widely encountered sensitivity to ridicule that has evolved from years of "explanations" by Bluebook, plus hometown newspaper ridicule growing out of the mismatch between original citizens' reports and subsequent Air Force statements, I might quote from a clipping that happens just to have come across my desk. Capt. Jack Brown, of the Shasta, Calif. police force, is quoted in the Redding, Calif., Record Sâ&#x20AC;˘archHght for Feb. 17, 1967, concerning some unusual sightings he and other local police officers have made recently in the Shasta area. I omit the sightings, since I have not checked them, but note that Brown is quoted, in a purely matter-of-fact way as saying "he knows what has happened to other law officers who reported seeing flying saucers : They were ruined by the publicity . " That may be a bit too strong; but I know from much personal experience in interviewing witnesses that witness after witness has been embittered by callous ~ir Force discrediting of their accounts. It's high time that this pattern was terminated. It will be terminated only when some truly competent personnel not committed to UFO-debunking are made responsible for investigations. Case 1v.

Ra>;doZph, Vt., January 4, 1965

This was another case originally checked out by NICAP investigator R. E . Fowler. ~t about 1715, Dr. Richard S . Woodruff, Vermont State Pathologist and Professor, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, was returning

to Burlington from grand jury testimony in Brattleboro. His driver was a Vermont State Trooper whose name has been re~eased to NrCJU> but not released publ~cly. Or~v~ng north between Bethel and Randolph, on Hw~. 12, the two suddenly noticed a sha~ly-def~ned ~ound object glowing with a redd~sh-orange l~ght, streaking across their path at perhaps 200 feet above terrain. It passed from west ~o east in a matter of seconds, mak~ng no no~se aud~ble over their own engine noise. No sooner had it passed out of sight to their east than a second similar glowing object streaked past, and finally a third, the total duration of the sighting being only about 30 seconds. They estimated the distance to the objects at one-half to one mile; but in the twilight, their estimates, according to or . Woodruff, with whom I have discussed the incident, were probably not too reliable . Both were entirely certain these were not aircraft or astronomical objects, and they noted that the objects climbed slightl y a s they moved eastward . The angular diamete r corresponded to a baseball at arm ' s length or perhaps a bit larger, according to these witnesses; i.e., many times the angular diame t e r of the moon. The skies were clear and s t ars were visible. Four men driving in another car on the same highway reported seeing th r ee similar objects at about the same th~e and place, and gave generally similar des criptions, as did also H. E. Wheatley, Chairman of the Randolph Board of Selectmen, who saw the phenomenon while driving about a mile north of Bethel. NICAP obtained from Maj. Marston M. Jacks , of the Pentagon Office of Information, on January 27, 1965, the Bluebook evaluation : meteors of the Quadrantid meteor stream. Actually the radiant-point of this stream wa s at that time, about on the NNW point of these' ~bservers' horizon, so any Quadrantids moving ~~ the east-to-west manner described by aLl w~tnesses would have been invisible due to the very trees above whose tops these three glowing objects were obser~ed moving . Secondly, the reported angular d~ameters are completely ou t of accord with that of stream meteors , and the ~assa?e of three such objects along essentially 1den~1cal trajectories within 30 seconds or so stra~ns the meteor hypothesis still furthe~ . Dr . l~oodruff, emphasizing that he is quite familiar with meteor phenomena stated , in comment on the Bluebook. evaluation , " If r h ad thought that there was any possibilit y that the three objects we saw were meteors I never would have mentioned the matter ."' Case 11 .

Cherry Creek,

~.

Y., August 19, 1965

This is a ca~e where I_have not been able to make contact Wlth the pr1ncipal witnesses b phone, but a rather thorough NICAP report is Y ava~lable, and even more ~nteresting this is one of the small fraction of all cas~s which Bluebook has put in its officially unexplained catego~y. Finally, it illustrates a phenomenon found 1n so many UFO cases that it cannot be ignored: panic reactions among animals in the vicinity of a close-range UFO . I have a special file of such animal-reaction cases wbich I am assembling because these cases ~eem


21

to have strong bearing on the question of whether the UFO observations are some quirk of human psychology, or as Jung once suggested "psychic projections of archetypal images . "' If cows, horses, dogs, pigs, cats, and birds sha:e our archetypal images and psychically prOJ~Ct therr., then perhaps I'm wrong in suggest~ng these cases rule out purely psychological explanations of the UFO phenomena . To date, however, I have found no psychologists who are willing to go so far as to suggest that bovine, canine, and equine archetypal images are identical with ours . At about 2020, on August 19th, Harold Butcher, age 16, was milking on his parentsâ&#x20AC;˘ farm. He had a transistor radio tuned to a news ~r~ram, an~ was using a tractor to power the m1lk1ng mach1ne. Suddenly, several things happened almost simultaneously: Static-like interference rose in his radio, the tractor motor stopped, and a bull tethered outside in the barnyard began stamping and bellowing (making a noise "like I have never heard come from an animal before," as the boy said it) . Looking out the barn window, Butcher saw a large elliptical object descending to the ground, about a quarter-mile away, making an audible beep-beep sound. The object, which he said was about 50 ft long and football shaped, remained on the ground for only a few seconds before shooting straight up into the clouds overhead. !~hen he yelled for members of his fam~ly to come out, they noted a strange odor, a peculiar greenish glow in the clouds into which the boy stated that the object had disappeared, and they found that the bull which had been tethered to a steel bar had bent the steel bar in his efforts to get loose. Mrs. Butcher phoned state police, and before they arrived the object had been bri~fly sighted again by four persons. USAF officers from nearby Niagara Falls AFB investigated the case. A purplish liquid of unknown nature was found at the spot Harold indicated he had seen the object first touch down (or seem to touch down). The tall grass was disturbed in that area and singed in some places. Two track- like soil depressions were found . On the next night, state Trooper Richard Ward saw an object with eight circular lights, flying at a speed which he put at double that of typical jets yet emitting only a faint purring sound . His sighting was made only a few miles from the Butcher farm. The Air Force report notes that milk production from the Butcher dairy herd fell to less than half its previous value after this sighting and stayed low for some days . It might be mentioned that there are three cases on record of cattle being stampeded by nearby UFOs, and a Clarinda, Iowa, farmer whom I have interviewed about an object which was reported as landing on his farm , said that his cows fled to the farthest available area within his fenced pasture and would not return for several days to the corner in which the object had landed. There are many cases of extreme reactions in dogs that were present when UFOs were cited. In the Sept . 3, 1965, Exeter, N.H., incident, horses started stamping and

~icking

their stalls at almost exactly the same as Officer Bertrand and young Muscarello spotted the object coming in over trees at the Dining farm . Bertrand, when I asked him, was unsure whose reaction was first, his or the horses . ~nstant

CasB 12.

Dc:rtcr, .IJi.cl: ., .Varch 20 ,

,966

It was Frank â&#x20AC;˘lannor's dogs who first reacted to the glowing object that became the center of the famous "swamp gas" controversy of last spr~ng . Manner, on going outdoors to see why his dogs were barking so unusually at 2000, spotted a luminous object "coming down at a forty-five," towards a nearly wooded swamp. The object reportedly hovered momen tarily and then descended below his line of vision . With his son, he walked out towards the spot, and spotted it again , glowing in the swamp, several hundreds of yards ahead. He stat7d that it seemed to be sitting in a patch of m~st, about 10 feet off terrain , was domed in shape, and had a coral-like or quilted structure to its surface. Suddenly the li9ht turned blood-red and then blinked out according to the accounts of Manner and his'son . In the meantime, others had been summoned, inciuding police, some of whom reported seeing the glowing object in the swampy wooded area . (I have tried twice to reach Manner by phone to confirm details of his s~ghting. The first time his wife informed me he was not talking to anyone as a result of all the ridicule he had received . The second time, their phone was unlisted or disconnected . I have heard a NICAP taped interview with Manner in which he confirms the main features as reoorted in the press and corrects Li;eâ&#x20AC;˘s erroneous drawings of the shape of the object that he saw . It had a flat bottom, he stressed. ) At a large press conference, Bluebook scientific consultant Or. J . A. Hynek, proposed that all this was due to swamp gas . The source he cited for his authority was Minnaert, a Dutch astronomer, whose book mentions will - ofthe-wisp but goes way back to an early 19th century scientist to find a corroborating witness. Swamp gas is methane, and it remains a chemical mystery how it sometimes ignites by natural processes, giving evanescent flickering flames a few inches high over marshy areas , mainly in summer when chemical reaction rates are high . A colleague who earned his Ph.D. collecting salamanders in that very area said he'd never once seen swamp gas burning , even in the summer when product~on rates are maximal. The Dexter case involved a luminous obje~t "the size of an automobile" described as descending into the swamps and then glowing so brightly it was visible for hundreds of yards away through the brush and trees, scarcely a close fit to swamp gas. Furthermore, low temperatures at that time of year could support only extremely low methane production rates, and the winds that night were about 5 mph, which would have precluded accumulations of more than trace amounts under any conditions . Probably no one UFO "explanation" has brought the Air Force more ridicule than this swamp gas case. "Swamp gas" has become almost


22 Ca $ ~ 14 .

a symbol of public r1dicule of the Bluebook contribed explanations . I attempted many months ago to persuade Bluebook to change that to an Unidentified, but was emphatically told by Maj. Qu1ntanilla that any changes would have to come from Dr . Hynek, not him, since the Air Force had absolutely nothing to do with that one . Dr . Hynek, when I then pressed him to consider retracting it on his o...路n, indicated that perhaps that might be a good 1dea, but has not done so to date . Case ! 3.

Damo n, T.ra~, SepteMbe r 3, 19GS

Less than 24 hours after the Exeter incident, two Brazoria County deputy sheriffs were cru1sing near Damon, Texas, when they spotted what they first took to be a gas-well fire in the distance. But as the lights separated and then floated up into the air, Deputies Billy E. McCoy and Robert w. Goode took increased interest . They decided to drive via back roads to investigate, and had pulled over to the side to check again with binoculars when suddenly the lights seemed almost instantaneously to shoot towards them and stop over a field only about 150 feet from them at an altitude of perhaps 100 feet above the field. I have interviewed both men, and despite their being experienced law enforcement officers, they did not conceal the fact that this sudden approach and the astonishing size of the object frightened both of them. The object was extremely large; one compared it to the size of a football field, the other put its length as 200 feet or more. Its vertical thickness at its domed center section they thought to be 40 to 50 feet. A very bright purple light on the object illuminated not only the ground near the object, but even the inside of the patrol car. Goode was driving, and his left arm was on the outside of the car. Despite the covering of a shirt and coat, he sensed heating of the exposed arm in the moment before they darted off as fast as the patrol car could go. McCoy looked back as Goode drove off, and the object was seen to shoot off at high speed back in the direction from which it came, and then veer upwards and disappear aloft. The Bluebook office assembled data on the location of the star Antares and on local inversions, and at one stage this was their tentative explanation for this highly un-astronomical sighting. But the final evaluation that now stands for this one is Unidentified . Yearly, and sometimes in between, Bluebook puts out assurances that in the (tiny fraction of cases in their) Unidentified cases are none that "defy explanation in present-day scientific and technological terms . " When one examines some of the officially Unidentified cases like the Damon Case, or the Exeter or Cherry Creek, or the famous Socorro case, or any of a number of other officially Unknown cases that are not remotely like anything in our presentday technological or scientific knowledge, one wo~ders just what Bluebook's frequentlyre1terated phraseology is supposed to mean.

saZt La k ~ Ci ty, Utah, Octobe~

2,

z 981

A multiple-witness daytime sighti~g of a l"d etallic-looking disc was headl1ne news ~~ ~h~ ~alt Lake Tribune of October 3, . 1961, though wire editors didn't take 1t ser1o~sly . A Salt Lake insurance man, l路laldo J. Harr1s, flying his private plane, took off from Utah_ central Airport at almost exactly noon . Dur1ng his engine run-up on Runway 160,he casually noticed what he thought to be a plane a number of miles off to the s~uth-s~ut~east. After lift-off, he noticed 1t aga1n 1n the same . apparent spot. After climb1ng out and_tu~1ng out of the pattern, he happened to not1ce 1t a third time, and this time became puzz~ed that it had not altered its apparent locat1on appreciably . He thought perhaps it was doing tight s-turns he told me in an interview with him some mo~ths ago, and he m1ght not have paid further attention to it except for the fact that suddenly it executed the first of several "wobbling" maneuvers and glinted brightly in the noon sun, giving him a sharper impression of shape. It looked disc-like, he thought . But still being unsure, he flew towards it and climbed to 6000 ft. When he got within an estimated 2-3 miles of it, at the same altitude as the object, he confirmed hi s impress ion that it was like two saucers, in lenticular over-all outline . It appeared motionless in midair at his flight altitude, and at one important point it lay between him and distant Mt. Nebo, so that he was viewing it against the distant mountain background. R~ tried to close further, but suddenly the obJect abruptly shot upwards, by an estimated 1000 ft, and as he closed still further it began moving southwards at a considerably ' faster speed than his, and then again seemed to hover perhaps 8-10 miles away from him. When he continued towards it, but long before he came close again, the object suddenly shot upwards at extremely high speed towards the southwest and climbed out of sight .

At the time that he first discerned its non-conventional shape, Harris had radioed back to the Utah Central Airport and requested that personnel there get binoculars and examine the object from the ground. A total of seven ground ~bse~ver7 confirmed the general features of h1s s1ght1ngs . These included Mr. and ~Irs. Jay Galbraith, who operate the airport, Robert Butler , a mechanic, Virgil Red~ond, and several others . The rocking mot1on as the object hovered was confirmed by the ground observers. A number of otherobserved details will be omitted here. The original Bluebook explanation, released by the Pentagon press desk was that H~rris had seen eith~r a balloon or'venus. 1 d1scussed balloons w1th Harris at some length路 he obviously had seen a lot of them, large and small, 1n his flying experience . He was quit positive that a balloon was out of question. e Be sa1d that when he was first told that a Pentagon Air Force.s~kesman had suggested it was.venus he_was v1ew1ng, he had pointed out aga1n that h1s account emphasized that at one stage of the sighting the object clearly lay at his 6000-ft altitude, between him and


23 d~stant

terrain . He said that, at the time of ~hat ~l.r Force announcement, he had made some ]a~ndJ.ce~ publi7 statement to the effect that he ~ a ~1t worr1ed about the safety of our nat1on 1f there.are people down there in the Pentagon who th1nk you can fit Venus int th Salt Lake Valley, between him and Mt. Ne~. e _1 had checked the present status of the HarrJ.s report, at Bluebook in June 1966 d proceeded to tell him that it is n~w offi- an c1ally c~assed as a "sundog." I shall not repeat h1s comments. One can easily take this sighting and ~how ho~ unreasonable both the "Venus" and s undog explanatJ.ons are. Venus lay in the s ou t hwest sky at an angular altitude well ~ove Harris ' horizon, and would be quite d J.ffJ. cul~ to spot without diligent searching . But Rar r1s saw the object towards the souths outhe ast , "right down Runway 160" and it was on his horizon when he had cli~ed to 6QOO ft . Similarly the sundog explanat ion is nonsensical. The altitude of the noon s un at Salt L~ke Ci ty that day was about 40掳 , and sundogs, 1 f there had been any , would have occurred to right and left at essentially t hat s ame angu l ar altitude, far above the positi o n in the sky where Harris and others saw the object hovering . Furthermore, the skies wer e almost cloudless, the observers emphas ized . This case is just one more o f hundreds of glaring examples of casually erro neous Bluebook e xplanations put out by untrained men and passed on to the press and publ ic by PIO's who are equally untrained and cannot r ecognize elementary scientific abs urdit i es when they see them . Yet just this ki nd of balderdash has left the bulk of the public wi th the impression that UFOs can't exist s i nce the Air Force has disproved virtually all the r epor ts they've ever received . Case 1S .

c~r.t~a"

I~diana,

vctobe~

3, 1958

In the records are many (probably well over two hundred) cases where UFOs "buzzed" cars, and there are also several instances , from var ious parts of the world , where uniden~ified objects have passed over railroad train s in a manner suggesting something more than random coincidence . One interesting example i nvolves a Monon Railroad freight train that was repeatedly overflown by four glowing, d isc s d uring a pro t racted episode early on Octobe r 3 , 1958 . I have interviewed three of the five trai n c rewmen , con f irming details to be found in th e NICAP report and in a more complete accoun t by Frank Edwards , who originally invest i gat ed the sighting . It is a very involved sighting , since the objects followed the train , maneuvering back and forth near it for an.hour and ten minutes ; hence only a sparse outl1ne WIT1-se given here . The objects were first sighted a bit after 0300 , well ahead of the train, crossing the path of the southbound freight as it was near Wasco, Indiana . Cecil Bridge, fireman, sighted them first, and quickly pointed them out to che engineer , Harry Eckman, and another crewman in the cab , Morris Ott. Shortly thereafter, the objects executed a turn and came in towards the

train obliquely 路 . height . ' pass1ng r1ght overhead a t a so Thestlmated at something like 100 feet or cr~~oe d men J.n the cab had radioed the caboose cu ' an conductor Ed Robinson in the caboose thpoia told me that he was looking r ight down e 1ne of cars as the four dis~-like things ~wept over the train. He estimated their E~ameters as 30-40 feet . My interviews with kman! BrJ.dge, and Robinson cannot be fully sumrnar1zed because all of the maneuvers tha t then unfolded would take too much space to recount . At one time the train was sw1 tching c~rs at Frankfort, Ind . , and during the 10- 15 m~utes operation, Robinson said that the ObJects seemed to have "landed" a mile or s o back_up the line . He could make out sparks or glo~~ng l1ghts, but not much detail . After the traJ.n resumed motion, the objects followed t hem aga1n, and did not break off and leave un til the tra1n reached the vicinity of Kirklin , I nd. ~ checked carefully whether there was s ubstance ln.reports that they had been told t o keep 9u1et abou t this sighting ; all three emphatlcally den1ed this . They had not be en i nt er:ogated by ~ny USAF personnel abou t this sigh t l.~g . I bel1eve I am correct in saying that no WJ.re-story coverage on this importan t case was ever f iled . Case 16 .

Waol;ington Nationa~ Airport , JuLy 19" and 26, 1952

One does not have the full picture on UFOs and their official investigation until he has studied carefully many of the cases i n the later 1949's and early 1950 ' s , pr ior t o t h e 1953 turning- point of the Rober t s on Panel and CIA debunking order. In the past year, I have rather carefully gone ove r s eve r al dozen impor tant cases from that per iod , and have run down witnesses in many of them. In the case of the Washington Airport incidents , I have never located any witnesses for perso na l interviews , but the basic facts of this most f amous of all UFO episodes are well att~sted i n press recor ds which I have gone over , so personal interviews are not so crucial her e . I shall not attempt a full r e count ing, since so much went on that even a chapter in Ruppelt ' s book (Ref . 1) does not do j us t ice to it . The principal points deservi ng emphasis are these : Unknown returns were picked up on as many as three separate rada rs i n the Wash i ngton area , at times all t hr ee sets having compat ibl e echoes . Vis ual observati ons of these fast - moving objects were made from g round and ai r , especially the latter. Despite frantic confusion on both of these two occasions, the record is moderately clear as to who saw what and where . The CAA radar controllers, to this day, insist that the echoes we r e good ha r d echoes, quite unlike familiar ground-returns caused by anomalous propagation under inversions . The official explanation put oue a t the time was that the radar returns were due to anomalous propagation, and the visual sigh t ings were caused by refraction effects due to the same inversions responsible for the radar anomalies. I have examined the radiosonde data for both nights, have computed the refractive inda~ gradients, and find that, after mak1ng allowance


24

for lag effects in the radiosonde, radar d u c tin g could not h.ave occurred. The suggestion that an inversion of the sort exhibited by the radiosonde data for that night at Nashington caused the reported visual effects is absolutely absurd. First of all, the inversion was a very weak one by mirage standards, so that even the ground observers could not have seen mirages. But worse, the optics of mirages and the "optics'' of radar ground returns are significantly different in several respects, so that false targets would not seem to lie in the same place in the sky to a visual observer and a radar observer. Furthermore, the most important visual observations were not on the ground but in the air by several commercial pil~ts (and even by one jet pilot who was vectored close to one of the radar targets moving over the cap1tol) . Finally the temperature data aloft at aircraft altitude were not even remotely capable of producing anything like what was described by the pilots . These 1952 "explanations" have never since been challenged, and the summary analysis of this case that Bluebook still sends out when queried on the case is a verbatim assemblage of the hasty remarks made by frantic officers trying to get the Air Force off the hook in that tight squeeze of July, 1952. I even found a passage in the currently distributed case summary which asserts that •unfortunately the only day for which weather data was obtained was for 26 July 1952," precisely the assertion I found appearing on a memo dated 29 August 1952 from Capt . James (a radar officer) to Capt. Ruppelt (copy of memo in Bluebook file on this case) . But, amusingly, a dozen sheets of dog- eared paper further on in this very same file· that Maj. Quintanilla gave me, I found the allegedly missing weather Bureau radiosonde data for July 19! 1-lhen l plotted it, it became quite clear that no anomalous propagation could have produced the solid radar returns so emphatically described to the press by the experienced CAA radarmen on duty that night . Donald Keyhoe, in one of his books, vividly describes the press conference at which all this m1sinformation was put out to press, Congress, and public . several reporters had asked a few questions of knowledgeable radarmen and tried to object that the weather data simply did not support the Air Force claim of ground-returns; but their objecting questions were cut off. Caae 1?.

11ount Rainie:zo, June 24 , 294?

. On_the b~sis of several extended telephone d~scuss1ons w~th Kenneth Arnold, the private ~ilot who reported this era- opening UFO sight-

1ng, and on the basis of examination of weather data for that day, I must categorically reject the long-standing Air Force explanation that this was a "mirage . " Dr. Menzel, in his second book, also subscribes to this hypothesis. The radiosonde data for that date show no strong inversion aloft of the type that would be required to produce even a mild mirage; but there's no indication that either Bluebook or Menzel used any quantitative considerations in

arriv1ng at their explanat1on. Furthermore, Arnold descr1bed the objects as slowly climbing as they fluttered along at high speed from the ~It. Rainier area to near Mt. Adams, a roughly 45-mile distance which he timed them covering at a speed of about 1500 miles per hour. (Scientists will be amused to be told that in the ofhcial Bluebook summary analysis, this speed is quoted as "1656.7J. miles per hour ." At firclthe objects were viewed by Arnold against outlier peaks on Mt. Rainer; that put their altitude at roughly the same as his flight altitude ~f about 9500 feet. But by the time the discs reached the Mt. Adams area, Arnold stated that the lead objects in the string of nine had ascended to perhaps 13,000 to 14,000 feet near Adams . That much alti tude increase implies so large an increase of angular altitude that the possibility of ~ naturally occurring inversion accounting IOr these apparitions on a mirage basis is wholly out of the question. And beyond all this , one has to ask just what Bluebook and Henzel would like to suggest as the real objects whose images were refractively distorted into these moving discs? Their azimuth changed position by almost ninety degrees in the roughly minute and a half that Arnold watched them skim past him. To suggest that he was watching an azimuthally moving mirage through such a sector is patently absurd. Yet this is only more of the sarr~ type of absurdity that marks many more "explanations" in Bluebook files and in Menzel's books. Case 18 .

ilr.ite Sands , ApriZ

~4,

1949

Charles B. Moore, Jr., working with several assistants, was taking pilot balloon observations of upper winds, as a part of a high-altitude balloon flight that day. Through a series of steps that will not be fully recounted here, they spotted and began tracking with their theodolite a whitish ellipticalshaped object that was moving at high angular velocity from southwest to northeast . In about 60 seconds this object moved o~f to the northeast, and just before passing out of sight in the 25-power telescope, its altitude angle began to slowly increase! Another balloon was immediately released to doublecheck the winds, but no high-speed upper jet was present to blow anything along at anything like this object's speed. I have discussed this early sighting with ~toore several times. Dr . Menzel easily accounts for the whole thing on p. 33 of Ref . 8 : "What Moore saw was an out-of-focus and badly astigmatic image of the balloon above," caused, he seems to tell his reader, by "lenses of air" aloft. Nonsense . Space does not permit touch1ng here on even a fraction of the signif1cant early sightings that should have turned Air Force scientists toward serious attention to the UFO problem as early as 1950. Those cases can be found, in quantity, in Ref. 3, and many are fairly well treated in Ref. 1 . The evidence, viewed in retrospect, is strong that unconventional objects have been around for 20 neglected years, their general nature not altering significantly in that period . I cannot begin now to pursue that extremely important related question: What about prior


, to 1947? But, in brief, the answer to that appears to be that there are observations extending back to before the turn of th century that seem so similar to 1967 UFg observations that it is probable that th have ~een ~re~ent for decades . Needlesset~FOs say, ~f th~s ~s proved true (or highly probable ) by ~re complete analysis of the old records, ~t has exceedingly important cons quences. e-

EDITORIAL COMMENTS

"T.11 1

11 b . ' !1 ';" s t:op ki.ddi>lg uc •:o~ about there lang no DU<:•l th~ngs ao 'fl•ling oa:.ce>•s . "'

- Ft. l~orth Star- Telegram·. ·

.

I:""S.p

,,

-·r.K that tire time hae cor.e .,;hen the

A~r .o~ce's ~~o~ledge

As re~orts such as the examples just cited have come ~n ~ver the.years, editorial criticisms of offlc~al UFO ~nvestigations have not been absent . There has been a small but steady, flow of ed~torial questioning as to wh7ther the Air Force is really looking into th1s problem adequately. Occasionally these ~omme~ts have carried real barbs . NICAP, in ~ts b~ -monthly bulletin, 1'iJe UFO Investigator r~prints editorial remarks from time to time: SJ.nce ASNE members will find these of interes.t, I insert a number extracted from t he NICAP publication and other sources at this point: ''If I had any doubts about the pubZic 's interest in Unidentified Flying Objects I'v~ put them aside .. . What it boils do~n to that many, many pel'sons agl'ee ~ith NICAP's hypoth esis that the UFOs ar ' real objects ' ... 'under the control of living bei•:gs . 111 - Charles H.

is

Ball, Aviation Editor, Boston Traveler.

"Do yo:. ever get the feeling that ~hen it comes to ."lying eaucel'e , the Air Force makes its denials si:z: mont1:s i>: aduance~" - Seattle

" . .. the p:.blic is entitled :o the best an~~ers availabZe . PoseibZ~ a national hearing on the ~atter, 1 ong so:.ght by dedicated eaucel' - ~a!cheN: , uo:.ldr. 't be too bad an idea ."

- Springfield, Ohio,

25

~-

"~he

Air :ore• sayo aiZ eightings can be e:pZained in tcr~s of kno~n phenomena ar.d then adds that it can't ~:z:pZain 63J o: the repo~ts it has had . o'hich reminds us o.f the English Astronomer Roya:, who spoke up in Z9S7 just before the Soviet Union sta:•tL"d the world r.~ith its first Sputn-ik launching : 'Space tl'aveZ is utter bilge . 1 " - Dallas Morning ~.

"If ~e car. whiiS things at the moon and other planets , it is possible that other planets are wl1i:;~ing thing a by 6artb . . . Phere are many reports in USAF files made by quali fied pilots t.>ho, in .fZight, have encounte1•ed UFOe r.~ith fantastic flight patterns . These officers are not quacks , nor are rnany of the intelligent people' ~ho have spotted phenomenaL objects in ti:e cky ." - Meriden, Conn ., Journal.. "If some of theae _rtyinp ob,;~ctt; are indeed planetary spacecraft, it ie Logical to aseum.; that govern"1enta1. of'f'icials ~ assuming they do l!ave a:.ch evidcnoe, may be l<eeping the ne:.;s q:.iet for faar that a euddsn diac i.osul'e .~ioht 1Ja:;c d-ralJti.c smotior.aZ. ar..ci ccono~ic

e{';eete . " - r~edford, Oregon, Mail Tribune .

o:

these objects and the

res:.~ts of tne tnvestigatione uhich haue been oar>'-:.ed o:. t ol:o" ld be madt:~ pub Zic . " - Coos Bay Oregon , ~ ' . " ... but whatever the reason ~ay be uh1 the A'l.r F~rce.spol<ec~en are becoming lese vocal .. . t~e t&me ~B ~ong overduo for tha Government to dtscZoso to the public all that it kno~e about UFOs . " - Alameda, Calif ., Times-Star . . "Attempts to dismiss the 2'Dported sioht ~ngs under tJ;e ratio>lalc exhibited by Proj~ct Bluebook won't solve the myeteJ<y ho1.1eve10 <rnd ee1•ve ,onZy to hoighten the ouap·i~ion that' the:•e s something out tile·re the Air Foreg does.n ' t want us to know about . If Pro:~ect Bluebook officials ~ant the UPOs to go a~ay they ' d be ~ell advised to ~ish on another star . " - Richmond, Virginia, News -

--

~-

"TI:el'c is a .1tro>1g belief that the mili ta::y chiefs k>:ou morr1 about :.>:identified !·t-ying ~bJec;ts tha>: th~J ~re Letti•:g on, but are keep~~g ~t a.uell - g:.araed s~cr~t co as not to oar.ic tne pubZ...c . " - Shawville, Quebec, Entity. · ''It's about time for .:'ongrt.as co hoLd a pubZic_i.,:~e~tigati.o o_;· :i:i<~ ''"]!Stery ... . The Ail' F?r:ce u ettZZ ada-a>, t: ~<J~rybody is i.:-:agi.ni.ng ~n~r.gs . " -

Houston Chronicle .

"'I'he tin:e io zo,.g v~rdu€ .•..or a candid disclosure o•' "indino~:> . " -Aurora, Illinois,

Beacon-News.· ·

-

"· . . ~eZZ - condt<-•t. d c"ngrese•ona::. inouiry can heZp establish th~ facts and q · iet need!es~ public alarm ." - Indianapolis News .

"If" ther-e ia any substantial e-vide11ce "that any of the eigiJCin~s can be att:•ibutcd to obJects either intra - or eztra- olanetaru che Ail' Force should reveal it to ue . " - Ci;;~inatti

Enquirer .

In those sample quotes one notes an undercurrent of concern that perhaps UFOs a~e not being investigated adequately . IVithin just the past month or so a large number of UFO sightings of very unusual nature near Houston, Texas, have evoked similar comments, brought out in a good series on the problem that has run in the Houston Tribune . People down there are beginning to ask whether anyole is reallv checking into all these phenomena sightings: I base my comment on a year's detailed inquiry when I say that the answer is that no one in our Government has been taking the prob~em se:iously enough to carry out an adequate ~nvest~gat~on . An uneasy citizenry will find, when the facts are out, that their reports were


ignored and r1d1culed and forgotten. Note in the quoted edttorials a recurrence of the hypothesis that officials at high levels do know about the UFOs and are guarding the public from some panic-triggering news. This is so far from the true situation that I find the suggestion laughable. Nobody in Washington is protecting anyone from pan1c. The Air Force, NASA, august scientific bodies, and all the rest, ~ the UFOs are a lot of nonsense. There is no hidden truth to be disclosed because the agency assigned the responsibility to check the problem of the unidentified flying objects has incompetently done its job, has fallen victim to its own propaganda in the past dozen years, and has misled us all, since 1953 . The quotes above contain a number of p~eas for a truly thorough Congressional investigat i on . This , I now believe, is the only approach at all capable of quickly escalating scientific study of the UFO problem to the top- level status I believe it warrants . And no stimulus for Congressional inquiry would be as potent as some firm editorial pressure from all s ides of the country .

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE UFOS ARE EXTRATERRESTRIAL PROBES? Scattered through the comments just cited, one finds remarks indicating that there may be a few editors who are speculating on whether the UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin . I believe, on the basis of my intensive s tudy of the UFO problem, that this hypothes is must, in fact, now be given extremely serious scientific attention. Let me hasten to interject that I am quite familiar with all of the standard reasons as to why this hypothesis seems very remote . The solar system seems to harbor no good niches for evolution of sentient life . Recent disc losures of the lack of magnetic fields near Mars and Venus, demonstrations of the extreme tenuity of the Hartian atmosphere and of the high temperatures of the Venusian atmospher e, and all else that we know of our neighborplanets seems to argue cogently that the solar system is a most unlikely place to generate a s econd life- system in addition to ours - certainly unlikely to have a life- system that has gone far past us . Nithin the past half-dozen years it has , somewhat amusingly, become scientifically respectable to take as axiomatic that in the billions of stellar systems within just our Galaxy alone, life must have evolved again and again, taking routes that may have gone far beyond our present civilization, culture, and technology . One can now say L~at safely in a scientific assembTage. But all that sentient life must be said to be way out there - not here! The principle scientific objection to thinking that we m~ght (ever) be visited by beings from other stellar systems is tied up with the energetics of propulsion. Edward

Purcell of Harvard, has presented a delightfully d~vastating analysis of the difficulties of interstellar travel (Ref . 18, p. 121 ff) . I certainly am not one to give substantial rebuttal to his arguments except ~n one l~e (but conceivably relevant) way . All of h~s and many others' arguments against feasibility of interstellar travel are necessarily couched in terms of present-day scientific knowledge and technology. To be sure, Purcell's type of argument seems to grant e~ery ben~fit of doubt to the other side by look~ng far ~nto the foreseeable future and still demolishes the idea of interstellar travel . But that adjec tive, "foreseeable," may be JUSt the rub . Perhaps there are levels of technology so vastly superior to any we can now imagine that things can be done which we now regard a s quit e out of the question. Clearly, that is an e asy argument, by which one could soon be saying that everything and anything is poss~ble . I certainly do not resort to such arguments in my everyday work, and I should like to add that I don't care for science-fictioneering i n general. But after a year of scrutiny of highly unconventional phenomena credtbly reported from all parts of this country and (I believe ) from most of the entire world, I have been driven to consider possibilit~es that I'd ordinarily not give a moment's thought to in my own personal brand of orthodoxy . It is the UFO evidence that slow~y forces the dili~ gent UFO student to seriously consider the ~xtraterrestr1al hypothesis - evidence that I can only describe as extraordinary in its total nature. (I must confess that my chosen examples exclude a large amount of UFO phenomena that experience teaches me to omit fron any brief discussion . It is simply too baffling to lay before unprepared audiences . ) All over the globe persons in all walks of life, representing a wide range of educational.and cultural backgrounds are reporting , often 1n the face of unpleasant ridicule sightings of objects that appear to be c~m足 pletely real objects yet have characteristics that match nothing about which we have present knowledge . There are still a few persons who suspect these things must be secret Air Forc e test vehicles. They can forget that: no test pilot would ever dream of doing the th i ngs that these objects are repeatedly doing hovering over speeding trucks loaded with gasoline, maneuvering low over populated a r e as , speeding alongside Texas sheriff's cars or diving down on top of trucks and tractor s and motorbikes and trains . No American test vehicles would be checked out in Australia and Poland; no Russian test vehicles would be flight-tested in Canada or Brazil . The UFOS are most definitely not secret test vehicles of superlative nature. Arnold's June, 1947 sighting involved phenomena not dissimilar from 1967 sightings. No nation came out of lo/or ld l~ar II with a secret aerodynamic technology that could have produced the craft that ~rnold and hundreds of others were looking at 1n the summer of 1947 . And then there is the whole chapter that I am here omitting concerning the pre-1947 sightings that go back to before the Wright Brothers.


, And I cannot accept the psychological to which I have felt obliged to return ag~in an~ aga~n for further checking and further dl.scussl.o~ 'n'l.th colleagues in psychol09)' and related f J.e lds. My conclusion: Objects that rock aircraft at times, that ~eave dents in soil and railroad ties, and splash when they dive into bodies of water are not likely to be projection phenomena. And al~ of the animal reactions argue rather stronglv against human illusoey or hallucinatory exolanations. Multiple-witness cases rule out • hallucinations, essentially by definl.tion . ~!uch more could be saJ.d, but armchair speculations about psychological interpretations don't hold much weight when one goes over the whole picture very carefully. ~xplanations,

Other alternative hypotheses of hoax , fraud and fabrication account for a few, but a percentually negligible number of UFO cases . Misinterpreted meteorological and astronomical observations and the like do account for lots of poor UFO reports, but experienced investigators learn to recognize these almost at a glance and dismiss them from further attention. It is the detailed, close-range sightings by persons whose reliability cannot be brought into serious question that carry the great weight . These are on the increase, it appears. And it seems that sightings in urban areas are on the increase. Almost no urban sightings can be found in the records for sightings of the late 1940's . In the past year there have been dozens of them . \~hat does this all mean? \~hat is happening? If you wish to know, do not ask Project Blueboo)(. Pacing of aircraft and buzz1.ng of cars goes on rather steadily. These cases so strongly suggest something vaguely resembling surveillance or reconnaissance that the studen~ of the problem is forced to weigh the possibility that the UFOs are probes of some type that are engaged in something that we would loosely call "observation." There are many other categories of sightings suggesting the same tentative hypothesis . How can this be? There is, in my present opinion, no sensible alternative to the utterly shocking hypothesis that the UFOs are extraterrestrial probes from somewhere else .

. 27 You members of the American Society of Newspaper Editors are in an ideal position to generate the pressures necessary to force Congressional investigation that will awaken SCl.entJ.sts here and abroad to the real state of the UFO problem. And then, but onl~· then, wJ.ll the problem receive the attentJ.on of the outstanding scientists of the world - who should have been devoting their efforts to unraveling this extraordinary problem for all of those twenty years that we have been ignoring this problem . It has become my conviction that the problem of the unidentified flying objects is, indeed, the greatest scientific problem of our time.

REFERENCES l.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7. 8.

9.

WHAT'S TO BE DONE NEXT

10.

we are 20 years behind in scientific study of thl.S question .

11 .

Science has been assured so long that the Air Force has been studying the prob~em that scientists are not likely to suddenly start studying the UFO problem without new pressures to do so. Probably nothing short of a full-scale Congressional investigation can put on record the abysmal shortcomings of the program that lay behind those 20 years of assurances. An adequate Congressional investigation can came only from outside pressures - which will not soon emanate from science.

12 .

13 .

Ruppelt, E. J ., "Report on the Unidentified Flying Objects," Doubleday & Co . , New York, 1956. (Hardcover edition out of print . Paperback edition in print, Ace Books . ) Lear, John, "The. Disputed CIA Document on UFOs ," Sat . Rev . Lit ., Sept . 3, 1966, p . 45 f f . Hall, R. H., ed . , "TheUFOEvidence," National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena , \;ashington, D.C., 1964 . Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, "Unidentified Flying Objects," mul tigr4phed 9-page summary of teletype traffic on OOPS system during August, 1965 wave of UFO reports. Prepared by Mr. P . D. Naller, Asst. Dir., Div . of Public Inf., OPDS. "The UFO Investigator," Vol. III, No . 1, NICAP. Ibid ., Vol. III, No. 11, NICAP . Stanton, L. J., "FlyJ.ng Saucers: H~ax or Reality?" Belmont Books, New York, 1967 . ~!enzel, Donald H., "Flying Saucers," Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1953 . Menzel, Donald H. , and Lyle G. Boyd, "The World of Flying Saucers," Doubleday f, co., Garden City, N.Y., 1963 . Vallee , Jacques, and Janine Vallee , "Challenge to Science, ·• Henry Regneey C¢ ., Chicago, 1966 . Klass , Philip J . , "Plasma Theory May Explain Hany UFOs " in ~ · Week , Aug';lst 22, 1966; also "Many UFOS Are Identl.fied as Plasmas," Av . \;eek, Oct. 3, 196·6 . Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, "Unidentified Flying Objects," hearings, April 5, 1966; House Document 55. McDonald, J.E., "The Problem of the Uniden tified Flying Objects," talk given to the Dept . of Physics, Univ . of Arizona, Oct. 5, 1966, and to liashington, D.C., chapter American Neteorological Society, Oct. 19, 1966. Digest of latter available to ASNE members on request.


28

14 . 15 .

Fuller, J . G. , "Incident at Exeter," Putnam's Sons, New York, 1966 . Hynek, J . A., "Are Flying Saucers Real? " ~ - Evening Post, Dec . 17, 1966.

16 .

See ref . 14 .

17 .

"The UFO Investigator," Vol . II, No . 1.

18 .

Cameron, A. G. W. , "Interstellar Commu~ nications , " W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1963 .

Dt' . James E. McDonald is senior physicist in the Institute of Atmospheri c Physics ~ and professor in the Department of MeteoroLogy~ University of Arizona . Tucson .

\

â&#x20AC;˘

"\


~/

e ~1 EMORANDUM -

A o l.. t'-

For use Within the RAN only

Write or pt~nt cleorly

IAAF FORM A27l MAR 63

PRI~M :t -r

QJ. ~" A..ef{Cff

R~ AND APPOINTM~

PHO NE EXTN

~,..;k~/l~ ~

-

c .o .o.

9 777


RESTRICTED INTELLIGENCE - REPORT OF AERIAL OBJECT OBSERVED (Operational Command ASI 3/A/5)

PART 1 - REPORT BY OBSERVER

If.!/: /c ... ~~~!~....... . . . . . . . .AGE . ..v<'-3.. ' .. .

1.

Name of observer ••

2.

Address of observer ••• .C?••

,/t(/.1/~(1. ... 4r. ...~{.(P.1.'? . .... . .

' • • • • • • · • • · • · · · · • • · · · · · · · · · · • · · · · .....•••. PHONE

................. f!;/4?_oR

~~~~f.~~ .. .............. ..... .... .

).

Occupati on of observer .•••••

4.

Date and time of observation

5.

Duration of observation

6.

Observers location at

7.

Weather conditions at t i me of observation •••~~~~~4

~ Of'~$ .Z .................................... .

~ .~"(~ .1?'t'f"(l!. 1:~.. j, ~~!.l!.~~t!~.#~ t i me of sighting • • •• 1:~ ..~~(~ .... .... .

..... .... ............................................. ...... ..... •••••••••• •

.~ :~~ .s. ........~.'f!?!.... -~'ff-7.?. ~ ~.Y. ....... ......... .. ... . 8.

Describe any aids or equipment used in the observation ••• • ..• • ••

9.

Where was object first observed? hind a hill, over the horizon) •

&/.~Voe.u~ /ox $"0 ..... ..... .. ......4~5 ........................ .... ... ...... .. ... .. ... . ................ ............................ ............ .... .... (eg, overhead, coming from be-

...r(~~r:~.~~- .... .-1.-:\<. ........ !~ .o_ ••~rr. ... ~1(?."~ . .

10. What first attracted observer's attention?

(eg, light or noise) .

/,(/.(.-'V/~;- ....... .-</~#/ .. .. .................... .... ....... .......... .. ...... .... ... ................... ..... .. ...... ........ .... .. .... ...... ..... nppenr ne a light or ~sa defini+,e objeo~? .••• •.••. . • 14/N// E 9 fEt> .</~#-;IV//;~~.,t #~o o,r:.•• • ••••• l ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••• •• • • • ••••

11. Did •

obj~ct

~F .......... ""' ................................................... . 12. If there was mor e than one object: -

O""""""E ••••••• how marly were t h ere.? • ••••••••..•••••••••••.•••••••. (b) in what formation were they? •••••••••••• ~ •••••••••.••• . W#/1""€ 9 ~e b 13. What was the colour of tne l1ght or object? •••••••.•••••.•..•.• ... /..VVE.er~ b ~"""c c;:r,-6" km.. 14. What was its apparent shape t • • • • • • • • • r . • • • . • • • • • . • • . • . • • • • • . . • . • (a)

15. Was any detail of structure observable? RESTRICTED

Nb ... ..................... . . . /2


RESTRICTED - 2-

.............. ....... ..... ~0 ............................ ....... .. .... .

16.

Was any method of propulsion obvious?

17.

Was there any sound?

18.

What was its height? (or angle of elevation} •••••~.~ •••.•••••••

19.

What was its speed? (or angular velocity) ••

20.

Was the object stationary?

21 .

What was the direction of flight with reference to landmarks or pointe of the compass?

'

#.r:.. .!:~~1~t_ '(.-r:_ ••

..................................... Y~s

.... ...... ......................................................

22.

Did th~ object remain on a straight path, deviate , or manoeuvre nt a.ll?

.................. .. . ......... ................................ . h.

23. 24 .

Was any trail of exhaust, vapour, or light seen? •• ~?.

·...... . .

...............................................................

Where did object disappear? (eg, in mid- air, behind a hill, over the horizon)

.I?~~~ .fff.e:#.E/J. ... "}(~1~f. .... 4:e:'Y.~1.. ...~F.~P.~C....... .

25 .

Do you know of any physical evidence? (such as fragments, photographs, or other supporting evidence)

Yo ... ..... ........ .................... ....... ..... ................

~ ••••••

26.

Have you observed any unusual phenomena previously? ••

27.

If so , give brief details of incident(s)

28.

State any experience which enables observer to be reasonably certain nbout the answers given to 18 and 19 .

........ .............. . ................................................................ .................................-.. ................... .... ... .. Mc-4--r /N/E,e~$'1 AJt'~lt'A~-r/- ~,~...~A:~ ................................................................ //V

29 .

Are ycu a member of any organization interested in aerial phen-

¥.:.::; .... .................. ................ .

omena? ••••••.••• ••• • 30.

31.

-

Name and address of organisation ••••••••••• ••• •.•••••••••••••••

.................... ..... .... ...... ..................... ........ Any additional information which relates to the sighting.

.t!tfot. ..~~( k·A~.z.J .A~.4:· :4.::. ~-u t1 ~# -~r /J/~ , ~ - ..... ........ . . . ·~ ••.•...•.•....... "t;!' . ~ ..~ .... ·... : . . . . . . . . . .

'

. @.~k'H-l-.~ .. ~#.. ;--1/.... :4~.~~4.~ -~~ .-~# .. . RESTRICTED

. . . /3


RESTRICTED - 3 -

PART 2 - UNIT EVALUATION 32.

The following military aircraft were in the vicinity of the reported UFO position at the time :Aircraft type •••••••• •

!'!:(-:-:. :................................ .

Headirlt • •...•..••.•. • ..•••.•• T

Height ••••••••••••••• . ,000 ft

•••• • •••••••• T •• •••••••••.•••••• T

•....••..•••• ,ooo

ft ......... .. ,ooo ft

Speed • •••••••••••••••••• • K •• •••••••• •• ••••••• • K • •••• , , •••••••.••• •K

33.

The following civil aircraft were in the vicinity of the reported UFO position at the time :-

. &w.£. 7~ /1-/'Hc. 1-Vt:Ju~ IJ ...vo I ,f'c/J?A/"' A1/~t ~;(;:;;, •••• "J:b')l' .. ~ ..•:i ~;;,~ .. ;;;; .. t:

7in

Headillg • •••••••••••••• T • .•••••••••••••••••••• T • ••••.••• , ••••••• •• T

Height ••••••••••••••• ,ooo ft •••••••••••• •• • ,ooo ft •••••••••••• ,ooo ft Speed ••• • •• • • •••••••••••• • K ........ •••••••••••• • K •• , •••••••••••• •K

34.

Calculations show that the following planets o~ - ~or stare were in that portion of the sky at the time:- •••• • •~~••·•••••••••• •

.......................................................... ....

A meteorological balloon was released from ••••

OAV~-tJ~

~~~•~• • ••

at ••• ~ •• z and could have been in the reported UFO position at the time.

36.

The State Observatory in the nearest capital city affirms that aerial phenomena in that portion of the sky at the time were

JV/L( comet, meteor1te . eh ower, etc) . ••••••••••••••••••••• 37.

Any other relevant remarks (eg~~t eatelitee , rockets, research 'ba.llontlS) .......... . ............ ... .... • . • • • . · • • • • • • • • • • • • •

................................................................... 38 .

There is conclusive evidence that the object reported was ••••••••••

39.

................................................................... ................................................................... The object reported could have been •• •{~.V.~ .. ...1!E!JfP.-f.<?1-.~1

40.

The cause (or likely cause) of thu sighting cannot be determined •

ti.l'!¥...~ ~ ~- ................................................. .

.....1.t( .. ~Lt. ......(tJnit) .......Y. ...~4:~Name) ...../.f....&.i:...4.J. ..... (Date) ......£C..1~.......... (Rank) RE:3TRICTED


JL!:STRICTED INTELLIGENCE - REPORT OF AERIAL OBJECT OBSERVED (Operational Co~~and ASI 3/A/5)

PART 1 - REPORT BY OBSERVER

#.~11. .. f4 !.. !1A:1'£f.J!!l ..........AG~ lfP.~~ 1

1•

Name of observer • •

2.

Address of observer

~~• • ~:~~~~-~~~ •••• ~~11.~~~~.~ ....... .

• • •• • •• . •• • • ' • •• •• •• •• • ••• •• • ••• •• • ••• •

3.

Occupation of observer ••

6.

7. 8.

9.d:..:?o/ :<;.

~~!?~f"'-... ~;;~7. .. ~. q~:~i. ~~·~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Date and time of ob servation .(~. t?t~f:

5.

PHONE

-6'. ... ~t? ... (?.P.f.'c?-:C?.?;.

Duration of observation ..... ~ . •~"":'~ ••• •• :11.A(f? .••. ~fi>•.

:?~~"':<~ .

Obs~rvers location at time of sighting •• ~~.~~~t: .... ~~~ ... . .f":Y. .. !:'?!{!?: .... ?J?...(f-:vR..f:'!.Mtf:. f.r. ... :'Y~-{(.'~. -~~~-<7.:

~::;conditions

~~i'.~.: ..... .... . W/NO WnvtJS . . . ..................... ......................................... at time of observation ••• ~ 04/7'# E+.s/E..r.( y'

Describe any aids or equipment used in the observation ••••..•.•• #Noet./.V .4,e.s /oy~ OA./ _,.-;~sr o~t'~..S"/orv

.............................................................. .. \

#4-KEO ~!">/ ~ ~Ee~A/£J t)et'~/0-"'V· ................................................................. 9.

Where was object first observed? hind a hiJl, o~he horizon) .

(eg , overhead, coming from be-

• • •f.o:-.7.. • • •• • • • • • •~.f: • • • -~~~r:r:~~ ••••.~!::?.~~; • • • • • • •• •

10. What first attracted observer's attention?

(eg, light or noise) •

. . . . . . . .#.~f.<~~ ..... .-f.~'!-~!:. ........................... . ... ....... ....... .... ... . ... ... .. .. ...... ..... ... .... ... ... ..... 11 . Did objnct nppear as n light or aa a defini+.e objeo~? .••• ••.•.•• #~ . M 1(, . ~0 w /.IV' .(J,Y ,r/~$'/ . .041' . ;lf1;;J'/O/V . •

. .... ........4.. . ...... ....... . .............. .. . ..... .....

12. If there was more than one object: -

tJ/\/£. how marty were there ?. . ......•....••..••.•.........•.• · ••· · · (b) in what fortlation were they? •••• • •••.•• ::7..•....•.. • · · · • • . Y&,L.<.ow sz. t'Et>. 13. Vlhat was the colour of the l1ght or objec t? •••••••.••••.. . ·· •· • ,., PvvE#IJ ~NE c¥c ~G"-r~N-. 14. What was its appar ent shapt.~ •.••.•••••••••.•••••.••.•.••.....•.• (a)

4{:,

15. Was any dota1l of structure observable? ••••.••...••.•..•.•..••• RESTRICTED

. . . /2


RESTRICTED -2-

. ........ : . .... . ko ......................... . ... ..........·..· .· .· .· .· .·

16.

Was any method of propulsion obvious?

17.

Was there any sound?

18.

What was its height? (or angle of elevation).4.~f~~:1':~.(z,D••._..,

19.

What was its speed? (or angular velocity) ••~.~~(. •.•~f."~!.": ...

20 .

Was the object stationary?

21.

What was the direction of flight wi th referenc e to landmarks or points of the compass? "tt c~-re-~" v

IY'o ................................... ..

...............................................................

22.

23 .

Did the object remain on a straight path, deviate, or manoeuvre at all?

..................YES ............ ..........................& ....... .

Was any trail of exhaust, vapour, or light seen? ••• t1.i?.....•.

................................................. ...... ....... .

24.

Where did object disappear? (eg, in mid-air, behind a hill, over the horizon) 0Vc~ Wc~IERN #o,<'/.Z O-"V . . . . ..

.. ................................ ...... .... ... ..... . ... ..

25 .

Do you know of Any physical evidence? (such as fragments, photographs, or other supporting evidence)

........ ..... ............ .../1/o ............. ............. .... ..... . 26.

27 .

Hav~

you obs erved any unusual phenomena previounly? • •~~ . •• • • •

I f so , give brief deta ils of incident(s) • ••• • •• •~-"J.-

... .... .. .

................................................................ f

28.

I

f

f

f

f

f

f

f

f

t

f

t

f

t

t

t

f

f

f

f

e

f

t

f

f

t

e

f

f

f

t

f

t

t

f

t

t

t

f

f

t

f

t

f

t

t

t

f

t

f

f

t

f

t

f

e

f

t

e

t

f

f

State any experi ence w.1ich enables observer to be reasonably c erta in about th~ answers given to 18 and 19 .

.!'?.«<f ~ ... !k..11.z!. .... /(~(/.L..~ ~.f. Y. ..... ~.~~~~of:~ . •. . . . 29 .

Arc you o member of c.ny organization interested in aerial phenomena.?

30 .

/Vb

• •••••.•••••••••.• • .•.•••••.•••••••••••..•••.•••••••.••••

name and address of organisati on •••••••

#..4. ·................. .

. ................................................ .............. . 31 .

hnY aduitionnl

inform~tion

which relates to the sighting .

. ((f.-1ft•.....tt: /??!. .... !f..~t!~. ~<~ .... P.'X'. ... ~~ ~- r:.. . .7!.#.~(!('1.~.... :f(. ~1'.~ .... .~'Y.~ ... ..~~Af.~F.~.... . .. . .. . RESTRICTED

. . . /3


IU!i:l'l'ltili'l'J!iJJ

- 3PART 2 - UNIT EVALUATION

32.

The following military aircraft were in the vi cinity of the reported UFO positi on at the time aAircraf t type ••••••• Head.i~ •.

(!?.-!-:'.; ..•......•....•..... ...•... ........

.•. . .• • . . . . ... . ••• • • T

Height ••••••••••••• •• • ,ooo f t

•• •• ••• • •• • •• T • . • ••���••••

•. •...•.•.••• ,ooo

I

•••••••

T

ft ... . . • •.... ,ooo ,t

Speed • •••••••••••••••••• •K • •••••• • ••••••••••• • K • •••••••••••••••••• K

33.

The following civil aircraft were in t he vicinity of the reported UFO pos i t i on at the time s-

6~-<. ~ ~~/~ WtJt../.<.L> ~ ;~;~~ ~ ..; :V .... #.;;e-;q ..•• ~~•.. "iX ~~· .. ~~. ·~;:. -;-;"'t: Read.il'lg' • •••••••••••••• T ••• • •••••••••••••••••• T• •••• • ••••••••••••• T

Beight ••••••••••••••• ,ooo ft ••••••••••••••• ,ooo ft •••••••••••• ,ooo ft SJ>eed ••••••••••• ••••••••• • K ............ •••••••• •K ••••••••••••••••K

Calculations show that the following planets or ma~or stare were in that portion of the sky at the times- ••••••• ~~'•••••••••••

......................................................... . ....

35.

4~~/. A met eorological balloon was released from ••••••••••••••••••••••• /Kb.A niJ:ln Otv ~..,.;., oe Vl$1 o,..; s at~r.:".-. -;~:;z and could have been in the reported uro position at the time,

36.

The State Observatory in the nearest capital city affirms that aerial phenomena in that portion of the sky at the time were

~~ ••••••••• (comet,

•••••••

meteorite shower, etc) •

• • • • • • • • • • • • fll • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

38,

There is conclusive evidence that t he object reported was ••••••••••

·•·•····•·•••··•·· •········ •··••·• ·•······ ·•·•·••••·•·•·•·····•·••• ····•···•·••·•···•······ •·······•···············•···········•·····•

been.~~~~• • •••••• ••• • •••••••• ......d<r.ffP.&. ~ 1: {? & /.~~~.....•.• tlt0. Rf?~: ....... .

39.

The ob ject r eported could have

40.

The

caus e ( or likel y cause) of tho s i&bt i ng cannot be

de ten~inod.

~/ ~/1,.<{/ ~(..f~~N&me) ...... ,(t{.. :(f(.~..~,7...... (Date) .•••. •.•~~ •.• :{T.:·•••••. (Rank)

••.•• . •• • .••••••••••••••• ••. • ( t.Jni:t)

R83TRICTED

....,,,.7-3.


• (Cp.;:r:;-oic:-.C.: Co;n;;...r.d ••s:;: 3/i./5} ?.'.RT -

-?

ob se:"\, e- • • .. . • . •• • . • .. . • .o. S • .J . ,. .T. ~= . • /C . • • . . • . • . • • AC~ - .•.•.•. , . , •.. , •. ,

2.

I / j-1/_.f; ;j / ,\ddrcos o:f ob!:.er-'Gr . . , .........• , , , .. . , . , , ..•. , •... .. , • ,: •••• ,. PHOJ,: ..., ., •• • • ,

............... ............ ............. . ~

j .

t~me

Dcte ar.d

, I -....., ._ .................... ~-

of observation ,-

')

Duration

6.

Cii.H lorvors locu. tior.. at tirue of ';../'~ /z~-;;.,

t.:;n-= /••

,

••••••••••

•oe.th e:-

.,

t

'

.

.

+-

' ,

t

t

(, t

t

t

t

t

~ I

"'

t

••• ..... ,

••••••••

~-

/"

,_-

·- .... , .. .. ,":·.. .'.,,.,.,,

I

• t" /:-:o~ .. oosl"!rva :;.on • • .•.•. • .•••••••.••••••••••••.

... ... ........................ .................... ........... . ''

t

t

t

·i?~m;

used in the observa t1on • •••••..•.••••.••

.._.../ ,,,.._ v

~ t

,

~lrile

uesc::-i'be e.!'I-:; c.i ls o:;: oc;. t

,.,.-v ~.:='I ~/.• " . , ......................... ' ....... ' .. ,

•• ••••••••

cor:u.':.'tJ.or~s a~

. .,. ' ...

••

sigiltir~ , .1. •.... ,.,,

,....

./

• ~ •v'lOn .,/,/ 04-~ OO..:t9I"'V'8 J/ , {;;r/'..,. , , . , . , , , , ,/ , , ,/~ , , , , , I' , , , , , , , . , , , , , . , , . , , . , , , , , ,

5.

8.

-

Ot::cupation or ooaerver . •• •..... • •.• ..• . •. . .••.•...•.•. • ...•.•.. , . • ... , • .

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

I

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

.... ...... ............. .. . ............ .... ............ ...... .... .... .. '

9.

.be::-e was obj~ct fir st ooserldd? bc.~ind c. hi:!.:!., O"e!' tile ho:rizon) .

(eg, ovcr~ea~ , coming f r om .c'

"~ 7._............ r;"'~,.(L=;f/,__,/;v J? "' .......................... :.._....,./ /f/' ~'/ L ::- ........ . ..,. .. ..... ...... ... ,.. .....

10.

'nat fir3t a••r acted obser ve r 's a ttention? (og, : i ght or noiso' •

.t!. / (

1

/~ ; -

/

..,-.

.._

c..~

-

·\r c..

• • • •• • • • ••• •• ·· · · ~ ····· /· ····•·••••••••• •••• t

: :.. .

••• t

•••••••••• •

•• •

•••••••••

.A j ,~=•••••••••••••a••••••• • •• • ••• •

C'"'

•••••••••• •

••••••••• t

••••• ••

'

•••••••

:Ji d object appoc.r as e. lie>ht or e.s e. defini to objc:ct? ••.. • ...... · · · · • · ·

~'

~

"./ -

~

/.TA

~

..,

./~';Lc..--r-

. . . . ,. ., !.!'

. • • • • ·-- . . .. • . , . • ... . r. , ... , . , , .. . .•. . , . . . . . . , •• , , .. , . • • • - · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••• t

•••••••••••• t •

••••• ,

••••••••• ••• ••••• •

•••• •

••••• •

•••••• •• t

•••

r:::.. .•:l nare ";'h,o;:-c? . ....•.•••.•• •••.•• , ••. • •••. • •..• • • • · • · · · • · • •

( )

.o-

(b)

in ..,_;.L>t i'orc.tl.on '\7cre ;;l;.ey? •.•• •• •• ••.•••.•• • • • ... • • .. • • • • • .. • • · · •

, .

.

.

....?

C;r-{'rt..,

t.L:

( .._, '""'

":~I) - '!..C:.:l": Or OOjOC"' .. . , , , •,, • •, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

~p~ront

,....

3h=.r:-c? ••. ~

.!f'.Y:-:-:--. ~'!F. ............•............

;,.., .

r..::.t ,..:1 its

15 .

,c.: ::.~1:,· dctc.i: of sv=.xcttu."C obsc=--Ja.O:o? . •.. .• ~~f.-.. . ..... , ... , .. . ...... .

.. /2


.J

............. ~

... _1'11

2 -

:6. 17 .

.ore ....~ ny

th

' 3 ::1

. , ...... ,A"' ............ , .• , , ••• • • , ............. , ••. , ••••

-'?

sou:..~\.0.. .

18.

::.9.

(c-~

•__ ..... ·~"" •t:; 3"'_--.•n.""'. . . ..... _

20 .

....

"""'-""

~Y-•" -- "e"oc~"--•) t-i.'"lt:J""'-•C.-

.... ,., -

...

-

- .-

-- •he ob•c~~t~ - ,o~·-,-> • ........ ... v "" ... ol • • • ~ o,;J

...

-...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... , •• '

r_ . -/

,.. /:

'!:.nt · ~.:: tho dirDc~ion o~ 1-:.:.gh~ "'t!. ~h reforwnco to l~i.dr:.c.r:~ or

"'l .

~ints

co~pass?

of teo

.. -~~s.r.:~.... ~ ....0~--: -~- ....... .

o o I

t

o

f

o o

t

t

o

t

o

t

t

I

'

o

0

o I

t

t

o I

t

o t

----

• •

'

...

•• •••••• ••• ••••• •

•••• •

••••••••••••••••••• •

t

••• t

•••

.it.:.~ c.r.y trc.il ol ex'baust, vapour, or lig!:t seen? ... , ...• , .. , .•.. • ,, ..•••

23 .

/""'

: •••••••

,

••••••••••

,

L/c / / - r

.................

.

......

.

.........

1

....................

..

....... .... .....

t

0

0

•.

0

••

t

0

I

0

I

t

0

t

I

I

I

t

t

0

I

0

0

t

0

I

I

I

t

I

0

I

0

I

t

t

0

t

0

o you ::•o~-o: o o.-:.y ~!:y:acc.::. evidence? (such as i'roe:;:.cr.ts, photo·rcp:.W, o:- otter s.:ppo:.-~~::.no evidence, i' /~

25 .

............... ...... .. ... .......... .. ... .......... ....... . ...

:1vc yol o~sorvcci. any 1.l.nU.3ual p:::.e!".ol:'lcna prcnously? ,, ......•-.. •. . ......

Z7 • :f so , gi va briof do tails of inciden-t( a) •• . - • . , •• , . • ;: , , , .•.. , ..... t

t

t

0

f

t

t

0

I

t

0

0

0

0

f

t

t

t

t

t

I

0

0

f

t

0

0

0

t

0

f

0

f

t

I

t

0

0

'II

••

t

t

0

0

I

0

t

I

... t

0

0

f

t

f

t

f

0

I

t

0

0

I

t

I

1

0

t

I

t

o

t

0

I

0

1

0

t

I

0

t

t

I

0

0

0

t

f

0

I

I

t

t.

0

0

I

0

f

0

I

0

I

0

I

....

I

t

t

t

0

I

0

f

t

I

I

0

I

0

0

t

f

I

I

t

I

I

l'ltn ,;o .::ny oxpcrioncc r•hich cnr,olcs obsol"VC:' to bo r·:o.soncbly Cvl"t~in :-.bout the a.nsm:rs given t{) 18 and 19 . 0

t

f

0

f

t

0

t

I

f

I

t

t

I

#

t

t

t

t

e

0

#

t

t

f

I

1

I

#

t

I

t

f

t

...

I

t

0

0

0

t

I

0

f

t

I

t

I

I

I

0

t

f

0

0

t

t

0

0

,

0

I

I

0

f

29 . J.rc you c. momoor ol' an:r cr-;:an~ction ir:;;orostr;;d in aoric.1 '[lh.:.noocnn? ••••••• t

30 .

•••• .(•

• •- . . . .

.. f

............. ,

,

...... ,

......... .

...... ,

••••••• •

••••

..~m'O t.na ~r.1d:-ur.;!:J o ... c::::-~-r.. ~sc-;;ion ••. , ••• , ••••• • .. • · • · • • • • • · • · • • • · • · • · • • • •

................ ........ ................................................. 31.

.

·rr.~rc a.id o'bJcct di:;::.ppe'>.r? (eg, in mid-air, behind a uill , over tho borlzor.) /,.., ~,.,/

.......

28 .

o

Did tho objoc~ =em~in on a str.ai~~~ ~tr., doVi~to , or nanoouvrc at ::.11? .... _..,· / / / "':") -~) -/·.; /..-.L_= / / /-~ <.......""/.~-y

22 .

21~ .

• '

.

-1.' > -J ~. ~ ~ "/CY i""~'.................................. .

• • • • •- • •

• . . -...

(/

""'

Lny .:-. d: "-Orl:.L..! .U:o~-~~0~ r.~::.cn =~:o.•cs •o too S1Gh•~n~ .

.5;, ~«~~4-=: ... ..... ':" -<:-.~ I

f

0

0

I

I

0

0

I

I

t

I

0

t

0

0

,J / :';;-L_=...... '/•__........... ... ........... .......... . ~

0

I

0

t

f

t

0

0

t

*

0

0

I

..

0

I

0

0

I

0

0

0

0

I

0

o

t

+

0

t

0

o 0

0

,_,~.

t

t

o

I

0

f

I

t

'

0

t

'

I

t

t

t

0

0

t

I

t

f

f

t

I

I

f

t

I

0

f

0

t

t

0

I

I

0

I

I

0

0

0

t

t

1

0

t

0

0

0

1

0

t

0

I

0

I

0

I

'

1

t

t

t

t

0

0

0

. ./3

t

0

0

I

0


~

- 3-

32 .

7: c fol:or.-:z.nt;

rcportod

r:;:.::. ~::-;,·

~i=cl~.:-; ~ .;;~c i_,,

· ~v po~~t~o~ ~~ ~he ~~~

tho 'Vicini-:.y of tho

~-

... 1.:-crcft .,.y,c • ..•.•...•..•.. ,., •••..•••.••.••.•..• , •..•.•. , ••...•. Ho~<:t!:'l(; ••••••

Eoigr. t

..................... .................

• ••• • •••••••• :'

•.•.... . . . . . . . . • . , 000

~

:t ...... ... , ,000

:;..., ... .. .. . ...... , 000

;-;

Spood. •• • •••• • ••••••••.• • :~ ••• • • , •••••••••••••••• K ••••••• , ••• ,., •••••• ~~

j) .

Tho foHomn& civl.l a:.rora:f't were in tha vicini•Y of •r.o ropone·i UFO !JOSl.tion at tho ti:.la : /~,. il·cra..-;.. . t

t;;pra ••...•••• , ••• , • , • . ••••••• , • , •••••• • •.•• , •.•••..••..•

lico.c1i!':g, . , .•. • .••••• • , ••••. T .••••. , • • ,, ••••.•. , ... T,, ••••• , • , • , . , ••.• :: i!cl"it;:t ••.•••• • ••. • •••••• ,ooo

)..;

.

j~ ,

spood

f

t

e

t

o f

f

t

e t

t

f

f

f

t

t

I

I

'

:rt .. . ............ ,ooo

,1( .

QOtcoro~o~cal O~::oon ~as

rt

at.

at::~·:::: :·

.I

I

II f

I

I

I

f

<#

I

I

t

I

I

'

I

#

i{

., c:.o

ft •..••••••• , • #

I

# I

I

'

I

I

I

I

'

'

'

'

., '

1

i~

released from ,,,, ... ,,.,., .•. , .. , ,. , . .. ,

J

:3 rr..ci cou:tl

bcc,n in tile reported u.?C

i:a.Ye

;1034 -;;ion

S-;;c.t~ vil::.,crv.::."lory ir: -..:tc nca:::-est capital cit;r c.i'Zu:v.s 'thc.t :1on~.1 nb.vr.omc-:./n -.;bat :JO~t :. o:"i of th" sky at tho time ~:oro

36 . ':'ho

•.•.•.•.• • ...•..••••.•. ( co:uo-. , metoori te shower, o•c ) •

37 .

.•ny o";~ar l't;;lp~nt rllrrz.r1ca (og cbou• satc::.~tcs , roc!<llts, ro::cc~::c1. b.:"..l'-l"oon::;) ••••••• , ..••• , , . • •• , , , • , , , , , •• I

I

;..~ .

t

I

#I I

I

I

I

I

I

f

I

t

I

I

I

t

I

I

f

I

I

f

I

I

I

f

f

I

I

I

I

I

I

# f

I

,

,

.

.

.....

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

f

I

.

I

..... ,

•• •

I

II

I

I

I

I

':'horo io conclu::;ivu ~vidcncu 'Ci..at the obj.::ct roportoo. ·.·: es •.•••••••••.. •

t

f

'

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

f f

'

'

t

t

t

#

t

'

I

I

I

I

.. I

I

I

I

t

I

6

I

I

I

I

I

I

•' •

I

····· ·········; ·····························; ··········i;; ············

Tho obj:ct. '!"cpon d cc-..:c:. .:;.avo bc:er .• • r.=;-~;r;••.t'>'{'~· ... ( •••••••••••••••••••• •

•••• •

••••••• •

• • <# •

,

••••• '

•••••• •

!.fY.'S ..• · .. · ·

••••••••••••• '

•••

" .. bo doto:cinod .

... :.....f ~~ .</........... ~Ur.i .

r-r--......-

r I L-.---?.... / t}

~;, I ' I.._:.A ~7 ...•••.••....•••.. . •••.••••••• _.btc)

;._,(':: • • .. ~ •

• ' • • • I •

'

<.;.

• • • • • • • • ' • • • ' •

"''

/

(l J--c) -~...

~""''"; ""- • • • • • • • • • • ( R.:.n:: .) .............. , ... , ~.


- ...

C -

- __.._ __..- .

......... .

....... ooser-ver • .•-......-~~""' .••. 7-: •••••• '" c ••.• •""-: ...., • ••• , ... . .....~C.C ••••••

.. .

i';;::;e of

2.

i.ddrcos. of obcert· r ..... . .. . . . .• , ....... :-. , . •. •.••. . • ... , . ... .... . ..• . .•...

I"' ••

••

.-.

I

_,-

_,.-

/,:. £.

/

...:- ?-"'

;

//

,--...,.-

-.

t7. .· .. ."': -:-:. ~:. ':-.: .-: .-:-. .,,. . . . . . .. .... ?l1Ul:E ............ . , ......': .\..~ _. , . , /" .... _ ~ / .

• • • :-- .

Occup<.nion of observer ... 0.'?:-'. ~

'• .

De to a.nd

~ime

.'-; . ..~ ..~... ; .:--:':--:-':' . ~ ...._.... . •.. :-;-

J .. /..<:-: .. ."'. . ~ ..... ,.(;, :-.~. , .. ......

of observation .. ./..

5-

s.

'

I

,-,....

f?e>.t-·t~r

-~f-1}113.

-,

I

f

Jc I

f

.

I

I

I

t

r._:I

I

f

t

...

f

f

f

I

f

f

I

t

I

t

I

I

#

f

I

f

I

t

f

f

f

It f

"

f

f

t

It

1-r._..,.,., ...:

. h .

Cbncrvers location at time of

~

'-./.../T'I J)

Gl.g 1f'l.llg • • • • • • , • • • • , , • • , • • • • • , • • • , • • •, • ��� • ,

... , ..................................................................... .. .

•-t-

oa t.nc:-

•.

of'.

c_ ___::/?/(" -

<,- r./1

•.

1ons a"' ,;:..;ne o- oosorva ":.on ••.•• , , ••- , •• , ....... . , , • , •• , • .

co:1a.~

. . / ?. •~(Y., • . • •·• • • •, • • • • •, • • , • . • . •. • • , • • • •,, • • •• • . • • • • • •,,,, •• • •. •, • • .. //r <"'c. --::") uescr1 cu e.r:: aicts o:r oqvi>JQent used :.n the observa"tion ... . .... .. ........ .

"-- '-/ ~

"

.} •

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •

•••••••••• •

•••••••••••••••• •

•••••••

t

•••••

r..e::e w~o objoc"t • irst obser1c:cl? behind ... r.ill, o·.:e~ :;<o hor:.zor.) . i) . ,.-.~....., .... _ r-1 ~., -

t

••

( eg, overhoa.n , comin~ from /

=.:..c...;za

2 - :; ~: -...-(~ .Ac.-r- _.•..• . __ '?;/'1•. ..........•... •/•

•• I •• • •.. • •.••.•.•• . •.• . •••. • • .• .••• . •. • •••

10. ":tl&t first a-&trr.cted observ9r 1 s a -.tention? (og, l i ght o1· no1s e) .

11.

L / Ci//T

I

I

t

f

f

f

t

t

t

f

t

t

t

t

f

0

f

f

f

t

I

I

t

f

t

f

f

t

f

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

0

I

t

f

f

f

t

Ill

t

t

t

I

I

t

t

t

t

I

f

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

f

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

f

f

••

t

••

1

t

t

0

t

t

f

t

f

t

t

I

f

I

t

t

t

t

t

f

f

t

t

t

f

t

t

f

f

t

t

t

I

t

I

I

f

f

t

f

f

I

f

t

t

. .,

t

t

t

t

••••• •

VC.

I

t

I

t

I.I.

t

f

f

I

••• f

•••

f

f

I

I

I

I

t

f

'

t

t

•••••• •

t

f

t

I

t

t

t

••••••• •

t

o

t

I

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

f

t

••••••••••••••••••

f

t

t

••••••

f

I

f

f

f

f

f

,

•••• ,

f

f

I

f

I

t

I

t

f

f

•••••••

'

••

:i:1 -.noro •·-s mor.;; t'h:m or.<:l obj~.oct :-.

( ) (b) l

I

t

/T Did object appeo.r as a light or as a definite obJeeu . • •••.••.••.... t

12.

t

t~crc? .... .... • . . .. , .!;-~ ,(.(,-:, ••••••• · · · • • • in ·1!l.:lt th~

:.cr._.:.t~o';".

uere

t~ev? .

~ •

.• • • .. • , , , •• ,., .•••••• • •• · • • · • · • • • • • ·

w

_/' .."~

---.h._

-

'J,£;..,.~C.

-: :

• . • "7"\..- T • co ....~ ot:.r of --c::l} l-4..g:: t or ooJ c . . ? . , • , • , ..••••...•.. • . · • • • · • • •

t:.p';)Cront s~pe? ...•• , --:--;(• •...••.... r':-!7'. 9. ..... · · · · · · · •· · · ~.;o :.ny dot..:~l of str-.lC'tt,;rc observab~a? , •. , • ! .... , ... , , .

#

•• •••• •

···I ·


- 2 -

::.6.

.:1s cny method o'f

J. ~ .

:l3

~- on o..., --.~ .. ?. ..... . ....... "c o -· ytt..- ..... ....o:.:..s . . . . .,

thc:ro c:ny :;-,\:nd? •••• • ••••• .': ••••••••• • •••••••••••••• • •.•• , ••••••••• -......-,."

,:~

{o::-

"· ~, .

~t

... _

~_..,_..__.lo,:.

..._

'

...

it~ ~peed?

tor-:#

, ... -r--:,..~

.,

n.~a of ~:eVi..tionl •·•·•·•· -f. •••.•• (: . :-•• , •.,-;-;-"

(c:- l:.~;,b~a-r ve:i..ocit:.:) • • ) ••••-:.-. .•.•• • ••••••••••• ••

-:he obJect ot=.t1.o::a~~? •..•.• .-•.•.• .;.~ ........ .. ...... ;-: ... .

.?0 .

.:..c.t '"/;;.:;

direction

t~c

po~r.ts ~f

coQ~as?

tho

/ a

-J

c(~.

.. ... .. ... ...·,y··· .... 22 .

... .. .....

-!'•

'I

-.k~/_

,./; e

••

t.:. objvct retn..!in on e.

Did

at

'I

'I

t

t

,f.

'I

.. / .

f

t

'I

I.

e

f.

'I

t

••• t

e

I . 'I

f

I.

'I

e ••

'I

'I

••

s'tri:'i1;!1t p::.-..;;'1, doVic:,.o , or r".anoouv:rc

~11?

r .,.-

..t.

/-/

./c;:--v..... ,,./

T

..~..--; .. .. ~ . < ....• . . . ......... ·•···· .....•... . .. .. ......... ··· · · .. . ... . . 23 .

~:;

'I 'I

'I

.... ·- , .......... , .... .

c.r.y trr.il o ..· oy.bl.ust, vaj)our, or ligh• seen? ... #

f

•• I

t

t

1

I

I

#

I

f

I

t

t

#

I

I

t

I

t

f

I

I

I

I

f

#

f

I

f

I

"

I

I

I

I

#

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

f

I

t

0

f

f

I

f

f

I

t

t

t

f

f

I

f

I

t

t

t

t f

t

I

I

••

,

I

r.Jrc d•d oojcct d~s~ppoar? (eg, in mid-air, bonind a nill , ovor tho hor::.zon)

25 .

~~""'

••••• ••• •

•••

If

t

I

t

t

#

t

I

t

I

I

t

I

t

f

I

t

I

I

I

t

1

t

t

t

I

f

I

t

I

t

f

t

f

1

lio ;;ou .::-.or. o:t C.n:J '1-'by::;:.e<:.: e·.·iil.enco? (such as i'r::.gn'.cn~s , pho:oor ot~~= su~~or~ing avi donce,

gr~phn ,

/'VO t

21.i .

I

t

I

I

#

I

I

f

I

I

I

I

t

t

I

#

t

t

t

I

I

e

t

I

t

I

I

t

t

I

I

t

I

t

t

t

I

t

f

J

t

I

I

t

1

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

t

I

t

I

#

H::vc :,·ell obso=vcd <lny ur:mst;a: pher.o;:;ena pro;riously? .. .~/,-' v'C

·-•.

/'_,

'n en ·( 27 . If so , givo brief dct<lile 0.1. 1-.nc:.~ " a 1 • • .I. "/ C.·~ '\. c.../' r _.:./ ;Jc'-C..J v ~~: ~· ·~·f;·~·, · ir;~~·.· ~~;. .D

I

.............. :,·. I

I

28 ,

t

I

f

I

I

I

I

I

t

t

I

t

••

I

I

I

*')

t

t

I

t

I

I

f

•• I

t

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

•••• •

I

/,

,

I

:-:. ••

u/ //-

/

...... ,

t

I

..., ......

,

••••• ,

••

\1;:;((;,1· ;[;;;,··.· .

f

f

t

I

f

t

I

f

f

'

I

I

t

. , .

I

I

I

I

I

t

a

I

I

St:l'l;O .::ny oxporioncc 't'lbicil on.:<blcs observer to be r..:o.soncbly cvJ't.ii.• .bo;.t teo cm.:m-..rs givon to 18 ::_nd I

I

I.

tIft

£· ,k.C...,-::n_..,..A/ c.._:

c.

, - ···//N' t

t

f

# #

t

f

t

f

#

t

t

t

t

tIft f

you c. member oi an:: hono:!lonc.?

#Itt

f

t

t

t

t

cr~nization

l'C

f

0

1

t

;_r. / 1/..:_ f' :r, \_{ ...../g<; f

~~

t

f

t

t

t

t

f

tIt

fIt

t4

t

t

t

t

fI

t

t

t

~oriel

1.ntcr oatcd in

.. .. ......... ... .. .... ......... , ... ................... . ........... ......... /

30 .

..·tl:!l':l c.n· cd ro&c o ... . oro . .nisc.-;ion ............. . .~~ ..

til

••• •

• • ..

•••

·~·

··· ····· ························1···· ········ ··· ·············· ·· ··1 ··· ·

I

I

I

I

t

f

t

f

t

t

t

I

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

I

t

I

t

f

t

t

I

I

f

f

t

f

t

t

t

t

1

t

t

t

t

t

t

1

t

t

t

f

t

t

t

t

t

t

I

t

t

I

f

1

t

t

f

1

t

t

f

t

.. ............. .... ......... ...............

t

Itt

tit.

t

t

t

t

t

t

I

Itt

I

ft

I

t

I

t

t

t

t

I

f

I

t

t

t

f

0

t

t

It •

f

t

t

I

0

t t

t

t

I

t

t

#

ttl

I

t

f

t

t

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

. ./3

Itt

I

f

t

I

t


• ,.,he follor."i.\16 n:~::. -wcr.; :.ir\:=a!-: wc=c ...... ~ho vici~i 'ty of tho

:!:? •

:-

~c~Jr!o~ L~V posi;~o~ ~t ~ho ~i~

..\ ~c=cft ~-pc • .• ,. •••..•.• , ..•. • ••••..••..•..•••.. . • . .••.•. , ...•.•. ~··

U

~

nO ... "J.l.~ ··• • •••·•• • •••••••• •

Jo::.~;·

•.....• • •...•.••. , 000

Cpcoa .•

:a.

.. ,.,,,,, ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:

,, •••

M

7 7...........,

00\.1 ft •.... . ...•

1

vov

.._'7.

••• • •• , • , .••.•.• :: •.••••••••••••.•.•.•• •K •••..••.••.•...•...• K

ho fo~lo•r..!ig Cl.'lL ni:craft were in •ha nci.nity of tna N!lorteG. FO po:n t ion e. t t:1o ti:ntl : J\ircr.l-..."'t "v.·rpu •..•.•••.•• • ••.•••.••.•..•.•. r , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ':f •••••••••

Iioa.din

Ht.,;igh1j, , •..••••. , ..••••..

,ooo

Spcvd • •. . . • ••.•...•.••.••. •

•••• •

•• •• •

••••••• t

•• • •

••

, • ••• ••• • •• T ., . •....•• , •. , ... , T

£t . . ... .....•. .• , 000 ft ...•....... . , 000

:< •• , • , ••• , ••••••• ....K .• ,., •.• ••• • •• . .••• 1~

3-l .

36 .

·.nd. colL.tl !:ave bo"n in the reported liiro position

•••••••••• • t..

1..

Tho ~t~t~ C~3cr;~tory in ~~c nca~ast capi~~: city affi~~ th~t aorial ph~r.omcna in tha~ ?ortion of the sky ut tho time woro

. , .• .•.•.•.••.. . . . ...•..•. (cowot , motoorite shower, otc) . o~..:ar rolown t ro;.arlcs ( og about sa teli toG 1 rock•• to, 1·ooaarc1! bnlloons} . ........ , ... , ..... , .. . •. , . , .. , . , .. , , , , . , , .. , ... , , , ..

3, . ,my t

t

I

f

I

#

38 . .-r.oro

I

t

lC

t

I

I

t

f

I

f

t

f

t

t

t

f

t

f

t

f

t

t

t

#

t

t

t

f>

f

t

f

40

f

f

f

f

f

#

f

f

f

#

f

t

t

t

I

t

I

#

t

f

t

t

f

I

f

I

I

I

t

#

concll.lGl.VO ov1doneo "tha"t tha object raportod 1·:as •••••••••••••

....................................................................... .... . .... ·······....................................................... o ... 1oct ore""" J .... -r ~ cculU

.•::1.0 • •

• •

;:;"'l ~,. ~ • • ••

';"; ,

!'l&.¥0 ~o:e!, ..

Ct .- ' " ~'"'~S

••••••• '

•••••• •

"

,,., .• , . . . , . , . , . , .. , .. ..... • • • · · •

•• ••••••••• ,

.. # •

t

••••• t

t •

• •

• •

• •

..... •

40.

· · · • ·. • • •

;(/~~':~':. •..... (Ur.it) ---r. (..~ 'I

/?

"'-:') ~-· .:1-.7. ,

• • • •, • '• '• • '• • • • • •

->'

OJ.~, • • • • • • •

-Ja"tO )

r

r; -

L /

/

......!(.: .... .--/:- :-:"':'-:' ..... . '/ <." /

::.co)

v -.. . ) :-v·...... ..-....

~,;... .•.•••.....•.:X.-;•.• #'

.

/

~


••

' J. !' ,. ::r;- :NC:. OBJ::"'CT

03;1~

"'-:'1

3/•/5)

(Operational Command AS::C

/f);_.~I{ _,

~'"'k

i:amo o1

2.

Add roes of obse;;er .• • ( .

3.

.:~cr: .• ':-?~.... :•..

~rf.l£'6.]."'..~T.j ..fJ!:.~'/!Rr. ~... .... .~ ~: ~.

;v6,/ · · " •••.. " • . • • • . • • • • .. • • • . • • • • . • • • • • .. • . • • • • • • • .•• • PliOll'E . •.•....•

I

••

I

•••••••

f.?(.ft'tf. F·tf-l~t!'.... .. .......... .... 'b~~ · ;4. "h(; 60 ..ZJ.·,6-tJ 01~ ob serva t · . •• .•.•...• '.•1..•...2•./T .. . ..~--..•...•. ... ·.... t :Lme 1 . "' t 1on . . _L....., ~ 01~ ooo:»erva , ,,•ff--•• •.•.••• , , , , • •. • , ••. ,, .•• . • , .• , ,

Occupation of observer .•••.. Da. t e and

Duration

6.

-:':> -!

obae.rver •• ~. 'f!f~Y: . .':". ': . .S,.~ .... ,. ·'· .. /

1.

~on

-<------<"

~,.,, . , . , ,.,

.,.

.

..

.

. . . .~-' ~

.,

'#~

Coservers locnt1on a. tlQe of ~gutlng ••••••••• • •• ~ ············ · ·

~b.'..~: 1·~-:-. · · ,·aa't· ~:.er cou d l.· t 1ons a t t l.me

... o~

... '.................. ·: ..~ .... ,. . ........ .

· .: ......... --=--,c.,<, ob serva t l.on , . , , ~,A./-• . , '/ ' ...... ... ,,

L

:.~~~:·7:-·:~ ... ~:: ..~ .... .• .....• ·: ............ .

8.

Desj'ibo

a~y aids

obs~rvation .• ~ ••••• • ••••

or oqu i prnant usod i n the

. .~ f~l, :ffw. .......................................................... .

...................... .. .. ......... .. ... .... ... ..... .. ................ '

9.

··~ere wo.s object first obserred?

bohi nd a.,;_nl,

(eg, overhead , comin~ f r om

ova~••:x:J::::}.~o.-1

.... ~~· ········ · ········ · ·· ·· ······ · ·········· ·· · · · ··· · ··

10 .

"/hat fir st attr act.ed observ~r ' s a ttenti on? ( og, light or noise) •

~~~~~~- ~~~~: ... ... ........ ........... .. .................... ..... ... .... ... .........

11.

12.

•••

15 .

••

••• •

••• •

0

••••••••••

•••

•••

Di d objoot am>oar a s a light or a s a definite objoot? • .·••..•••... · · · • · ·

..~~~ ·~·4c.-:~·l·~''' " ': " ...f~f:.-!.'~:.~. ~,;,~~ .. ....~1~~d.· 'f;L;L; ~.....t-.._..,.Lc/~ J

:i:f ' thero •:r.::.s more than one objec t ':-. • . •

-;,~;!;;f.~~. .~- ••·•

< ~>

ho\": m:J.ny >7Sr& tt.cra? . .•..•• • • •• . . •

(o)

ir, "'lhat iorue.tion 'i"tar e tl:.ey? ..• ,., , ~. . .•.....• . • • • · • • · • · • • • • • •

13 . '/hat 1~ .

\lho.t

'·~s

t'ne colour of *h ·t . ., 'l 1':...g!:

\'ICS

its appo.ront shcpe? . •••

~~

.r-tfr ,;._

~~~4"-::;: r.{_.L 't/ ..... •.·/••. •••·

r o-...J·oct? ~ . .•.. , . . .. , .

..rtt:f'f./~ /..."-7':~c::. '.; ·..... / ·;'· ~· •··•

.

~C./~""/(_, . ?../'~

iaa :J.ny detail of stxu;::-urc observable? .,: •.••••••• .,,.,.•• •· • • · • • · · · • · •

~~

../2


••

- 2 /

.z~• . . . . :>:;Jio.A,A.. . .....-..:.~o,..... o.o- .•. ..~.-o;.;.s; .: . .., •••• • ••• I y .•••

I

t

I

I

t

0

Itt tt.

I

o

I

:8 . •'-~ ·--

··-·~~

:?1 .

i:.o.t ·r::.::; the di::-.-ct::.ort o:' poir;'f:o :)J.. the co::;,a:::::;?

4

~

,...-?-......-!!~• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • ·,

~l::.ght

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

.

t

t

L1d ~c obj ct e. t o.ll?

~..

t

t

t tot t

0.

:~~ln

t

..

It

,,

I

t

Itt It

It

I

s~~. ~~~~ ~~a,

on a

lcndr..ar:~:s

·:;it.h ::.-eforct.cc -:o

C--J'~ ~ ~~'

t.

22.

c·o-cc ol •

t-~ .... ·o-~-·.., _ ...... , • •• '

20 .

tI

t

t

t

f.

It

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

or

t

t

t

t

t. t

t

1

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

#

~.anocuvrc

deViate , or

...... • J . t

t

• 't •

I

#

t

# I

I

t

t

f

t

I

t

t

#

t

t

I

#

t

t

f

#

#

I

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

#

I

t

t

t

t

t

f

t

I

f

0

f

t

#

0

t

10

t

t

t

t

.~oro u~d object disappear? (eg , in mid-air, behind a hill , over ,;ho :torizon) · '

~~~ ·············· .. ... .......... ... ....,... .......................... . $- '-<.- /

.._

• lo you .:::o,:: o: cny :;;h;r:;ica:. eV:.1enco? (such as ir::.gmonts , puo.o7IO. pl:.o, or otter s•..;'j)porting ev;:ence)

Ac

~~v·o.. -~o· ..l . o. o.s. o.~·-c· o.~ •~ . .... us • • • •_· . •·• • • ••• • ••• • • • ·• .us • •1. y. ~ • • •

?.6 . "-

" •

:;r . If

f

I

"~3 .

ua ...

I

t

t

I

t

I

f

t

I

I

I

t

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

It I

I

t

I

I

I

f

I

I

..

I

It

I

I

proV1.o

p~eno;;;ena

;>{.·· •..... •...

. • ••.•. ...

. . of l.nc-:.dent(e) ••.•.. • • .A~ •• . ••••••••.•••.•. I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

f

t

#

t

#I

f

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

f

I

I

I

t

I

'

1

I

f

1

f

I

0

I

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

I

t

t

t

t

t

f

t

t

f

I

f

I

I

I

I

I

••

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

.

I

t

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I>

t

I

I

0

I

t

f't.'l.to any ox;:>oricncc 17hich ono.blos obscrvar to bo ruasonably O\lJ t ...in r.bout titc cnG'.1\lrG given to 18 and 19 . I

~:1 ·

..ny un

r.va bl~iof details

so ,

I

... •

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

t

I

#

I

t

t

t

t

I

I

I

I

I

t

f../1 t..._/

I

#

I

t

t

t

I

I

t

I

t

4

t

I

I

t

I

t

I

t

t

t

f

I

I

I

I

f

t

f

t

t

I

;you c. mombor oi any orca.nization 1.ntorost•)d in o.oric.l

•• ro

A~· -;;I(j. ..... ................... . .. ................ ·.....................

,c .

ra au.u.::c.cu o. or&.~r.:;.s<l t1.or. ••••••.•••( • • • ••.•• • • • • · • • • • • • · • • • · • • · •

l•Cl: .'l I

I

I

I

I

til

...

I

I

t

I

t

I

II

I

I

t

I

0

I

I

Itt

t

I

f

f

I

t

t

t

t

t

t

1

ttt

t

It t

t

t

tt

t

f

t

f

t

t

11 I t t

t

f

I

.. t

t

t

t

t

t

61

1

tIt

t

f

It

t

t

#

t

l

tIt

t

I

I

t

I

t

I

t

t

I

I

t

t

1

t

t

I

I

I

I

t

If

I

I

I

f

t

I

I

t

#

t

Ill

t

t

f

Ill

t

I

I

I

#I

t

I

It

............ ........... .................... ............... ......... .. ............. ... ............. ........ ... ...... ...................... . '

'

'

. ./3


••

2 Tho follor.~nb c~!~~~Y ~~r~:~:~ •c~c in tho vic~~i•y o~ ~he rcpor~cd L?V position ~t the ~~~a .-

}2.

.:n.rcr::.ft t:· c •.....•..•••.. • •.•.•••.•.•.•. .. ..•••.•.•.•• . •• • •••.•. F.o-.din, •........•........ •: Hoi.<'

• •• •••• • ••••••••• ,

f

f

f

000/ ... ~

t

t

f

#

t

#

I

f

t

f

f

f

t

-.lrr.

f

t

f

f

v :0

•• ., ••••••••••• ,

t

I

t

t

t

t

t

I

t

I

t

t

t

t

t

M .L

f

.l" .t .......... , '->00

Si)ooa ••.••••••••••••.•• • t~ ...•..••..••... ,., .••. ·: ..... , •.••... , .....• r~

:n.

':':1o fono•.nnt; civil &ircraft were in tho viclnity of •no I'<lported u~ pooition at t~o timo :.\i~·cr-:r""t

t;rp."' • •••• • • , ••••• , •••.••••••• ,.,., •••••••• , •••••.•.••..•

Hoo.c1i ne •• • •••.••••••••••••• T ....."':. •• , •• , •••••••• ' ... T ••••••• ' •••••••• • T I

/

lioit:;ht .... . .............. ~o ft ••.•...•..•••. • ,coo ft •. , •... . .... ,ceo 3poud •• ,.., •••••••• • •••••• , .K ••• , ••••••••••• , •••• K ••••••••••••• , • • , , ,1"' J

C::.lcu:::.tiona show •h....t the :fol:owing pl.:r.ots or ICa.)or ste.:-s were in ~.at po=tion of tho sky a~ tho time:- •••••.••••••••••.• . ........

·························#···· ···· ·································· 35 .

J\ tioteorological b.:.lloon ·.as :-e:eased from ••••.•••.• • •.••••. • •. •• •••

c.t ........... z .-.n:i could :mve been in the reported t~-;.e .

<'.t the

36 .

posi1;ion

1;1'\j

?ho Sto.t•J Oi:sor-;.:.tory in -.;!:o nearest capitcl chy af.fi=ms tho.t aori ~1 p:: ... nort.cr.a in tl:a t ::;>o:t"l;ion of tho sky at tho time ~;oro

, . .•...•••.••...•.••...••• (comet , meteorite showor 1 'to) . r'lt.:~rks (og abou• satolitoa 1 rookcns,

37 . ..n;,· ot1:ar l'•Jlov::.nt

rortonrclL bhlloons) , , ... • .•. . .. , • , . , • , , , .. , , • , •••.•...•• , . , , , . , . , • , , , , . I

t

f

I

f

Thoro

·.p .

f

f

I

I

f

f

#

f

f

f

f

I

f

f

f

t

f

t

I t' t' f

f

t

I

t

f

t

f

f

I

t

1

t

I

I

I

f

f

f

f

f

f

I

f

f

f

f

f

f

I

I

f

f

f

0

f

f

I

I

t

f

f

coilclu::;ivo cvidcnco tha-t the obj.::ct reported wes ••••••.•.• • ..

1::;

•l······ · ~····· · ····················•ltt•t••··········l·············l·

t'

t' I t' o

f

f

f

t

I

f

I

I I t'

f

t' I t' • I

I

f

t

I

/

t' l l f

39 . 'r'r.o object :-e?o=•<'-c! cou::.d I

t'

f

I

I

f

I I

f

.

f

I

f

f

f

1.

f

f

I I

t

f

t'

f

f

f

t'

I

f

t

f

f

1

f

r

...... ... .lt.C;;{.( {/.......... <Ur.i.t) I

t

I

t

t

f

t

t

..:.· 0· T<.o oA-• !'"'o 1.7 I

f

f

f

t

t

t

t • •

1

t

t \

I

I

f

f

I

I

I

b<:c;. .•••.•

.:lC?.VJ

t

I

- ) ~ "';C

f

f

1 1

If

t, 1

f

t' t'

t

f

f

t'

I

t'

f

f

f

I

f

I

f

f

I t' 0

f

t'

f

f

f

f

f

t'

f

./.19~./... ·:.··•··•········· I

f

f

f

I

f

I

f

f

I

f

I

I I

f

f

I I

f

f

f

1 I

f

f

t

I

f

I

r:-~...:1~ / • ••• •

I ,.,.

t"•

• •• ••••• •••••••• •• •• \"-1-0..,)

... •:.. ?-:--: :7', f.J?-:!.'. •.... •.\r.:: n:~)


.'

ROYAL AU STRALIAN AI R

TELEPHONE: 690SSO HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT COMMAND

RMF TUEGRAPHIC ADDRESS: "AIRCOMMAND, MELBOU RNE""

IN

VICTORIA BARRACKS MELBOURNE SC1 VIC

~EPlY QUOTE 5/f/Air( 80)

2 2 JUL 1967

Secret ary Depart nt of Air Rus s l Off i ~es ~ , ERRA ACT 2600 UN- IDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS Forwarded are two reports of a UFO, together with I nvest i gationg Offi cer ' s report of the sighting at LINDENOIV SOUTF, Gi p~sland Victoria on 8th July 1967 .

( L. ..... .

.dR(;

Y'

Wing Commander For Air Officer Commanding Encl

/

_Rt......, -- -1

j

~~.~TED .


!

I

• 1. .he object ·r :first re cr";ed tc the Order!.; Cfficcr "o RM. Dase 'EA.,; .: .!..... on the evening of 8th July • ;s; tl::-oUt b the cr.;!>ALE Police.

z.

!t .s c-..1 c uently esta lished ... ~t tbree • ersontJ • d obaervc.i t e ct on the ni t in uac ..ion; .r. Grcwcot"t, I..:. a _fe: c.n t oir oldc:- on. :Jurin the courso f •he invest:!. ticn it ·ro.a rovc:lled th<>t the object ha.d bcm si.Jhted t f:Urly r 'lllar interv !.ls eve c • aiod of :from 6 to 12 ontha d h d, in fact , b n saon :J8ail1 on ... he ni l;.t of 10th July 1967 by '!rc. ,rowcott .:m • hor :,'Ount;Jr :m . 0

j

3.

The thor conditions on bot the bt -m:l 10th of J ly 1967 uero of t i ti a of yor.x i~ Cll'PSLJJT.D: one to t 10 oi hths of cloud clo.:trir. between 1600 - 1S')O hour:::, fog • ~tches in the r:cn, c.nd an invercion :n be LJU,lO V ~EY ,;h.ich ·~rs not appa-ent on the intorvcning niE;ht of ?th July 1967. On tl:.c ni :hts in questior., the locol !!oteorolocio l •(' ·ion h~d rcle oed illumin t ·~c ther b'lllcona bctiiCCD 2000 ";..nd 2030 bot~ ~ • Bee uoo of ""he tin. c!iffor cc ".n tho ~:el'ltive lack of mcvener-t of the ro ~rt. object , it is con i or d h t theec ~ere not the object cbo~·v~d . t~'Iic 1

Cne ire ircr 't cili ch landed t EL"T SAL. t 1730 houro on h J ly 1967 ia the only ro orta ... llir mov~ent ne:= tho ri.J.ovant times co thi:; os;:.ibili ty h s boo exclude •

tc he . lir .Aloanec revealed thct the only 't-ody lik-:!ly to ticc u. e .:.ndic.,ted sectior. of EJk¥ oul e tho pl :net , ho··eve:- . ea :rlte .nd uld not, .:...... Jl c .,e, be o I.' ei •!.r.., as re_a'ted.

6.

...

.....:.o older son were not Y:dl blo 4.;. interview .:nterv!.Er.f inforced tt.. t her younger eon w d ut ~as "fcirl y e:cci t bl"' ".llJ ten ea. to ex or t c".

7.

In view f o 'll' tly large ntll''Jer of ":i ;re consi erec.. th t thic object iz some";~!.~'l or • 3da :t eno r ation _ v • frc:.. LL. ..:...·o ..c...'l'H, 10.d t~oa • r v .ili.n invorcicn ~ · t o both rec~t ci. hting~ , it i ccn"i ored th t thin ly ~ r .lection of' the ~ :.rn cea t the zohrcod pOif~ st· tion, :here •. ov ent of crno.~e clouJ.n could c:J.use the " .... shes" ...nl colour ell lltiOO ascribed. as .ell no a ~1 &. atial movEtllents.

~k ( • D. HIJ

u .. )

Pilot Officer InveotiG tine Off1cer

I.

l:.iED


RES f 1.iC..l t:.D REPORT OF AERIAL OBJBCT OBSJ!:RVED

1•

Mt1rx.c: u. ta.o ~ c..o .,.Name of Observ-er ••..••••••••••••• • •••••••••• • ••••• . . .••• Age of

L.l~oe-~vo...

... ..... .

'OOVT"ti

Obse1.~er . ...... . . ..... .. .. . .................. • • •••• • ••.•• J ••

2.

J\ddress

3.

Occupation of

Dato and Time of Observation (Time to be given in local time)

1Jo:S:.~t1 -H-FriA)I ~o'"''" ro:a.,._tz AP~ . . S"n. Duration of Obsorvation (a) • •••• ¥••••• • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~

6.

floo;ao...uF.£ Obsei"Ver •••••••••••••••••••••• • •••• • ••••• • ••••••••••••••

Observers Location at Time of Sighting (Givo details of own position by map reference if possible, or by known landmarks)

.............................................. ~~~

:£.,_

~

;i?~t.blE~>~lt.

rf-r

.t./.c."l>!;!u

SOLfiH

()v

··•·········••••·•·•··· ··•·•················•··•·•·•••••••···•·•·········•······ -p 1-(' E?s. C-4-e;:.,.//l... WeatheT Conditions at time(s) of observation(a) ••....•...•••.•.....•••

................................................................................ ()IV

8.

{krr.{

t'cc-lfti~S

Aids to Obser vation(s) .

(Describe any equipment used in the observation)

PI( ................................................................................ ..-('ez_Es:.ur.e. ~b

R,Ft..~

J./8:J.IGtoLE

s,~!f-r

~c.:!i'St'iSE

()I»"'--.:>

I~

IJO

i"e.-?"E<

~c; tA·o.v<.

>~~

···················· ·······•·•······ ··•·······••• ··•• ··•··••········•••··•·•·•· Wher e was object first observed, eg, overhead, coming from behind a hill, over the horizon, etc.

................................................................................ ;.ov

'"' ~.fiT" .fCtrrlf ~ ~N

(./o~~zc,. - otv SCto»b txutfiO•'-' AI~~?'~! -ro L!"Pk-r

10 .

What first attr acted observer' s attention, eg, light or noise •

11 .

Did object appear as a light or as a definite object .

.. ............................-................................................. . •

d .............................................................................. . j)i?f!y A/ 1T'7:

12.

0~

ec,.r:-

If there was more than one object , how many were ther e, and what was their format i on .

OIJ;;;! 0/.,'~o-l..f ..........•.......••••.........•...........••...••...•. .•.....•••. .... •... ...•.• oiC~~e

ti~~J>vfhLv

c tf47V41>-J.:..

•·••····· ~ ~ ~ :..·o.l~~r-'

13 .

What was the colour of the light or object

14 .

What was its apparent shape ·····•••••••·•·••• ••••• ••··•• •·•·· · •••••··•

&TONi:

Was any detail of structure observable 16 .

II ;>Pili!~

ilf?~t+Vce

t9F~-?7h~' ~c-.. ~

•••••••••••• •• ·•·••••••••••·• · ·· ~Y

,._ D . b . Was any me thod o f propu1e1on o ~ous ••·•••••••••••••••••·•·•·•·• · ·• ·•• Was ther e any sound

IJO

····· ·············•···•·•·••··•···•················ .

w; C?

#t;cve

If.,. I{, ::z.o,v

18.

Height , or engle of elevat1on •••••••••• y •••••••••·•·••••••••••••··••••

19.

Speed, or angular valocity • • •• • •••••••••••••••• • · •·· •• ••••·• · ·••••··••

20.

Was the object sta.tiona..r y·· . •... .•• •• ••• • Y.f!.~

21.

Nil-

................ •••••••·••

What was the diraction of flight with reference to landmarks or points of the compass.

··•·••••••••·••·•··•··•·•···••·•·············•····•·••·•·····•···············•·· . ../? RF · f.·ICTE D


RL ,,d 2-

22.

Did tho object remain on n

str~igrt

doviu~~

path,

or

m~noouvro

nt all?

<;"f'"lh"l C' /OJ~ '(

·· ················ ·············- ········ ········· ··········, ············ ····· ··· 23.

\Vss arw trail of exhaust, vapour or .ight aeon ••••.•• ~~ ...... .... . ..

24 .

Where did objoct disappear, og, in mid- air, bobind a hill, horizon•

.. •

'

...

...... .

ov~r th~

.... .. ........

0

••••••

Exi st~ncu of any physical ovidonce such as fraaments , photographs , or other supporting ev:Ld(•nco .

25.

....................................................... .......... ........ ..... . tJ O

Stft'tt!

cllr-....c-r

• •• •• • 26 •

Bave you observe d any unusua1 ph onomena

27 .

If so, givo details of incid~nt(s) •••• ••••••••••••••·•··•••• • •••••···•

28 .

State any experience which enables obsorvlr to be r easonably certain about the answer s given to 1Q and 19.

Jl!'l.lVi

rl4s

~C..,• wE-..-~ Y ous1y' • &trw • b~.t''t:CIJ · L!MY ' '-~ >0: ·~.vr lf"S

..................................... . ......................................... . 29.

Are you a member of any organisation inter.stod in aerial ph9nomens?

wo ................................................................................ 30.

Name and Address of orgsnisation ••• •.• •••• ~{ ~•• ••••• •• •••••••••• . •• • •

•··· ······•·•·•·••·•· ••·•···•···•··• ·•·•· ··•····· ······•··········· ·· ·•··· ···· •·· 31 .

Any additional information • • •••••••.••••••.• •••.••. •••••...•••••••••••

············ ~ · · · · · · · ············· · ··· ·· · · ···· ·· ························· ·· · · ····

•·•····•••••· •••••••••·• ·•·••· ·••··••·•••·····•·• ··•••••·•· ··········· ··· ···· ·· · Signature of Obsorver I( •• ,~""'~~·/;1 ••••••• • •••••••• ••

32 .

Location of any air traffic in the vicinit;r at the time of sighting .

..._ 4·11. '1ii.JP1t. ~ -r ~l'ltif -:, ·~u"fEb OIJ r..... . ' 1 /C s-~- 'I •·•··•·we···•··•·•• ··•· ·•• ·• ·•·•·· ··· ··· ··• •·•· ··•·••·OS•·••• •····•· ·········· ······ •.~••• •c.c~ ;11~!'~:•• 1:et;••?; ~~'!'!~••• f!'F. ••': 7~~.'!'~ . }?~-!~~ •.• •• . .• • · · · · · · · • "' I

33 .

QA.t(

Location of any meteorological stations in the ganeral

ar~a .

'*""'>

I?.~ ~Me ~-r > .J4E- - ...,Enr WEI2 &lJ.Let!H.·, .?t:c.C~re ~~ u~., ~ ,·c • u • • • • • • • • • v • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · • • • • • • • • • • · • • • • • • • · • · • • • • • • • • ,:..,:,:,;.;...; • :,j •~t·ttr1t: J

-rc At: SCl?rJ 11-r .,..,,.,c;s ,,., s ,.. .., ................................................................................ .................................................................................... &T>t

PJ..tf..?r

-r"rlr:-S i!!

' 'C.V<..S

W >f •Cof

t;~ v.._ o

7f'l•!

,q o>~il fi{

~·ce. n~-v t).:

•S

..,.-t<~C

\Jiolt "T'C. •

Int.~,.;rrogator •••&~b.':~. ft."';!'.:P

~UESTIONS

Signature of 32, 33 and 34 to be answered by interrogntor .

Since 1 t is normally impossible to aetimatG thG height , and speed of n strange objoct, it will usually bo better to ondoavour to determine tho anglo of elevation of thb obj~ct, the ~nglo through which it moved, and tho time taken to do th1s .

IC1EO


/

REPORT OF AERIAL OBJECT OBSERVED c.;~o .... c..C!I'7"1"'

<:4 t..EtUw

Name of Observer

•·······•·•··••············•··••••······

Age

......... (C)

:>:"'-' (('(

LtWl>IWVC•"'

2.

Address of Observer •·· •••• •••••••··· · ••••••• • •••••••••• •• ••••••···• J ••

J.

~ov01:at. c:A<fo~c~ Occupation of Observer ••••.••••••••••••••• • •••••••• •. •••.••••••••••. • •

4.

Dato and Timo of Observation (Time to be given in local time)

IJA.''-•"-'t E\;Co!., ;ri'<Cuu... ~ ~.~ 4t#tr /,o:s-"... '7 • •74'!:" #oo'lh-r ">•<,...,-,""•·\ ....................... . ...... . . , •••••• ~·•••••••••• · ••••••••• •.••••••• •••••71 • • •• • •

6.

11--f" ~L·•-r-

, . r. •..,......

tq.so- 1.0<"~

JSI)It'-4-"f

,

(

Duration of Obeorvat~on s

t;"eo-6{.Nu,y Ill$~

)

~

tc :.r; ' I II\Sr;.:-~ - ' t

l<'li~PY- 10n,.,.,

••••••••••• • ••••••••••••••••••••·••••••• • • ••· ~ .... ~ ....•...s Obsarvera Location at Time of Sighting (Givo dotails of own position by map reference if possible , or by known landmarks )

•······•••··••·•••·•·•• ·•••••••···•··········• rto.., 8/Jc•. v,;..:.o ,~ ~cr.~u:: fl..""""'~o., s=cw;-,. ·· ···· ·•·•····••·•·•·•···•·•••••···•·········•·•··•·••••••••··••·····•···•·•···· 7.

Weather Conditions at ti'me(s) of observation(s) •• /!:-.": 1."'.~••• ~~ ••••••• C'-~ "''r4,-r

I'Vt'TH

S'-r~l,

i/tSI8Li!::

~~tiJl>

OB'";T'€-<--;-

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •••••••••••••••• • ••••••••••••••••••••••• • •••••

8.

Ai da to Observation(s) .

(Describe any equipment used in the observation)

................................................................................ .-,'6£,~.:-cr'C

('Je:-b

t>-1 '?~tO<IS

~~~'rl-'rttV~

:(>,:...'~~

~1:::'1:>

~t <._.

."$ ;ze ••···•··•···•········•·•·•·•·•·•·· ·· .•.•...•.••. ...• ..•.••....... .•••.•.•. •.•. lo/lf)

,fi>p~.:--,-

t

114# l £~iS. ~

Where was object first observed, eg, overhead, coming from behind a hill, over the horizon, etc . A h ~I • R~r ~ tGre ~.. 1/t'l/t::Lc.v q. 'ff<lvifll.. 1:.> ~> i>oco-.J .... ~L·<~'Y

· · · · · •· · · · · •· · •· · •••· · · · ·~ · ·:4·;,. ~:.;. . •· · 3~~··ria·.:>:·e· ·.u;:;;.,·zo:..,- ·,~· ·Sii · ·.s ;...~~ · · · 10.

What first attracted ohserver's rLrlf/ltA.

a~tention,

~

eg, light or noise .

CC..sc , ._ S.-<'Y •.... ••• .. ••.•.•.•••••..•• .•.•..........•..........•..••.. ....•.....•...........

11 .

e

,t.l(11 (f - r

()l)ut llli<H7'Etl.

Hi4-rrlfti.J4

Did object appear as a light or as a definite object .

··· ··•·••··•··•••••·•••••··••··•···•······•••·••·• ·•·•····· ··••••··•···• ....... . 12.

If ther e was more than one object, how many were ther e , and what was their formation .

'- "f .......•..•.•... ..••...........•...•. ....•.•........ ON

-.Jis;;~·.;. ~o·. -~~~,~~·

C:~c:i::'<v

~

Y~r:-oJ

.. ..

Cl:MT.-1..,.-L. y

13.

What was the colour of the light or object •·•••••••••••••••••• • •••••••

14.

What was ita apparent shape

15.

Was any detail of structure observable ••••• •~r;'••.••.••.••••••••••••..•

16 .

. . AJO Was aey me tb od o f propu1 s1.on o bv1ous •. . • . •••••..••••.•••...•.• ·• · .• · • •

n.

Was there any sound

···· ··············· ·····•··•········••·········· ···

18.

Height, or angle of

alevat~on

19.

Speed, or angular velocity ••··••••••••••••• · ••••·•· · • ••••••• · ·•••••·••

20.

Was the objoct stationacy· · •••. . .•••••••• • •• • • ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · • •

21 .

What was the dir ection of flight with reference to landmarks or points of the compass.

IUbiEPt t.J 'TO:

··········· ··•··•·••••·· ···• ••·•·· ····• ····

~0

.

\-tO'" z:'r..So,-~,ot.J 0 ,... L.r!f"r !(;,<lfr,AK. •. . ••.•. •• •• • •• • ••••.•.••. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

~~'CtZ'i

~<..t:' ...~'t

SSE

~

":>

~t>

';>c ... "'

19

N/1/-

•••••••••••••••••••••·•••••••••••••••••••·••••••••••••••·•••••••••••••••••••••••

HESTqiCTED.

.. ./2


t

....

.

__

..,...

dCTE&

- 2 -

Did the ebject remain on a str a1ght path, ievia~c or manoeuvre at all~ ne• Et'tfEN.- 1.? 1/...>o -;,c-..,.. /1-..~~ .,.., ';?, .. , .,. 4.... /1..~:; ~~-r- l>c,~-

22 .

··········••••••••••••••··•···•••••••••••••••••••••••••••, · ••·•·•· · ··· · · · ··· ·~

23.

Was any trail of exhaust , vapour or light s eon •• , •.• ':'.C:., ••. ........••

24 .

Where did object disappear, eg, in mid- air, horizon .

be~ind

a hill , over tho

t.:"" ''c ,"> ................................................................................ o~ :..=~

Existence of any physical evide nce or othe r supporting evidence .

25 .

s~ch

as fragments, photographs ,

AIC ..............• .•.•...••......•.••...•• .....•.......... . .... ................... . Have you observed any unusual phenomena pruviously •• • !~ ....... ..... . 26 .

t:•6itt

Pt#~-r

12"'"~

~-E.t.,, w ~

Stlf~"-"'S cF A~ ~ ~ co~.- •'"i:.:~~ If so, give details of incid ~nt ( s ) ••••••••••• • ••••••·••• -n> s ... TO( ..JE-8• ,• -· •·•••••·•••

27 . 28.

State any experience which enables obsorvor to be reasonably cer tain about the ans·~ers given to 1q and 19,

uo •

29 .

................... .

.. .

............ t

•••••••

Are you a member of any organisation inter sted in aerial phenomena?

••••••••••••••• ••• •• • •••••••••••• t

30 .

At:: ...................................... .

•• ••

Name aod Address of orsenisation ••• · · · · •••••••••••••••••••••••••······

··············································································· ~ ·

31.

Any additional information . ~-~ •••••.•••••• . ••••.••. ••• , ... ..• •. . ... •. .

................................................................................ •······•••••·•·•·•··••···•·•••·••·•••··••·•··••·••·••••·••······················ Signature of Obaorver '!..tj..,.l, 'J.~~ ..... 32 .

Location of any air traffic in the vicinitJ at the time of sighting •

.~-~ ..~':'~:"... .4!~ .~:!r::~... 9r: ..T.' t!~. ..7."~ ~! ~1.~.~ .•~':'•. ·.~ .~-:~.~ :7.. .......• O"'("tt6'! OC< M .••••••••.•... t CN \ <C ::I'"IJb i!F'•U•T"e FOe t~• ><'• ••"· ~..,il.- ccC:S •...•.••••..•• .. .... .... .. ...•..•......•.••......... , •.. •• .... ...•

33 .

Location of any meteorological stations in the ~~~

~T

g .~ncral

area .

~ AL C:..

•··•••··•••···•·••·••••·•···•···••••••····•·••·····•·•·•····•·•••·•··•·······•·· 34.

COI!lnents •..••••••••••••• • ••• • ••••••• • • •• •• • ••• • •••• • •• • • • •••• . •••• . •••

......... ....................................................................... ........................... ........................................................ Interrogator -~~ ••~~.~~.

~UESTIONS

Signature of 32, 33 aDd 34 to bo answered by interrogator .

s~nce it is normally impossible to estimate tho h&igbt , and speed or a strange object, it will usually be better to endeavour to de"er~ne the angla of elevation of the objuct, the angle througa which it moved, and the ~ime taken to do this .

P,.. ... T " ICTED


.· ou"

ALE

if. yf~l !til\ "EFE"ENCES

; ........ 7

PI\INTEO N AME

~ 1.--:'t_

JRf:N'If.,t NO APPOINTMENT

PHONE EXTN

~lJIA{l./ 5()!tfil:~ I . . I

c.o.o . • ,,,


0? ..-.E:tH...!..

3/A/5) l -

P-~~

R~C;:,:

:)~SER'/ER

·;:p

observ;;:r .~./1o; . ~- ~·".':-'~ ':"'! •• ~1.':-~-~- ...... .....G'E . ~! ..... .

1•

!iame cf

2.

Adrlress of observer

~T.

f !\.u,L... • .L.cJ.L. .

A-..J~- ~.'t~ .'-: .. . , . . . ......... .

P.\A~J•.-4!'!~~- /<.o.A.• ... ~;t~ .l;(L;7'! . ... ~':~ ..•.. PHONE

.•

-~ . ...~-!~

. • , •.•

3.

Occupation of obst:rver . •.. . ~.<-.·~-:v:-f!.. ":'~~-;-~~ .....

4,

Da-:;e anti time of observation . ..Q.~.C?r.L.."'?-

5.

Dura~ion

6.

Observern loc'ltion at time of sighting • . ~"! . ~~~-!"-~-. .'-Ji!cr:':".r..., . ._ •••• •

. .... . ....... . . .

.+.. ..-·.~ .. Y~ .C:::-; . ? . f...... .

3c rl'lnc..~ ....... .... ... ... .. . .... ..... .. ........

of observation

. . . .... . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . ... . . . . ..... ... . 7.

-

.1-::e:tnt::r co!lc.itior.s at time of ob s e rvation . C'!'~.. ~!-~~ . ... . . . .. . .

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .. . . . . . . . ... . . . ..... . c.

Descr~be any :.1ds or equ.ipmen~ .;sed in tha observation •. . -i~ ';-; ... •

0

•••••

0

••

0

•••••

••

••

0

0

0

0

. .. ..... . . . . .. ... . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . " 9.

.mere \'Ia..; ooJl.C\0 I irst obs~rved? <> ~ill , nver th ;- .....:>ri Z?n) •

( eg , overhead , comir.g from bt:-

hil"r1

. ~-:'\,: ': ~~~-~y. . : t ~ .tt.f. r. "-"· i.r )£? .-H~ . ~~-:'1-. ~ ; -~~~·~·~ . $!='P.c.'!\.·...... . .

10 . Ylh:J.-;; !irs-. a tr-:.ctea obs~::rver ' s attention? /.!_ _ 0

••

~";':":c::c.; ~&;"·~ •

11. Di n r. b jor.+,

0

Lc:."! r: ' ... .. ... •

••

~ppc ·.:r ~'.:'1

0

0

••

(eg , light or no i se) .

0

••

0

•••

0

0

0

•••

0

0

•••••••••••

••

••

••

'

0

••

•••

J.igh~ o:r us a cl e fini+a obj a C'"i? . ~~o?'Y':'~ ....

r 1"4 . ,. • ••lc ... ., 0..,,,.,,.._.. p... (..•' .•••.. th ,. I• •?. tlr ro~XJ. .\ •••.• • • .:L • • • • ',.. .••.•.•• . .•.. •• '" • ••.. . •.• . • .•• . .•. • .••• •

(~)

(b)

--

. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

"there? ••. ... . ... . ....... . . .. 1.n .·1hat fo~atior: v:e-rc t ...... <:y? •... ,........•••••••.• · · · · · · · · •

how man;:;

we:::-~

13 . \lh~t ,.,as th_ colou: of tho light o.r' object? 5-l'~)' -~ . . :-.. -; . . · · · · · 14 . 'lhat was ~t:l appar.:!nt s!lap.;? ...... ~.::!.C: .. ~I.. ..... .............. ..

15 . Was o.ny d~ taE of s~ruc-mre vOs-rvable? .. .. . . ~lp... .. .... · · · · · ·

.. ./2


RES'!'RICT::m

- 2-

16.

Was any method of prcpu:_sion obvious?

17 . 18 .

','/as there a~y sound? ....•.• . .. . . .. .. . .. . ...o... . . . , ......... . .. . 'II"'~+ \"as '+s he.; ;;;h...?. o.,.. ar:g_e .,. 1 o.:- e_evat~on , · .. , Ui.A. ~ ' ~ ~ :-•• .• ,"'; . . -:.c;. .: :-?~ • . • • • ¥

1 9. 20 .

......

...

\

{(,.. ......... .... .... ... ...... .

-

was its speed? (cr m:gul2!' veloci"t~t) •... . . . . . ': . . '.. ~ .-;. ~ . .. Was th" o'oJ'ect s~"-.;O"'"'rv? ')..... ,. .-.............. 0 c..<-~a-_ ""'"'"'• ~ "' . ..... .......... ..... .. . '.'lha:t

\,;:

21 .

What '"as the direc-;;ion of f :!. igb.t with reference to landmarks or points of the compess?

.............................. ....(L... ... .. .. ..... ..... ... .. ...... 22 .

Did th~ uoject romein on a straight path , deviate , or manoeuvre nt all?

23 .

Nas any trail of exhaust , vapour , or light seen? .• , •

R.<:--•• • •••

. ..... .. .. .. ....... .. .... .......... .. ........ ....... ...... .... . 24 .

~nere did object disappear? (eg , in mid- air, behind a hill , over the horizon) IN 't" fe-r.......... ~,<> J ...... .... ................ ... ............... .... .. .. ' .E

25 .

.;;o you tt:'low of any physical evidence? (such as fragnents , photographs , or other supporting evidence)

f~ ..... ~ · " .... -rr. £1-o... .. ........... ...... ......... .. ... ............... .....

26 .

:-tav~ you observed any unusual phenomena previou..;ly? , , t( c.....•••

27 .

If so , give bri~f detRils of incident(s) .•.••.• ~(~.•.. • .... . .• .

.. . . ......' .................. ... ..... ........... ........ .. ... . . .. . .... . ..' ..... .. ............ ....... ...... ..... ....... ........ . '

28 .

State ony experience w.ich enables observer to be reasonabl y cortain about tt~ answers given to 18 and 19 .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :JJ:-: ..... ~. ~~'/.~1'? . . ~;1. . ~#V,".Y>"7.'~~ ·.~••~•••••••• •• 29 .

Are you o mcmocr of any organization interested in aerial phenomer.a? • . . .•. ... .... .. . . . . ..~ ':". ..... . . .. . . . ................... .

30 .

:lame ~uJ. addrt:ss of organisation . ...••• . . ~ ........•••• · · · · · · · · ·

........... .... ........... .. ... ... ... ........ .......... ......... 31.

"..ny e.dditionw.. infortlr:.tion which rela'tes to th~:: sie;ro.ting .

. . . .. . . ..... .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . .. ... . . . . . . . ..... . ........ .. . . .. . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... .. .. . RESTRICTED

. . ./3


JllSTRICTED

- 3 -

32 .

The follo~~ military aircraft were in ~he vicinity of the r eported LTO pos~tion a~ +~e time :Aircraft type • ••....•• . . . ... . . , . •. •.......• • ••.•. . . • • .. • . . . Headiru . . . . .. ••.• . . • . . . . • . . . T Height . .• . . • •• • .• . • . . • , 000 ft

••• • • :..,...(· •• • • T • •• • • ••••• •• • • •• • • T

•.•..••.. • .•• , 000 ft •...••• • ..• , 000 ft

Speed . • . ..•• . • .•..•..... •K /• .. . ... .. .. , • , ..... , . K , ...•....• . ...• , . . •K

33 .

The following ci vil aircraft wer e in the vicinity of the r epor"ed UFO position at t he "irr~ :Aircraft type .............. ... .. , . . , . . .. ...~ ., . . . . , .. . ....... ,, . . Heading •.• . •.... , . . •.. T • ... • ••• • .. • •. ••. • . . • . T •.. , . . , ... , ,,,, .... T

Heie:h t •... . ••• ..••.•• , 000 ft •. •••• • •••• • ••• , 000 ft •••••••.. • •. , 000 :ft Speed •. •• , • , , , , .•. • .•. • • • • K ~ .. • • ••• , •• , •• , , , , • •K •• , , .. , , , , , , , , . •K

34 .

Calculations sno·, that the following planets or major stars were in that portion of the sky ~t the "ime:- •••• • . . .•.• . .•.• • ••• . • • •

.. ......................................., .......... ..... . .... 35 .

-

A meteorological balloon was released f r om ••• • ••.••••••.•••.••. • • t •... •••• ..

36 .

z 3nd

could have been in the reported UFO

The Stato Observa~ory in the nearest capital city affirms that aerial phonomena i~,~ha-; portion of the sky at the time were ............. .. ...... (comet , meteorite shower, etc ) .

37 .

Any other relevant remarks ( e8 about sateh tee , rockets..., ,. <' I]TE.W..J A-rc.·r.. . , ")1' •• • P• 7!l. <..\Ct> o-.,.z? •(.C•••<JI>Y'~·~ lloo..,rasearch •oa 11 cons ) ;-~ , .••• r •~ ••••••• r~ . , ••••••. , ••••••••

~·v.'!i:"!~ !':1• ~?.c.~~~.~fi~tf':-. ~A!~~;~.;~.,..<:-; . ~·~·':!. f!~"! .If.'~. !!~-;-; .~ . .,

., il..:~...'f ,.... f

.• ") <I , l. •twU S..,.J is'! s~cn • <:: .. ~;) ,,, - c l'f• ::> , ~ Tbore iG conclusive evidence that the object reported was •• • .•.••• •

......... .. ........................ .. ................. . ...................... .... ..... .......... .. ... ........ ......... .... . ..........

39 .

The

ObJeClO

"

reported could

r.ave

beer .... If ;: .. /.,... ..... .. ..........

...................... .... ........ ......... .......... .......... .... 40 .

Tho Cll4t)u \Or

l~kely cause, of

-;!1;

: -:'".~. ~ .. !f.~... .. .. ..('lni:t;) •••••• •••f? ..-:f. ~ . ~. !....... JDate) R.EST!UCTED

sitl'.hting

.

cannot De

deteraanc..1:: •

r4/~..... .... .................... .. .

r -"" ,_

........ .

.. t

••••• •

•• •

'arno) rtank)

1<4A.:.T•...j


Headquarte'l'a R..AF Bn.t• A....BERLE'f 9lJ> 11th July 1967

82fl/5/9/Air( 12) Headquarters Operat~onal Command RAAF PENRI'l'H 1W NSW REPORr OF AERIAL OBJECT OBSERVED HQPFCOM AS! 3/A/5

1• Further to this Headquarters signal A154 04JUL67 , herewith are two copies of a report compiled as a result of a reported aerial sighting.

The sighting was made initially by a student of St Pauls School, BaLD HILLS, Uaster PARTRIDGE, and was then seen b,y the Headmaster, Science Master, at least four other master s, and numerous students of the school. The writer visited the school and interviewed a number of observers , notably t.r J .T.C . TAYLOR, Science Master, and Master PARTRIDGE, who were at the opposite ends of a credulity acale. What each observer saw remained basically the same but Vlith individual variations as to shape. Relative size varied from pinpoint to one eighth of one inch which largely negatives most of the variables in shape. Position and movement were agreed upon by all observers . 2.

3.

One student, a llaster JOSLING, used a camera but results obtained are inconclusive, for the quality of the film and CSQera lens used do not lend themselves to accurate definition at high enlargements.

4• The original observer, Master PARTRIDGE, has made several previous s i ghtings and is a confii':led believer in the existence of extra terrestrial activities. He is not a member of a UFO society but wishes to join one. He uses a 9" reflecting telescope to aid his sky watching activities, and is a brilliant scholar, topping his class in~ all subjeotso

5· The planet Venus has been visible during daylight hours of the past week but was in the Northeastern sector at an elevation of approximately 40° during the time of the reported sighting. No other stars or planets in the reported position were of sufficient magnitudg to have been visible during daylight hours . The original estimate of 3g elev~tion in the Northwest was checked by the w:t,ter and confirmed as 20 to 25 elevation on a bearing from the school of 300 ~. using a wrist compass. 6. Mr Ron CUSTARD of COOBY CREEK Tracking Station was contacted. He stated that shortly before the time of the observation a satellite - ATS 2 passed over COOBY CREEK at ita closest to Earth in orbit from South to North , increasing its range from Earth as it travelled northwards . Whil at he would not commit himself unequivocally because of t ne great range of the satellite , he thought that it was conceivable that reflected light from the Sun could be seen possibly for some considerable time because of the very slow change of angle between the Sun and the satellite in their relation to the observers at ":.hat time.

. ./2


~ b&re were no reported ceteorological phenocena or aircraft T,hich would have accounted f or the sighting over such a long Hydrogen filled balloons from ILeteoro!ogical sources High Schools were ruled out because of tb lack of apparent ::vement in a south westerly breeze at the lower levels and a westerly jetstr eam above 30, 000 feet , unless the balloon was tethered. 'fb.is however, is unliKely as the area over -.vbich the sighting was =:~ade is sparsely populated. Kite flying has not been considered because of the elevation. The school is situated on high ground overlooking a wide valley. •

11

_.,.,4::n:r time .

p•·~jacent

.-

It is probable, although by no oea.na certain, that the observations 8. were of reflected light from the ATS 2 satellite. The discrepancies between this report and our original signal can only be explained by the verbal repetition of reports by telephone until they reach the writer•

............

~~

Flight Lieutenant For Officer Commanding


,...• (

v --

~~

RO YAl A U STR ALI AN A IR FORC E TElEPHONE: 69 0550 HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT COMM.-.N D RAAF VICTORIA BARRACKS MELBOURNE SC1 VIC

TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS ' 'A IRCOMMAND, MELBOURN E

IN AUI.Y QUOTE

5/6/.Mr( 7 8)

Seer eLy Denartme of Air Ruese Offices CAk~RRA ACT 2600 UN- IDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS

1. Herewith are reports of UFO ' s received from RAAF Base EDINBURGH FIELD SA. 2. The reports comprise copies of a collection of s:!.ghtings forwarded by • .r C. 0 . NOBRIS of the Flying Saucer Research Soci~ty in ADELHDE . :.:r U<1l:lRIS H.e.s stated that he will forward on a monthly basis , any future reports . This Headquarters has no cooment to add regarding 3. these s i ghtings which appear to hava been collected over a considerable period .

"2ncl

I

~~ (L . B• .BRO'TN)

Ning Commander For .l.i r Officer Commanding


â&#x20AC;˘

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

TELEPHONE: 690550 HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT COMMAND

RMF

TELEGRAPHIC ADORE5S: " AIRCOMMANO. MELBOUI\NE"

IN Wi.Y QUOTE

VICTORIA BARRACKS MELBOURNE SC1 VIC

5/61Air( 76)

1 4 JUL 19?7

~I

UN-IDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS

1. Enclosed herewith is detailed report from RAAF EAST SALE on UFO sightings reported on the evening of 27th

June 1967 .

2. Earlier , these UFO sightings were given fairly wide publicity by the ABC and melbourne press, but no information concerning the findings of the Investigating Officer has been released . 3.

This Headquarters has nothing to add to the very

(L.B. BROWN) Wing Commander For Air Officer Commanding Encl


]_l!t!:,.oduction 1. "ide spread u"l!city 'by •he ::-ass -nd radio or flic_:htings of unustnl li hts in the cky o~ the evezri!'lg of 27 Jll:l 67 caused r.w.erous people to ::.r.itia.te official repcr";e of these obsC'v tions to the RAIJ". 2. The Invest' ting C:t.'ficer received a totcl. of 24 repcrtu, .21 ot hich occurred b~ cen 2100 md 2230 hours on 27 JW1 67. Tho other 3 ocetL-red on f.if!'erent nights ~d are not co::sidared in this repo1·t.

3. It w_ould • o"r that three C5..ff'erent typoa of light aources vero eoen; aixteen repor~s uere in resr.ect oi' one tyy..o of light source, three uc:re in rc:::;poct of a second light source, md t,ro wc::o in l'espect of e t~d source. !gE_!JJJl__'li. ...

0~

...IGTIT SCURCE

4. .1. .. <! object first a} eared as a "large star li:te li£;ht 11 lo"hich rapidly increased~ size to where it wn::: described e.o l:eing relc.tively about h3lf the size of a full coon. It o._ !\Oal'ed to JtOst observers e.s e bcll of :1 ;ht which tr .velled ne<:rly hcri z.onto.lly across t!!G S.:y, slo;rly curving tousrd::: the ea:rtb at a shallolT angle.

The colotl!." o~ pronounced ::l.lld lasting for abcut three quarters of its ~ata:tco of travel 1ras a brilli :.nt cree.n or blue.isbgreen . It then seo.'lled to Char.ge colour to a "hot-or~e" or "reddi:::h-pink" fa: ita l<:.st one ~u3X'ter of travel. Then it finally ppeared to grou extrcrnell· bright and "burst" ir.to a \Jhi tinb-yello r.i..aborange colour after l!hicb it disappeared. Trai::. RGII!llining 6. A truil of "vapour" persisted over its finol path ~:.nd around the l 1i1 • where it dis~pecrec.. This slowly moved into a "boomerang" sh" •, until it he.d graduclly dispersed after fif'toon minutea. Loc!ltion of q,bsat"lers

'7 . The oboo."'Vars •;ere listed in the nur.:eric=U order of their rer.orte, and their !oco.ticns at the time of obccvo.tion e.re plotted on the attached RJ.!S' ·.}.. C. (3470} l.ELl'Otl'Rl1E. Deacrilltion by

Ob.§:..~

Probably -:. .• e ..:est accurate repcrts •:ere described by observers From all the descriptione, ~t is deduced thnt the various observers re,orted one or ore phases of the objec~& flight path as seen 'fran their ;osition. Details o=e :-

B.

51 6, 8, 15, end 18.

•.•/2

~::sr

·cr-:::o


y

REST ,_.TED -

2

-

(a)

Observer3 1, 2 , and 21 -prob;;.~ly sa;r the Green sec-:ion .

(b)

Obac:vers 3 !!.nd 4 proba-'"1:- sav the section where it ch:nged '!'!'om blueish-green to p-::...'lir....rcd.

(c)

Obscrvere 5, 6 , 7, 8 , 15 , and 20 probably cav nll or n~ly ell of the event.

(n)

Cbserver3 9 and 1::> probably sav o~ly the reddish portion j~U:t before t.he end.

(e)

Observers 14 a.'1d 18 !\l'Obably sev the brilliant end flacll end subsequent trail.

(f)

Obccrver 19 probably saw the vapour trail only.

9.

Nc!lrly all ob:::ervers agreed that the nenrlyborbontnl path G.nd colour of tho object, uns r.:ost unusual and not like tho normo.l 11 3hooting" or "falling " str.r type of object. •hich they had all seen nt come ti::-e. ~

of Occunencc

10. Tt:e time of the "finish" ~:as logged at 2155 hours EST by observer 18. Another accurate time uas tcken by observer 6 as 2152 hours. All the other times were only " ....roxima.te, but generally ::13 tbey ;rere bet cen 2 145 and 2200 hours it is considered that only one such event occurred at about 2155 hours. !To eXpla.n:;tion c:n be offered o.s to wb,y observer 7, ~:bo ePf.arEntly sari the ~e event, gave the time as 21C5 hours.

11• w..,..:rings noted by the observers on tb.e lar.d uere apfl'Oxitntions only and ind!. -:ated tb t he o'bj ect .first ~ppe:;red to the couth east end t r velled to the north, north east , or north ~Test . Until a report w:1s recaived from the observer 18, at sea en the ~!V "COR! TALL", no indication of the object ' s position w::s ::.-pp.,.root . liot;ever , the accurate bearings and timeo reported by observer 16 en::!bled a fairly a ccurate tr ::~ck of the object to be plotted a:J cho m on the attached . / .• c. Direction of Travel 12. FL·om tho bearings plntted i'rom observer ' o reports, the general ircction of travel t~ould a _ e::~r to be about 350'1'· Thin ;ould satisfy the majority of descriptions of the object ' s path. tiistmco Tr :velled

13· Aomu::inc the bea.""inga plotted. ere fairly ace x to, tho initial point where the object bec::.~e viFible l."Ould be nbout 200. couth of CA! E HOi!E. lth a direction o:f tr vel about 3~ its final posit!on wen it diaap e!lred o.C.d have 'been about 50UM south of CA:E :JO 1E. '?hue the totol diet'Ulce tr velled t.J:rine observation would be at.out 15()lll .. E-:-tim ted S ('.Cd 1(. Estimations of speed vari e:!, but prob bly the best icprcs:1ion was gained bJ a descr~:pt:!.tm o!' "slower th"n a shooting Gts:r , but faster then o. satolli te11 • .Ilur(!.tion o:f the clgb-!;inga vl!l'icd f'rCCl i to 35 ecoonda but rob bly tho mole evcnt f'.rom "start" to "f'l_ni r• too bot oen 10 nnd 30 seconds. • ~, ever ..ri.shhce of 150m the rpeod ! the object 'WOUld be betucen ,4,000 end 18, 000 blots.

. .. /3 RESf ICTED


RESTfi;CTED -

~stim·ted

3 -

Altitude

15 · Froo tho _o..ition c.f observer IE, c.nd acc·..=cto n ·le of elavation of the cbjcct t he _oint o! Ci~. e~"'.!lce s est 1 ad ~c 28° above Ac:u:nin.., this point -.;o be a"bo·;e l:ltituic 3 °25 ' S, a triant;le ac=. level. c:.n be ost bl .. e od ·.:. h o. base ide c-:! :!.ent;th 75!:!.. .a.'ho vert.:.c~ side woul then be 39. ~ ; ie, the altitude o! the object · m it cliarrp ..e!ll'cd uould be .,bout 239,00l: .fee":; . Conclu ionn 16 . The unusULlly brig~t moving li ' t re~rted b~ the ~jority of ob crvers was J<=Ob 1:: c :leo. y a large tbject entorin: the e Tth • :1 at oorhere ot high c:Poed and rel ~tivelJ" sballo • nglc. !!cat e;e: er.:1ted by friction w1 th t o :tooGJ ~ere probably c:.used the bri~_;ht glo·1 end c 'Jl e of colour~ . i'hio object cou..d possibly h~o b - a largo motcor or aoce •.n mr!dc catellit~ or r e 01:ot casing yh:;.ch on r&-a."ltering the e~th'a atmosphere subco_nently burned up. Tbe path t ·en b tbe o'.::ject is es•iml:.ted to bnve been from a 11 . pod tion about 20v-..... .Gouti! o... c,J>l!i !IDh'E tr vel ling on a h03ding of about 350T to where it disapi'et.re<J. about 50Nf.. south of CAPE nm?E. ItJ speed would bavo probably been l otm1en 1e,ooo and 54,000 knots und its .Utitude at the time of disap!)earance .;ould be <>bout 239, 000 feet . 18. The v apour trail left behind aftQl: the objects' dis!lppe.?..rP.nce was ~ oesibly caused by "snoke" generated in tb{; process of its bur.1ing up and hip;bli@lted by the liE"=.t of the moon, which uas belolz the horizon

to the east .

· ' Vet"Y

19 · ':hie second t;ne of li ht was described by observer!'.!, 11, 13, an:i 16, h:o of Yltoz::. stc..te.l th-t i~ seeoed to ori ir.f.te :f'rcm a very brieht centre spot tri+h the r 1 cl:.ll-:-e o~ a tuil cr sotlc object behind it . The d.n f~ture t.ich distinguished it from the 1ir.::t type tras th.:!.t _t seE~". o o clo~er tc the ~·tll end ILoved as if under acme type of cont_c . Observers 13 !!Jld 16 we1.·e travelline in a c:.x· et tbie tilto an d that the liFht seemed to r.cvo ovcir or noc.r the vehicle before nl.tt.lt":Lnu course t.."ld sreed end disappe xin • 20 . Tho tirJee of these events were given ac 2105 , 21:?C- '2145 and a.tout 2145 houro, occu=.·ing in o:rcier from I:OR. i;!lJ.. to Ea!AC}.!.Oi:v end tbon ne x 0:1Jl031'. Their r ion ttas described as from 10 - 15 eecondo to 40 ~.>econde !:ID nbotn 5 ri.nutes .

m1e "ascribed by obse..."'Vers 12 <.:lei 17 a a very .bi type of li " ~:::. vas reported to be in a hori :.::ont:ll pbne ovine Ugilt. !to lov in elovnt~on by 12 ..;n a~ . ser:.as of ho:ri:.;ontal nd vertioal cov6"Jents by oberver

21 .

fuu'"t.

n.

22 . IAl.ration on both occao::.o:tc was ver;.• ebort, !ra: 2 second a; .

econils to

- 10

.he oC:.ticoa of bot!::. obacvers va w.i.thin about four Has on t!lo ·i:i noel· t~e 1 e~bank tt.:rr.- off whc:l they ec.e the:!.:- ob::~e......Yat~ono. Al thoU£;~ observer 12 o t:.ncerLi!!. &.:> to the tir.e, he thou.: ht that it may b:we been just tl1't er oor.!:'i se. If eo, the ti.J::e 10ul :;reo wi tll obaer-vcc 17 uho ve a t-l!::e et· e...n 2220 lind 2230 :tours.

23 . t

,:m._....,.

iii..

. . -/4 t~ESTRICTED


)

24 .

Observer 12 took c.n ..ccurate o;crpass bearin; of he point :!:ere . eared. Th:.s 1;eg:-:..n ;ro.s 110' en confi:ced by t~a tin~ Office:.

tho l i ht first

Invest-

25 · ':(hare s in...'"llf'l:icie:1t evideoce to rov!de a~.y oto.isf' ctory ex l.:.n!'ltio far thc:::e oth6!" types cf light sDIZ.'ceo. It is o ibl~ th t they CGY be cc-oci t~ _th ~:!:.e first t:11-e de cribod. It y '-1'/Cl be th .t t':. :rere ctu...lly the s.;:,oe Egl:.t; l:ut tc tho obaorvers, they c:Jred Jifferent .

26. There wore no d.rc:-nft r..cve~nts repcrteii in tho vicinity or du..-in.. the tilueo of tbe sigbtings cf t~e lijjb.ts.

27. The attached mcteorolo6).cal re!ort indic ted th t , despite ao::.e pround r d.1 tion :fo eound SAL!:, the aerial visibility over GIPPSLAUD thro~ bout the eiod of the ci 'htings was Vfi!J:y good. 2 • All obtervora oto.ted th.o.t of the Slcy was excellent .

~he

night

~as V6l'

cle::r and visibility

29. Froc the Jdr !.l..t!wnac, it ;;as l!et~"'Cined that , tbrouehout t e a.ren covered in t e r • ort, c:oonrise oc 27 Jun 67 occurred at the following times :-

30 .

(a)

OROO.:t.

2226 hours

(b)

s 1,

2232 hours

(c)

SA! REI:C. -

2238 tours

The rtoon rosa from the east and was 18. 4 deyo old at ttmt time.

dl£~

(R . ~-- ••••) Fli ht Lieutenant UFO Investi ~tin Officer

I< STRICTED


-ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE TELEPHONE : 690550 HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT COMMAND RAAF VICTORIA BARRACKS MELBOURNE SCt VIC

TELEGRAI'HIC ADDRESS ; "AIRCOHMAND, 11El80URN£"

••-• -n

5~/J.ir(75)

l

Secretary Department _ Air Russell fices

CANE

2600 ACT

A

UN-IDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS 1. Herewith reports from L:r 1..H. ATKINSON and Mr and Mrs A. SOt1rA..~ concerning the sighting from MORWELL of an un-identified flying object. 2. This Headquarters has no further comments to add to the Investigator's report.

(L.B.

Encl

/

BROWN)

Wing Commander For Air Officer Commanding


IH:.Sl h iCTED

l...YES J.fl..A.'I !.9~C2_~~

1· .o;bia r .crt de;J.c ith an uriA,..ntifiod arbl object o1 hted in the l 0 .~L croa t 1$00 hours on 30th Juno 1967. J.ttac!Jod xo statements l:lOdo b ,_r. .n.i rs. ... _~,u: , :.md .r. , Ja ::L 50 r. 2. Oc 30th June the three observers ~lel'e stc.ndin on the f'ront porch of ;r . and . .rs. SO 'TJ~<t 'S residmce which iu loc ted on t'be 1aatern siJo of the city of CR~ (see attached m p) . At n1 ~roxi 1900 hours ra. SO?.u..' ... !llld . ..r . A':JG.TW ' S atto."ltion ruo attracted ly ':!. noise, :hich '" s .:.es<:l'ibed by !-..rs . :XlL"?/.R o.s cimilar to tho noise m:1do by bursting tcy balloon, .nd by Ol: . N!!lC_ ;;.o,~, cs the came ~s the noise produced <~hen a bullet 1 asses throUoh r. motal cheat . Looking up, a stationary light w s observed on a roW'h beari!! of 18oT. :'he li~ht, accordin.r o !.r. A'..'KI ':.:0 , clvmged f'rom u thin. ;revering, \'ertic:ti light to a circular shape ond moved off in M easterly direction, emitting vertical puffs of smoke till it disaNeared. The object l·ros then roughly on a bearing of 135T from the point of observ<>tion. . Lr . and hl-s. ~OUTAR ' S evidence te.'lds to coroborate L.!.' · ATY.Il'SO.~ · s state-nent .

3. .By reference to t e attached maJ. , it can be seen that , the HAZEL "<X'D po1-1er station bears a ~roxia.ately 180'1' from the observers' pcsi tion , and, subtandi.ni; the angular ell .nt;e of bearin;; of the object is a lor •e industrial complex .rbich operatee bn a t~;anty- four hour basis. '.:.'he •:ind velocity or.. t"e night in uestion <ras 295/10, this wind 1.ouJ.d te.·Hi to blow the Sll'.oKe ~rom the SEC area cirectly away from the observers a.'ld give the imr.reasion it uas risi:lg vertically. At the same time any burni.'lg m:..ss originatict; from the ID.ZEL 'COD pcwer station •ou!d c.p_ car to r::cr e roughly eastwe.rd 1;ith a sli ht downrrerd trajectory.

4. The Gll£ineer et E.t.z!:L :UCD reported thP.t no major circuit disturbances, 1:bich m:: have ri ve.'l rise to ,;=.e nc::.ae or light de sed bed by the •ri. tness, t:as legged at 7-he time cf sil?hti.-:&• Ho;:eve;, only rna.jor Cisturbancos o.nd brea.cdc11ns are logged so tl.Jis does not preclude the poseibili ty of the phenomena originatin~ at '!A~'!l:ro .

Spotli ht shooting is prevalent in the CR" - ea, and a combin:1tion of low brokm cloud and a strong ar.ctligbt Jir..,cted at the cloud base, toeether Hi tl:. the industrial srooke from the S::C area could produce the effects d.eecribed b·· tbe observers. Conclusio'! Incu.f "icient evidence is 'lvailable to dra1~ a satisfactory conclusion but it is hi~y probable that this 11aeri 1 object" was ca.used by a co bination of disassociated, man- made, occurrences.

6.

(~;;.,..:: .L.u " •

_,

•J

.~ight -icuten~~t

6 Jul 67

!r.vest:!.

HC~T.dCTt:D

tint': Officer


J...,u:. ol

gl!~N6

~ /r~mAI.. S1Gt1n.Jt;

J..,rJc ,. 8c.llft•"'G oF

OlC'Sl dVW

HNA&.

Sr'-itnoJC:


tt @

~

EPOHT OF AERIAl. OBJECT OBSERVED

(

,..fAw R \C~

H ATKIN ~c>"N q I Ce~t-J 1&~ f:.. \) ~RW~I..L Observer ... . .... . ........ . .. , . . ... , ..•... . ......

Obse1"'ve1~ • • ••••••...•••.•••••• • ••• • •• , •.••• Age ~ •• • ••

.Address of ).

Occupation of Observer ...~~.. ~~• .. ~+~~

.....~~--:: ... ,...

4.

Date and Time of Observation (Time to be given in local time)

.............. .l .~ ~ ........ . ~0

.. ?:'~. t:J..6.7 ... . .. .. . . .. .............. .

Duration of Ob::;ervation(s) . •... .?>.<=! . .~~::=-.~

5.

6.

............... .

Observers Location at Time of Sighting (Give details of own lu..b.2~-t- G :rosi tiol! by map reference •••• -T~ •••••••• •-... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~f possl.ble, or by known -:!<:>II+ S

••••• ,

. ... .. . ~~:r:zfff~... ~ .L!>.~ ...<!-f .. :r!!t? ... y! f'{ • .. ~¥.~~~rfc.M-~.~

........ .

7.

Weather Conditions at t i me( s) of observation( s) ... • .... . . . .

8.

Ai ds to Obserwation(s) . (Describe any equipment used in the {\]' 1 L observation)

. . . . ~~- ~}). .~:lf>. lf..11.'./Jt.H.r!~ ... Y'.~..r:·.~ ....""!If. ..~~o/.'!J..... f!~.'-!..

1

t

e

...

9.

t

t

t

f

t

t

t

.......

t

t

t

.

.

.

t

t

I

I

I

.... .

t

I

t

f

t

t

t

t

f

t

I

t

I

t

t

t

f

I

I

I,

t

......................

t

t

t

.

... .

I

t

t

.

....

I

f

I

t

I

I

I

t

I

t

I

I

.........

t

I

t

t

••••

f

t

I

t

t

•••

t

t

t

Where was ObJect first observed, eg, overhead , comins from behi nd a hill, over the horizon, etc .

. . . . . . . . ~~P. . . .1."! . ~.'~. !+.•.~ . ~~ .~~ ..~~ ~ .. i£.~""/~!:' .~......... . 10 .

What first attracted observer '.s attention , eg light or noise .

. . . . . . . . • . . . • . . ~l'j ~f ... ~.'?~. ~ 11 .

·-----._

0

...

Di d obj e ct appear as a light or as a definite object .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

, 2.

.... . ..... . .... . . . ... ' ... .. .. . ..... .

t. 14-11 r

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

,

•••

••••••

I f there was more than one object , how many wer e there, and what was their formation .

Or.Jl3:

. 3...•.•• . • w. h•• t. . .... t. h••••. 1...... ~ . t. h••. 1. : • h. t. ..... b. ~ .. t.. A~~;;_ ·~ ,i~u~,;~ 1 . a was e co our OL e ~g oro Jec .. . . . . .. .......••

shapeV~~~~ h~: .. .19.0/f7-:»:!~ .. . .. .

14 .

What was its apparent

15 .

VIas any detail of structure observable . . ..

16 .

VIas

. 7.

Was there any sound ..

i8.

Height, or angle of elevation .. ~~ ·

i

9.

r!?. ........ ... .. any method of propulSion obvious ..... . ."!f?............. .

Speed, or angular

t.fe: .. {1!:~:... ~~ ... t;5? ~.~: • !~ · .. .. ·· · ·· · · · · · •· · ···········

.... t ~ D~'14~ PeR. s...~u veloc::. ... y ..•. • ..•.••. . . • ..•.•• • • • • • · · • • · • •

.Y0. .{~ "!.''!.'.'!~j.) ·. · · · · · · · ·

20.

Was the object stationary? ...

2' .

What was the direction of flight with reference to or points of t~e compass . . .

landmar~s

... ............. ........ .R~.~· ·· · ····· ·· · · ·· · ···· · ······ · ·· ····· ·· · ... ;~ .

.-&


-2Did the object remain on a straight path, deviate or :n~nocuvro at nll? S'7RIIt<i-UT' n-1

22 .

. . . . .. .

.PA ........................ .. ... .

.............................. I

trail of exhaust , vapour or light aeen.Y,~ .... :~P~I.:!'

23 .

\'.'As any

24 .

','.'here did ob~cct disappear, eg in mid- air 1 behinda hill 1 over the hor1zon .

MtD AIR. ... ' ....... ... ....................... ... ... ......................... . 25 .

Existence of any physical evidence such as fragments photographs, or other supporting evidence . ' NIL

I

t

t

t

f

t

t

f

t

t

t

f

t

f

t

t

t

t

t

t

f

t

f

t

t

t

t

t

t

I

f

t

t

f

f

t

I

t

t

f

t

f

f

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

f

t

t

f

t

f

t

f

t

t

t

f

t

t

f

t

26 .

Have you observed any unusual phenomena previously .•.~.Cl . •••

27 .

I f so, giv e details of

28.

State

incid~nt(s) ........... r:J. /~........... .

~ny experience which enables observer to be reasonably certain about the answers given to 19 and

19.

. • . . • . . . . . • • . • . . • • . . . . . • . • . • . . . . ~.Q .• :-.•...••.•....• . ••••••......•.•

Are you a member of any organisation int erested in aerial phenomena?

29 . t

t

t

I

t

t

t

I

t

t

'

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

<'

f

'

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

"

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

'

t

t

t

t

t

t

I

I

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

Name and Address of orga1usation ............... • ...•........

................................N}fJ ..................... ... ....... . 31 .

Any additional

~1#..! "'HICH

c-Hit-NG.rf>

. +..t f-fl.~ .. trff'J..~if P. •

in:formatio~ . q{f~-g'Jj!~r. !Jt:t;.1!'ftp~ ~~ . ~ .~~~....~·~!'- I/IZ'R11C.At..

S;MP.!' IH 1r "fovt--t> -rc.wlhCW '/Jrlf .c..~r. .S.M~ ~ /tr .. 1'0 ... [7~:-7?. 1 /~.~y :1 ~P• . ~ '('. • /I"?P.&.;~<r7>• • T!=!

. ..

..

....

.':~':. . (~~f~ ..P;I.Ff?.. ?.~: ~.~() ~~ "'!'.~~"!J.U:. . ~ '0. ;:;;:1\~;;;;_

Sl.gnature of Observer . /?: ....... •. ..... . .. . .• 32.

Location of any air traffic in the vicinity at the time of sighting . _, ./_, --"'"L'. 1'10 K.roowrJ , ,..,,.r-tc 11'1" '/JIC:! ~ rlt1RN~L.<-

·· ·········•··•••··········· ·· ·······•··············•·'' ' ~······ · ···

;;:· ···~~~:~:~·~~·~~·~~~~~~:~:~~~~~·:~:~~:~:·~~·:~~·~~~·~~·~~~~: ~It"!. ne~

RftM-...... S t)Sc£ 7' S rtU:: ............ .... ' ........... .. ... .................. ... ...... . 34 . Col!D1lents . .f"~ . ~ . f.cr..f~":'.~ . 'rf. . fl!!=: • . $!4-~t!!t!C: .. ~ ... . . .~~~ (~... #.l? ..A. :l.~t.. f/tf.'.':<?;>. .. ~.'"!:~ ..i?~t!. 7P. . 7.'!~ . . . )

rtf Interrogator~~\~ :Jt.

. , ~~'! ...f¥.. 1 :'!~":1, ..a!:...<!f1.L~.. ,, f/!1:':1~~.. , .. ,,, .. ,., ...... •. Signature of Ql.r'"ZST:ONS 32 1 33 and 34 to be answered by interrogator .

Since it is normally impossibld to estimate tne height . and speed of a strar~e object it \vill usually be better to endeavour to determine the'angle of elevation of the obje~t 1 the angle through which it moved, anp the time taken to do this .


~R. ... .. ~.~':."..;-?'\~

Age. ~

.... ..... Observer .. .1~!. ff.c..:~~ $T. . .. ~~~~ .. f'.<; .: of Observer .. $.~~.~":-~. .. ~~· r1,t..L\ .. ..{)M.:rit ... . ..... A; ...

Name of Observer ...•

2.

J.ddress of

.3·

Occupation

4.

Date and ?ime of Observation (Time to be given in local time)

5.

Duration of Observation( s) .....

....... . .... ~~ .. ~~ - .6. 7. ................. ~~<r-9................. .

6.

~~ .•.S~.~ ............ . ... .

Observers Location at Time of Sighting (Give details of own s l4-6;t4-lt positio~ by map reference .• . , . , . , •....... , . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . ~f poss~ble , or by known ~~I'+-

•... ~~~.1'}-;.-fl._~ . . ~ .•j),~ .• Qf.. 1:'!'! .. ~'!'1.. p.f. .• !1<?~~~r.~~~ ~ ............ . 1.

Weather Conditions at time(s) of observation(s) ......... . . .

. . . . . . (.'.~.{. -:. ,q~~~.. !:::~~ . ~~~ :~ .~~... ~'.s. t.~ !? ... 'v:'J.! .. ~Cf.0./. 1.9 ... . 8.

Aids to Observ.ation(s) . (Describe any equipment used in the N\L. observation)

.......... .

APP·~~~9·

.. ·. .. ;t· ~

,·~ . ~~~1·

........................... .

.. . .. . . ..... ... . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . 9. t

t

t

t

f

f

10.

t

f

0

Where was object first observed, eg, overhead , coming from behind a hill, over the horizon, etc. JWP<:;~I) '"' ~ •\) Jhtt I

0

f

f

f

0

0

f

f

f

0

t

t

0

t

t

0

0

I

t

t

t

0

0

t

t

0

t

f

0

f

f

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

t

f

f

0

f

f

0

0

0

t

t

0

0

f

t

t

0

·.vhat firSt attracted observer's attention, eg light or noise .

.. . . .. .. . .. ... . . . . . . .~.~.~~~.~.. ....... ... ... ... ...................... . 11 .

Did object appear as a light or as a definite object . J..,..t 1:r It I ~

---...__ • -

12.

f

.

.

.

..... ..

............ .............................................. .

If there was more than one object , how many were there, and what was their formation .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.~~ . .... ~'t--:'f.......................... ... . , 3.

What was the colour of the light or object ... .~. <r~

14.

Vihat was its apparent shape ....

15.

Was any detail of

16 .

Was any method of propulsion obvi ous .......•. ~ 0 . ..

17.

Was there any sound .. .. ....................~?

~tructure

.. .

Cf~~~~.~ .... . .......... .

observable ..... . ...

~.J /!1. ...... . ....... .

.. · ... ·.······

0

18.

Height , or angle of elevation ........ .~9.

i9 .

Speed , or angular velocity ..

20 .

Was the object stationary? ..... . . . .

21 .

What was the direction of flight with reference to la11dmarks or points of the compass .. .

• •••••••• •

,·r ·····

~~~":',~~1:-/. ~. ':-~ f!.f;.S.t.:':-.).

..-. ."!'.'.'.1}_1.!':/. ..... .

y~

1

....... ..... ........... t;f~~Y, ............ ..................... . . .. /2 .


- 2-

Did the ob,1oct remain on a struight path , deviate or

. . . . . .. ~~:~~~:l~~-~ . ~ ~. ~~~ :s~!l!q!•.~ . -:-:.S.k.~ .rr:~r!h'f ... J>.C!~.~ :~ !':~~ . ... Was any

23·

trail

of

exhnust , vapour or light seen ...$~?. ~ .. .

li'here did obJect disappear , eg in mid- air , behinda hill over the hor~zon . · ' ......-:

24 •

......... f!tP~ .. .~r: ...'.r:-! ....1"!.1 .~ .-.1.'.~.. ...... . .... ' .. '. ... '

25 .

Existence of '-\ny physical evidence such as fragments photographs, or other supporting evidence . '

Ne> ......... ................. .... ' .... . ... ........ ...... ' ... .. ......... '

'

26 .

Have y ou observed any unusual phenomena previously ., .. .~~ •. •

27 .

I f so, giv e details of

28.

State ~ny experience which enables observer to b(' reasonably cert ain o.bout the answers given to 1<} and

inc id~nt(s) ..... . .• . ~~~. ........... .

19.

N\L ......... ... .. ..... .... ........ . .. ... ......... . ' ......... ......... '

'

29 .

Ar e you a member of any organi sat ion i nterested in aerial phenomena?

No .............. ............. .. .................. ..................... N../A .............. .. . . . . . .. . ..... .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . ..

30 .

Hame and Address of organisati on ........

. . . . ....... ~.SJ'. .. .PRtoR Any a dd ~. t ~. onal ~nformat~on ..... . . 10 . ... .l-.16-d ... .. I... . (-1}()~~~ C.0JJ.JMN CJF St-101<~ wf\-A.,. O~S~...r-R.Jt.:.~

31 .

• • , • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • ' ' • • • • • • ' • ' • ' • • • • ' ' • • • • • • • ' • ' • ' • • • ' • • ' • •

./?! ~~.~ .6: .. /t-;~i!_Cf':~L:Y.. j . .f.~t.S, . .fti:f!fJ'JJ7:? ..!.~ . .J:=:'. ~. ~ .. ..~ 7111.: sA-MI.! pos ' n c.oN ll-~ •J'H-t.r r A .,. . ~ I Signature of Obser ver ... ·/.fk"':'· 'r~·~'/·;"; ~ .. . .

32.

Location of any air t r aff i c in the vici ni ty at the t i me of

... . .... ~~~~~~~~: . t'.<? ... K1C!"f7•. ~~'= .. ~'f. .:~ .. . 11~;Y'f':--?--.t... .... . A-J'J~

'

;~~ .... ·~~:~~~::~~·~~~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~· :~~~~~~~·~~·~~~·~~~~·~~·~~~~: /ltMr- 6.......... Jk ~ ~-n-s r S/f;.,Lr - ................ .......... ... ....

34 .

Comme11te ..

~

....... ' ....... •, ...... . \

~. . .:!f.t1 .. flrf.'t?.c:!.(/J!-::. ~ ..ft.~rlf'.'?~V.'r .. ??.ltf'. .

. . . 7!f.t.f. . .~f'~~(.'"-~ . . ~~~ !! (~ .. f:;t_ '.~~ ....~ .~ .. .i)H'f. .... ...l!r. rlff . . .~!!f . .. /~:'.'~~ !7: · · or,".~"!. · · !f.>~~':"~ · · · · if-f ,

.en: ···

Sig~ature

Qi.IES?:O~S

Note

o:

'1/.r Interrogato~~~ ~

32, 33 and 34 tc be a~swered by interrogator .

Since it is n9rQa~ly impossible to estimate the height , and speed of a. strange object 1 it will usually be batter to end~a.vour to determine the ansle of elevation of tha ohJ• tHl , bhn •nul a 'llhrouuh' Whioh it moved. , nn,d the time taken to do this .


7U~J,•!:_~

Alvl!XAr-llk~

Mt2S

-

CJVr @-

Al'!fl.lld• OBJECT OBSERVED

So'-''~

o;r Obnorv.,...• .... · · · · · · · · • · • •••.•••.••. , .. , .• , . Age

':!~.*.~ ~~ ~w~~~,; ,·~~ .

F?:-? ..

o! Obt"lerver ..

Atldl' O!HJ

OccupntiOl1 of Obncrver

j .

f

.+ .

f

I

I

It

I

t

I.

I

I

I

f

t

I

f

t

I

I

... .. .

•.. .......... '.

It

It

I

ff

Itt

Dn"'-e nnd "'.l.mo of Observation (Time to be given i

..............~ .~ .:f~.~ .~ J. .......

I

5.

1

f 'l~

I

It

Itt

Itt

n

It

~.9 .

Duration of Ob:;ervation( s) .....

I

It

I

oO t

I

I

I

Iff

t

f

t

t

1

t

oca

I

1

I

I

time)

t

\. ........ . .S~ . ................. .. ..

6.

Observers LoC<'l~ion at Time of Sightinc; ~G~ve details of own ~14S 14-b)4t:' pos1hon by map reference . ••• •. . .. .. . ••. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . ... .. .. 1f possible , or by known

• . ....

~~~~ .. ~ !~~.. .~f.~~. <;-} !Y. .crf.. ~p,e~~.1i_9marks) •

, " , -;--, • • •

••

••••••••••

t

1.

Weather Condit~ns at t i me(s) of observation(s) •...........

8.

Aids to Obserwation(s) . (Describe any equipment used in the rll', observation)

..........0~~. ~ ... %.!": .~ . ~~~~. ~E? .. V.l..... .~:·?.~~~ .. .v:i/'1 ..J:-9~/!~ .. f

f

t

f

f

f

f

f

t

t

f

t

t

t

f

f

I

I

f

f

f

I

I

t

t

t

I

f

I

f

I

f

f

t

t

t

f

t

t

f

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

f

t

t

f

f

t

I

1

I

I

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

. . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . .. '•'there wa:. objec~ f~rs~ obserYed, eg, overhead , comir.g f:-o:n behind a hil:, over tbe hJrizon, etc.

9. .

......

...

Albc~•

..

.

..

.

3o"

........

#

k'"""4.!:>/A-noN ASoJ~

•••

•••••••••••••

-!ttu Rc:ct- re-Ps

•••••••

,

••

,

••

••

••••••••

10 .

What first attracted observer 1 s attention , eg light or noise. NO I LJI<t!. A f>A)..J..ocrJ g...; R-s , rJ (;

~1.

Did object

c - , .......... .... ........................... . .....................s..... appe~r

as a light or as a definite object.

1-................. .I:-! ~t!.r:.. ........ -: ................ ................ . If there was more than one object , how many were there, a nd what was their formatio!l .

12 .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -~.~~- ...~';-1 .. . ............. . .......

t

••••••••

••

, 3.

What was the colour of the light or object ..• 0((1~.(4.

14.

({h a t

15.

Was any detail of structure observable ......••

16.

''I , as any me .... h o d o f

i7 .

Was there any sound .. . ..................... ~.9............

....

· Cif<(.~~. was l· t s apparent snape .....•......... ..• ••............

~}~ ........ .

. ht , He1g

. . N0 propul'enon obv1ous ...................... .

l of orange

'

.

.

'3 0°

e~evat1on ............ · ···••#•• ·•••· ••••

H~:~~~~J. .~~~. {!~.~~~.l ..

i9.

Speed , or angular velocity .

2V

,...as t he ooJect · · . ~,;. ..... - 1r/1 s .... at1onary? .......'vj, , -. . . Tlh'J..J...(. · . ... · ·· · · · · ·

~.

21 .

'Uhat was the direction of flight with reference to landmark" or points of ti.e compass .. .

············ ····· ... ~~~!'-./. ..................... ... ·············· --/

.. . /2. .


-

-2-

Did the ob,icot remnin on a straight path, deviate or

........ ~~~~~~~~·~. ~~. ~~~ :~~t;t:' ~~:. . 23 .

I'IAs 3ny

~ ~ ~ ~:r:~...~~ ~~ ~P. .

\

7. .l..

trail of exhaust , vapour or light seen ...S.':"'. C?~.~....

\','here ~id ob~cct disappear, eg in mid- air , behinds hill over tne horJ.zon . '

24 .

~ I,./ M ..... ......(-1\--l) .. .. ..r........... ........ ...... ...If..R... .. ..... ........ ...... '!)

25 .

;-

IJ)

I

Existence of any physical evidence such as fragments photographs, or other supporting evidence . '

No ... ......... ..... .. ..... ... .... .... ... .... .. ........ ........... ...... 26 .

Have you observed any unusual phenomena previously ••. • ~ 9... .

27.

If so , give det ails of

28.

inc id~nt(s) . . . • .... . . . f':l.)0,......... .

St1te ony experience which ~nab les observer to biJ reasonably certai l'l about the answer s given t o .19 and

19.

NIL •••• •

•••••• •

29 .

•• •

i

•••

••••••••••••••••••••• •

••••• •

••••• •

••••••••••

N

Are you a member of any or g anisat i on i nterested in aerial phenomena?

!\:::::::: ~ : : ~::

0

~~: .....~~~~~ . ~~~ . ~~~~:~~ . ~~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~: :: : :N)

...... ...... .... ... .. ..... .. .... ....... ... .. .... ................ .... . . .~~.~. . . ~ . . ."'!'t . .. fl.s-:.r:~ ................ ... ....... .... . Signature of

32 .

Observer~fu.~.d~ . . .. .

Location of any air traffic i n the v ici ni ty a t the t i me of s ighting . p(r/tfrJ ,.J /M r frtc. l rl . s

... ... .. .... ... .. ....rio......... ... ... .. ...... .. ..... .. ~\ ···· · ··· ·

.. ......... .~~';~ ..../f-~"1)...... ... ... .... ......... : .... .. .. ... .

)): .. ...

~~~~. ~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~~.~~~. ~~~~:\~. ~~~~:

34 .

Connnents ... . ..

r.~.. .7!~ ..4~~t;,u;-! .. ~.. f!!t!: ... .'...... . . . . . . ~~~'?.1.6: ... ??':'!. J?.~~';-~~~.r.. ...'t'!?.. :~ .1/.~j .. .~.·~~;:--~~ ... . . .~.. 'f."."! ...)? .~. {. .-;;<! • ~'!. .<;~!'. . .f/ff~ !":'. •.'Y. . ."!!..d7H.';"'!-.. .~~~'!:>. _

Signature of

Interrogator ·~~~j~JP

Qv'3ST:;:ONS 32 , 33 and 34 to be answered by ir.-cerrogator .

Note.

~

Since it is nor-111 ... ly imposs i ble to estimate the height, and speed of a strange object, :.t will usually be better to endeavour to determine the angle of elevation of the object , the angle tl"..rough which it moved, an d the time 1 taken to do this .


~~n.,ICT• :bJ

MEMORANDUM

WtiC>I

Ot

ptlnt ciHtly

RAAF FORM A173 MAR 63 ,_OM

TO

~J PRINTED NAME

I r.or: ~/41C..ff

~K AND APPO_!!::lT~T

~-..- L"Y,.c_ ~/{) <

PHONE EXTN

J-*' .

c.o.o 9771


• 3/A/5)

•t .

"a... !'lle ~,

,-,f o'o s"'"nrv..!l..,.. .... ... ~ .. .........u • s

2.

;.ddress of observer .... . }1. ,-;-: •• •••..- ••••• • ••••••••.•

_:, i.... - WLUU. T G ro • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :~• • • • •

J

• •

AGE .. c:.. .. . ... .

• •

• •.. • .••••.•••..•..•• •• ..• • .• • •••• PHO!rE . ~ . • •... ) . .• •.• • ~

.,

Clccupat~on of obs~rver ~ .• ~: : '-.-. . ~ ; . .1 ••• •-.'"'~: . .•• .' • • •• • ••.• : • . J:. ~ • •-

1. .

Date and t~mc of obst'lrvation .•. 1-:·/ . .. : . )? .... ~,1~ .1.. ? . ........... .

:> .

· .._ · "" ..... . ....... 1 5 d •w ' es o f ob sarva~10u . •. .. .. ..•....•........... . . Du rat~on

6.

Obs~::rvers location at time: of sighting . ; , ./.1.J.. : ~".". ~ .. t .. •

7,

l,.t •. • •

~

t

••

5

..,- J• ••••• ••

'

•.1 •••

•• ••••

••••••••• ••••••• •

rtea-r;ner CO!lC.I. tions at time: Of obser,Tation • , ~., ,.,, ,"l .,: .~ . . • , , , . , . . , t

&.

........•

t

t

t

f

f

t

t

t

f

t

t

t

t

t

+

t

t

~ids

Descrl.be any

t

t

f

t

t

f

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

0

t

f

t

t

t

tn~

or equipment used in

t

I

+

t

t

+

t

t

t

t

+

f

t

t

t

t

f

t

t

t

t

observation

. . . . . .. . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .e.• .. e. .e.• . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ..... . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . ... .

9.

: ~rst observ<:d? (eg , uvernead, comir~ bill , over tr.e horizon) . 200 ft. . Lr . within . . . 200. f~et . . . . .... . . . .... . . . . . . . . .. . .

bi~d 3

. .. .

. . .. . ... .. . . . . .. . .

10 .

fro~

··II!..:r..! HuS ob~c;;ct

t

f

t

t

t

I

I

I

.

Itt

t

t

f

t

t

It

f

It

t

f

t

t

I

I

I

t

t

e

t

f

I

f

t

t

t

t

t

It

t

. . . .. . . . . . . . .

.. . .

(~g , l ight or nc i seJ .

firs .. a tracted obs8rver ' s attention? low.:. l i .t

llil.O.t

t

t

t

f

t

o

t

I

t

t

0'

t

t

t

t

t

t

0

t

0

I

t

e

I

I

I

I

I

.

I

t

It

t

t

t

t

I

It

be-

1

t

It

t

0

I

1

I

I

I

t

I

Itt

I

I

I

I

t

0'

t

It

t

t

t

t

0

t

t

1

t

I

t

I

tIt

I

I

t

I

11. Di e\ ob~ ' <'i: "'l.!; pc-:.:r :'\!'!!'.light or as a defini""e ohj e o~? .•.. . ..... . t

0

If

t

.. t

t

t.

t

f

t

t

t

t

t. :

t

t

f

I

t

I

f

t

I

t

t

t

I

..

t

f

l'?' ;i~

t

1

I.

t

0

t

t

t

t

t

I

I

I

t

:..rz.::.1- . t

t

t

II

t

t

I

t

t

t

t

I

t

t

I

tIt

t

t

I

t

t

I

t

t

t

t

t

t

t.

tIt

t

..

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

I

t

I

t

t

t

t

I

e

I

t

t

I

t

I

I

t

I

t

t

(a)

how many w~r- "thera? •...•-:"• .... . ...••. · . • . ·• · · · · · · · · · · · · · •

(b)

i~ what

forr:..ation \h.r.:: - •• e.,-? .. ••••..•..• · · · · · • · · · • · · · · · • · •

13 . Vlhs:t

W::l.S

'th... colour

nut

w~s

ito· fP ....r .... r.t

!.5 . nas any

d~,. t'll.l

r:,f

·h: ligh-t

Cl.'

shapt!?J:.!J~~!l~ .

obj.:c"L? .... :-.r. '

.J.. t:. _ .

of str";.lc"t\trc {}bs<Jrvabl.:?

RESTRICT:..J

~.':'r.

· :- . • · · · · · · ·

.. r~ •.. ..... .. . . .

n t

I

It

I

I

It

I

Itt

t

t

tIt

t

t

t

t

.. ./2

I

I


..-

"

?..ES?RICTZD

- 2-

.......... ..................

16 .

'Vas any meti:od

propulsion obvious?

17 .

Was there any sound? ......•. ~:.:. .

18 .

W!w.t was i "ts !!eight? \or a!:.gle of elevation) .•••.-.. . . ~ .•....•....

1 9.

What was its speed? (or

20 .

Was the object sta-;;ionary? .. :·.' . ~ .") ...•.... . . PS'1 • •-.· ••••• , • •• ••• ~

21.

What was the direction of flight with reference to landmarks or pQints of the compass?

o~

.. ......... ... -:i. . t . J,.

ungula~

,.:..}. ;?';.

:~T'•.

; . . . . .. . .... . . ..... . ...... . .

veloci-;;y) •... . ... •... .. ...••. . . .

:., r..':~t.~l~ ~ . •.. . ~...............•........

22 .

Did th~ object remain on a straight path , deviate , or manoeuvre at all?

23 .

Was any trail of ~xhaust , vapour , or light seen? •••••.•• ; ...•• t

24 .

t

t

t

tr t

t

t

I

t

f

I

f

t

1

t

t

t

i

i. ~

4-

......

f

f

t

f

f

a I f

s.~.,.,e . I

t

f

t

t

t

f

f

I

f

t

f

t

t

t

f

t

f

f

f

f

t

f

f

t

f

I

f

f

I

f

f

f

f

~1ere did object disappear ? {eg, in mid- air, behind a hill , over the horizon) ••••

25 .

t

I

•• •••• •••••

~

r t

••••••

i ...... s •••

•••••••••

••••

••••

f

••••• •••

••••

Do you 1.:1o·:l of any physical evidence? (such as fragments, p~oto ­ graphs , Qr other supporting evidence ) ) _ iQ te ........................ , ... . ...... ..... ... ........ ...... ........ r~e I ~

~t

~ v

26 .

Hav~

27 .

If so , give brit:f details of incident(s) . ··'···· · . ..• . .•.•.•. .•. •

you observed any unusual phenomene prev i ously? •..•••.•.•••

t

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

..... . .......... . ........ .. . . ... ... . ...... .... . ..... . . ....... . . . 28 .

State any experience w~i ch enables observer to be reasonabl y c~rtain ~bout th~ answers given to 18 and 19 .

29 .

Are ycu n ~ncmbcr n f ~ny ;rgo.nization interested in aerial phenomer..a? ....•........... . . ... .. . .................. . .......... .. .•

30 .

name

and nddress uf organis.."'.tion •...•.•.•.. .. ... ..••• • ·. • · · · · · •

31.

nny ado~ t ionu.L :!..tlfOrr:lc'Ttion

. . ... . ........ ... . . . ..... . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. ...... .. . . . . . . . .. . . ..-;b; ch

re:.a,;es to tnc: sighting .

• .. ....... .......... ................ .............. ..... .. ...... .. .. . . ...... . ..... . ..... .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .... . . . . ... .. ...... . . . . . . . ········ ················· ····· ············ ·················· ···· t ..

t.:

uS

a.r:

! ...

..:~r~

ctt.ac

RESTRICTED

... /3


.. RESTRICTED - 3 PAR':' 2 - '..i~IT': !:"A:OUATION

32 .

'ihe followir.g :iE ta::::; airc.ra:-t -ere in th vicinity of the reported UFO pos~<:ion at .:.Oe •ime · , _ Aircraft type •...... .. ........•.•.•.. . .... . ....... . . ...... . • ..• Headl.n ••.. .......... ....... T

•• ••••••• •••• T •• ••••••.••.••..•• T

Height •• •.••.• • •... . .. , 000 ft

•. •• • ••. . .••• , 000 ft . . ...•.•... , 000 ft

Speed . . ••....•. . ..•... . .. K • • •••••••••••••••••• K •••••••••••••••• • • •K

:B.

The following civil aircraft were in the vicinity of the reponed UFO pos1.tion at the time : - "'"· Aircraft type . • .•.••.• . ••••• • ••• •• ••. • • ••••••. •.••• . ••. , ••.. .. • , Heading ...... , .•.•.•.•. T •... , ••• • . ,., • •••.•... T • . • , •.•.• . ..... . ..• T ~t ...•.

Height •••••.•....... • , 000

.••..••.•. , 000 ft •..••.••.••. , 000 ft

S-peed •..••.• ••• .•...•.•••• K ..•. • •••• •• • , ••••.•• K ••••• . ••••••• , .• K

34 .

Calcula:tions s!'lo·.\ that the following planets or major stars were in that portion of the sky at ~he time:- •...••.. • .•. . .•••.•••.••

........................... ........ .. ........... ..... ' ... . . .... 3~ .

meteorological balloon was released from ••••.•.•••• . •••••.•••••

h

~+

•.• • ••••••

z and

could have been in the reported UFO

position at tne time .

36 .

The State Observatory in the nearest capital cit:r affirms that aerial phenomena in tha~ por~ion of the sky at the time were l /A . •... . . •. ..•..•• . .••.. (comet , meteor1te shower, etc) .

37 .

Any other relevant remarks (e& about satelites , rockets ,

research 'balloons) .. ... . .. , . ~;tv ... , ........ ......... . . . ·.· . • .. · · • · • · t

,8 ,

t

t

"

t

f

t

f

f

f

t

f

f

f

t

f

I

f

t

..

t

t

f

f

t

f

f

f

f

f

e

f

f

f

t

t

f

f

t

t

f

f

t

f

f

f

t

f

f

f

f

t

t

f

t

f

f

f

f

f

f

Thore ~s cor.clusive evidence that the object reported ;vas . .....•• •. t

f

t

t

t

f

I

f

t

f

t

f

f

t

t

f

t

t

t

t

t

+ '

t

t

f

t

f

t

'

f

f

t

f

t

f

f

f

t

f

I

t

f

e f

f

f

f

f

e

t

f

t

f

t

f

f

f

t

t

t

f

t

f

f

f

................ ..................... ............ ............... . . '

'l.q .

'i'he obJeC-&

roport~:

'

co ld ha•.rc bf"el'l ................ , • • .. ......... •

................... ............... ........................... ....... 40 . •

~he

cause \OI ~,...'~r: !II{<'

l~kely

cause

of

t~ s~~t.1ng

canno• be detorm1nud .

:f-11,.9' lirr /r <-1 C.u--..<.t/~7 ~!Jr/v "-Y~#T/A6 vl'tf.~ £, rll'~,q If' 6r,d~C'~,( fZ.r,~~ ~,... ~.

• ·) •.. . ~. . . ~. ......... • .• •.• .•. . .• ~ '.. Jn.it

~ ••• ••• ··· ~v ···· · ·•••

...... ! . , .. , . "': ;, , ....... , . , ..(I>a. te)

....... ,,, .... "': ......•...... :ank)

RESTRICTED

. ...:;::;.~_ -,:,<

_::::J--

1iame)


YASS. 20th.

Police Station 1967

aupe

Pilot Offioer Kelly Pairburn R.A.A.P C!DERRA..

SUBJECT â&#x20AC;˘-

Request for Police to interview persons concerned in eighting of unidentified Plying Object at Burrenjuck on 17-6-67.

RSPKRENCE :- Telephone message received Yaee Station 19-6-67. - - oOo- I have to report that the request for Police at Yaee to interview Mr. w. Cregan of Burrenjuck and obtain information in relation to the sighting of an Unidentified Flying Object on the Burrenjuck Road at 12.40am an 17.6.67, has now been carried out,and full statements have been made by Kr. William Arthur Theodore CREGAN and hie wife Eeme Alice Ver,nica CREGAN,both residing at Burrenjuck Village. The statements obtained are here attached. I have now ascertained that the property on which the alleged sighting of the unidentified objeot took place is owned by Ledgeworth Pty.Ltd. of Yaes,and adjoins Bogalong Station and Dr. Pagan's property. No person on the Lsdgeworth property witnessed the flying unidentified object, and there has been no previous reports of a similar sighting.

On checking a Milittr)' map in relation to the course taken by the alleged unidentified object, it was last seen to be headed in the general direction of Murrumbateman over the back waters of Burrenjuck Dam, and not in a direction between Bowning and Yaaa as stated by Mr. Cregan, this direction given would have been too far to the north, it was a general easterly direction . I made a close survey of the grassed paddock on the Ledgeworth property where the unidentified object *as first seen and alleged to have omitted a blast of greyish light towards the ground, Nothing was seen to indicate that the object bad been on the ground or had caused any scorching of the grass or earth with the blast. I am of the opinion th,t taa the two persons all the sighting of the unidentified flying object, have given a rMI~~LUll statement of what they saw, they are both matured persona, and highly respected citizens of Burrenjuck, and their report in this instance would be a genuine one. There is no suggestion that either o! the two persons were under the influence of liquor at the time, and it would appear that they did both see something unusual in the sky early that morning, which matter could possibly be connected with other reported eightings of unidentified flying objects over the Sydney area later that same morning.

This file is here forwarded for your information and further attention aa requested. ff,t;./

/ /? ~

<----

( A.B. Vale ) Sergeant 1/c


P. 190. New South Wales Police

STATEf\lENT in

Place:

mntter of:

.bu1· ~ o::uJUC~

blacK 1,,

_h_o_a.;..d.;_______

u~e

Dnte:

nilJ..iam

~rt.nur

Tt.eodore

Address: C.or.s er·v<:~.t.l. un

Occupation:

STATES:-

't .. oH C.ouu.uiss iou - .t>u... <::nJucK Lam I

a llla.LI.l.<::U u.cul ae,eu bb ~t:c.rs . a cL.I d<1•!.~1· l.<'l oc~:~o~a:t.lou ew!'lo.;, ea u,> Lhe •• ater (.,o~se.va't.Lon an c.. II'l'ita<:. t.1.on vOIU!JU3o;,J.. ~ H at .oU.Lit::liJUCK .vam. I !lb V.: uot wor·keu sit,~;<.;. f e:Lr ......r .Y 3lil

1'orw~rly

l.:lbi.J as rt:sult 01 uacK ii.Jur.l.es l.:Ce::1vs:~oo 1n tus:i l·. • A. a . l: g,:t .. es'teul AUStl'aliaz ana l nave Ut;..t;;ll rt::Co:..l.V.l.U!!; .be~atria t .t-ot :..t.ot - ion ueu~::1its sihce l'::lbo .

-

At au out 1- . 40ala1 on 5aturda;t morning t.ae lrttn 1 JuHe d.rivinb my Holueu sedan car 1~0. CZN- dJO at tu.t:: tiiDe

l.;~b"/ 1

I

VI' as

ac(.;Olli~aniea

DY.. ~ v.-i1e, LSllle X-L ice Cregan. 1.e naa QQtn I.!!H<U r..t tnt: ~QI.(.It:: . s C..luu at. .x.ass 1 allQ was retm·uL.a howe to .OU1.1 t:!l•JU!:;,I:t . .. a~u tr~v~~l iu~; a.Lo •.~.b i..l.t.~ ...,1..4.L J. t::•!JUCK .noaa., t;ov. ... ras .OUL.;. t:oUJ ... c.r.. .v.;.w a.J.C 0.0

:s,ana

anivc..l at &AiJ.J..e•• • s Lreu a ...t::asw-ea. ai~I.W!~!:i Q1 ~J .l [ul l es east 01 tn~: nuwe .ti 5 m;ay L•t.c::1·sect1on .. :.1.) a ttt: •• tion ·:.as dra11.n to an OOJect .l.t> tne SAY abou't a l.a11 a m....Le a ,leaa. 01. tH<:> Cal" Oll the le1 t naua siae OI the road, _,y_ ~iH:: •iz:s:t di:clla I,;,_ at. te1. tiou to tne or-Ject v•.nicn i.as tner~ auQU:t t;QQ 1 es:t ll~· ID :tue air over an o~en ~rasseu ~:::auuocK a_,u_ \.itniu :w.t "-!.l.J f:t::t a. t ne

""'

ro<>.d\\ai . Tu~ ou,1ect I sav. \.as a r~ eJ.or,j lib C[ ,1ect ,:t,•e coloux: 'as al.t. orar.ge rea, t"1e ·.. .no.Le t.f.l.i.ng seer..ed to ue a rea IOV. t .F!lo T sc.w a u.Lc-.st 01 e,le_risn ·.. J.lite .Hgnt 111 a v snal:!t: CQ.J•E: J.rQu. tni~ OGJE:C't towarus tne ~rouna. 2 it v.a~:o O.t.l..lY. Q,i. SOOl:t Ul .I Btjon ] COi11 ,e ' -ed to. ..JY v.He 1:nat .l.t .looKeu li.n.e SK:',i l:O!::Iis::ts, S[1e sc j . , llO its ,.ot sKl: roc ...ets aua. its not a i:!lane . l :toe•• sta~1• ec. Ill~ c~ x: Bl1d got 0 OH to t t1e roaaway . I tnen made ~ !::.lase oLtsez:llatJ 011 Ol tot:: Ol•,jiO:Ct I sav; that the OUJE:Ct •• as a !.air siz.e J I' t11e dj st. lice it looo~.t::d. ue ai.Jout six feet across. I sa~. that t.he c::ro.<:a r>P • . .~;.c:: c::i ~11l' +:n an old tlle uo::er t.arrel wnicn v.as lxiug Q&o i :ts sloe . I s ~ l~ to at ±l:1e OUJE:Ct v.aw tnen WOVll!B to;.aras DUll.'t::t~ I:W.C~ .. lid ~.a r:a 1 1t:l J tc, tc1e road,. i t wa~ Oil,li moyi ng slowly I got ' ·ii<C1l i••te a .y. 9aF 3itGt I >.as trave.Llli,fi aL a110llt ~· ~ d Olld las I t a I I Cll1f::U :tllf: OI•Jt:Ct , ca.tcniug Ul,! to t1le oP,]es;;:t, I lQ.l.!.O~afi:Q H I Ol: a .~::as. z:ed. 1 i.U ~~-.;,.. 0 n.i.les to a p..Lc.ce ul!eie t ..ere is a rise ih tn!-< ro "' .... ·,t t.r.i c:: T, ., ..... -tT tiwe I ~.o.s tnen on.lv a ...out i200 arus C. 1 ST~1H, t'A n "'• a 5 a1r. sto~ 1-t:a tne car to ou§~ry~ t'l"S OwJE.Ct , I tile I sal I H'-t a.~,J .... ec.z·eu to Lit: r.:a l.1.gnts tli!;;~l g 2 1 1 ercu1 a t e Ol•c~a::ct ,~t se& w to ...e tr.e ot.e lif,l1J< !.l:i.soid.ng alJ. iii:OHa.O toe o1 Ject t~:e •J.:~.cld..

.

1

'

" ~s lliUCu ,jU.1.s;J.I:s,~l toa.:t :r.ba:t us eo Oll a j z:cl 01" t. I uac;i "'t:;&~tt geG et:tt 01 Ul.:£ car Q,, to tue I:Oi:ld~.a;)l, ana es I O• S4i~ll4iiQ :tit~ ea;jt:et eett.Lu ai s t11.c t.1,y n~ar a c1ic.li.il•~ IlOise COJ...iHg frou. thl:: o~..;Ject 1t \'.C.~ a

*

Witness:

- - - ~"--

Sisnature:

Av~

/

4vv


P. 190A.

(~)

Page No.: ~TATEMENT (continued) in mallcr of:

Name9h.t:.t.iAI~

----

~.i.U.iam

ArtHur Tueoaore (Sum--;.; io -:;tab) - - - -

- e.L libUi:S :-it car Ul11U\. -_y.a.§. quit~ ax~ ~f.!iL>le loua noise, uUt l>Ot t ••ces;:.i vel.1 ~~~I -~"t!.O.!t.t. t:U ;y__E a_r -~ sa;·, tne OUJe(..t ..ua.Ke a XXgm le.t. t~~n..L_aua. it nt:ao.~_si oi1 to·.. ~ rds so..ue hills in a airectio.~ _oe.H::l ...lly t.etv.eeu. -_tne_j;_OJ:.ll..?_ Ql _P.O~.uilib aha ::t.ass 2 t.ne o~.~-L~ct ~ a.s st ill o·.J.~_tra'lel.lJ.ll:g _at a slO>\ s~~o::a, it diC1 ~lot al:!~::~.::ar to ~aiu or loose ~·> ue1~;,nt, _,I_ llid .J~o.t ic;;_e ..£-_s_:!!he ouJect trave.Lied awa~ Iron; me ~!- a.~~k"~~to .o.~v..e a...J.>.OU..-l<:Y ac_ti_oJL_l rom one siue to tne otr.e!:~ it ;.as ou.l~ I coula lltar the Ho .... se oi ~. J:~.bn1 ~Q_vewe!_~t !·rom siae 'tO siae. - half u.i.le dist..ulc..e as i t illove_£ aw~x__._I_ tH~Q.~!!.£~....£Q.!'....<!._gO Od _<;J)utiu~e_g_k_ v.a_~cn tlle ouJect for a 1Jel i?_~_ o1_Jen w.iuutes 1rorn tne ---last t:.i.ute }_ Q,ad__~~£.P~ed the car. 'lhe .OLJJ6Ct cor.t i •• ued on a't its ·--slow §.£e_~9- ix. tne air~ctl.on of ~:.~ety<eth ~~~~!b._~1a~~-I tne.n .&..9t uacK i.titq the car I naa a couversatl.on v.itn Jl!>: wi~LJout tne OI.IJ6Ct ~C1~EH...f arove horue. I would say_~~~~-~.fl~_g_-~~~ OuJect uoise

-s~milar --

Uu<..er

to an amlJli.1.iea Loise

w:t__q_~.~servations

01

tor al:! ~:::r-oxi~a tel)' lb

wi.J1~_'!; ~s

irolh t.ue tit·st

S~Ml_tiL>g

O_l_j._h_ I .1ave l•t:: v o::r seell

OuJect iH t.L.e

li.h.e tn1 s o.u.e ... o::.r~ _l. 't v.as SOi..lt:: lOI't:igu. ouJect. I woul.a say_ tr...at it •. as aot a.t~_(Qrw ...Q.i g;i.r!;r~J.:t jtn~:t I lUlQV. auout,~..... l na•e tl~~:i__,t'i Y."'--J. f;:gi s e.-uS.U...e._ce _-.u..tn....sur~.

On t.ne

l<I!~

SA~

h ..... n.F,

I.i~:,nt

~olaiers

of sign'ti.~ tne u.ui ..... e~.t~liea ~1~~u_vis_i.t,~ t:1e Cluo at. 1ass 2 ana I did uot nave aHJ: U;0 re t:.a.. si:&. lliic......ies

oe~;:r_ _g~r..l.,...!~e

Q;!,

8.L

lu now:s tna:t I J.•.?&...a_t_~~lELc-l U.O.J.Uu..__il.t...J..a.s.s... I

aau UCi ..J.~e.x.._a:t~®.t_l.O. Vu• r;na.t.Jli.&u..t..__ L ..aru....LJ.o.:Ls..u.~..J..f:.c.t_to .Jl.a.ll..wJ.i.uat.ioJ.lS, Ql: any: ihJYI:Y: ell t;Ctiug D~ eyes J..t,.utr-UI'~ . -Lam yui te cot.viuced tnat v..hat I \S:a:w _t!J._<;Lt_H:i..Et..n.t-~...s.e&&.tni.ug_ . r~alistic , anu v.as SUp~ortt~!!1t.._j.HJL_SE:~;),_1,1J:.._t..u~ .Aii.W.e~..c.t.., aHa my w11e is an austaiuer from liguor. - l.ll t:.e ll.rst it•stance I ;.as r•ot l,!re.l:!area tQ J.:.~!.Q!:.'L.tlliLS.U.U.:ti~lg 01 ttliS ouJec~.l as J. aid HOt desire c;uq~J:~£~_t-~~out 1 t. !JUt on vi~;;v.L.g tne teJ.eyision Hews !'rom t.he •• 8. t ..=!-_QJl.<!J.,_fl.t~t.J.Q.u.s....o.u.__ ~~~Ltne lb:-b - b7 _\4_._i_aSI.....Lk.~JLU.~.1u,g_.....Q..LJ

i t ,.·. as S:t..l;l.tea tuat S.eY.e.....al

J ects

si tLlti.I.>&S-O!

jo ~yd "fll<

area earl,.. .aao tnt: _0:• ~··ev~ous baturaa,t .illorr..ing ,_auu l _ tal.e.H Q&C:,l.w...e.a._t~ t,1e wat.tt:r_Q1_ s....t. Sl.f.ntiug,as I felt tJ.J.C1t tu!:1'~ .. ~s-~ Qm~ SQH~t.;i..QU.. ~.1 tn_ tnt: otneq__l'o::!JOl t.ed si5 .rus~.L..tn.e.....o~o~~t:.c..t.

----- - - - - -

ue.er~een

·-----

-----

-

----

-

---------

·-- --- .. Witness: 97 11

5.6l St ...20

-··

-

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

·-

---·-----


.•

. t'·.

~~

New South Wales Police Place:

P. 190.

-...rrt: •. Jt..c..,_ .o.~ac.~.\ r.a.....g e

-lac~

Date:

l'l~e: ~·~·~·~Su·~--~~==~~~~~==~~~~ ~·~c~c=-~·~~~r~o~·~~~c~a~·~------------------------------­ cs-e iD «~Pita!.) .u~.orrt... JUCt.. .,iJ.J.a~e Address: Occupation: -------:.uuOJ.HIOJtc'"'Sot.t......_l~c-.~.~!.tu.kut..il..!s,.;SiL.L•--------..::lSTA TES : -

J~..to.e

.dt..• • nu.sw~s

at

...,.UlXE:L,IUCA \iiJ. ...... g,e ,

"Y

car tJ.ave .........l.••

l.\.1-SliC:.uU

1.ro~..o..

t~~ C.J' ,

CiS driV..L.!e;

~.

!;Jt.7 I , t.

s

h~-t

.ass to our

U&C

toe .tiuwe nib_s:at a.ua nad trs. .. eJ..J..E:i.l aoout .,. .ll..L.ts

t ..r .ec. o11

<doc.&; tne ,~;,urr·e .. Juc: noaa to .. ar·as L'U.! ... E:u.tUC.K . a.I"'- as toe car caJiie to ~AilJ.eu' s c...re:ek , I tneu sav.· a strea.K of sou.etning lix..e a f{re} coJ.our , it wa:. uot <..istit.c t lit:.llt lil•O. i t >.as not 101:. .

l

co!l.++ler.ted to .n) nus~..~aslt,. J;nat

looL.e-.. Ci;J'

it

c. t

it,

.l. t

~-U.S HOt !,'t;.::::"Y

auol..t a

ea..

co.... ourea oval

re~..~..~sL

4

1'Ul,J..

t •• e: moQl.

as tnt

.I,IOSJ.t.iOl.

Ol.

tn~::

J.t .. a .. a star tal.1.i.t'li . ,e wptu J.e... t. nar.u SJ.ue 01 tut

... as L.l a 1,)a~.~.-.ocK 01. t.lle

!tiOUll •

011

'!;I.e

roa4, toe

sna~ea

I .l:;aev. I

oc ect '•. as O.u

moo.. .

fro ...

'tl•E:

Ou v E:Ct. ~ t.Ilt: So:.Y ... So:..> tnat. it nac. rea . tne li cL ts v. t:r e: 1Jl~~.L. 5 vc:.c.... il.. to tm; caz·

sto.t'• ~;;....., t.ne seco•.c.; ti.,e .

L1

t1.s

4 1st... ,

1

E:

lasnj ' o

J· ..,, ts • c.a •• t

tnf: a. cJ<= Ct

sc

it.

•· t •

l1ot a r'" • .w.,; ,or ;..

or a.iu Witne$$:

Signature:

c

I

ro.p ....... llii .

J. ....., .. ttuVE:I

~eH


---

--------t JJ.

•~1\f

f

-- ____,·

PP1DE?AIR

E S T R I C T E D A3 UFO SIGHTING$ PD UFO SIGHTINGS REPORTED BETWED~

BAI ~!bDALE AND SALE ON EVENINGS OF 8 AND 10 J UL 61 PD

INITIAL Rt:P()(T IS A) FLAT SHAPE wiTH FLASHING LIGHTS B) EL[\ATl~'-4 20 DEGREES C) TnAVELLING FROM SC'UTH TO SC\JTH IllEST PD

IN\rf.STlGATllG

Oz:o~FI-::.i

APPOINTED

'B't

L


--•

-ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR

TELEPHONE: 69 OSSO

TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS: "AIRCOMMAND. MELBOURNE"

IN UPI.Y QUOTE

HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT COMMAND RAAF VICTORIA BARRACKS MELBOURNE SC1 VIC

5/61Air(69) (

- 7 JU;_ 1967 Secretary Depart Rus CA UN-IDENTIFIED FLTING OBJECT DAPI . Herewith is a report of an un-identified aerial object sighted by Mrs F.M. O'LEARY on 18th June 1967 at BULLEEN Victoria.

:l!t4

(L.B. BROWN)

Wing Commander For Air Officer Commanding


路..J\


.

~a~e of Cbser-.·er •. . . -~ ,-,r; . . ~· .0. ~~- .... . ... . A~·lo •••'- ."f.

. •.•

Cbs~r.-er .. . .4 . ~oP..•.f1$t:n. ... ~':"~)...~. ~~(.IJ~.t;Q ••• • •

4.

Addrecs of

).

Oceu_.~.tior.. of Obs .rver ... . 1/()fl'.~ ])~e,~ .. "f-. ~.~f :- . ~n:'"fJ;. ~1. ~..;t1 •:..,.~

'

~ate

'T •

(~iue

ana 7i-:nc of Obs..,rv.:.t:.o::

to be given

locz:.1. <;i e)

il!

.. ..... . I~ l.i.fo#. ;fl. f. ...~ .. .'!-.-: :·?'. ~~ : ~ ...................... . Durat:.on of Oo .. c.:-vcttion(XJ .... . ff/Ar:t: :< •• A .. . ,<f'~'. ?.-t ...... . . . 5. 6.

Ol.server c

Loc,.tio~

at '::'i::.!e of Sig.•+.iLg

~Give

details of o.1r.

p 1JOSition by • ..-ir . JA,(l$ ,. ,t;./;9/'~l. 1 f'. ? ..~11. NJ('/:. . (?ot;~r... . .. if .t,'OSSibl.a , "T"

!D.'

r.. ref!:!rer:.~~

or by r..r..own

1 landmarks) Pf .• ())Y. .IJql'(le .. S:H . •->.h':t:J."• • P/1• • •~/.<~.t-~[1. . ·ti).fft-or.. '1 t=t: .1.1 ~-/.I.J . . .. ... ... .

7.

Weath.=r Co:1dJ.tions at

ti!:'~::(-o1 of obs·::·v"'tion~ .... ?-.Jff1r. .. ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v' •

J\i t:s

110

Obs_rv::.tion(s) .

k

(::Je;crib;; a.n:· e:J_uip e,.t used in the observation)

... ... .... . . . ....• . . N•. . ... . .•.. . . . .... . ... ... . . ... . ...... . .. . ..... .

. . . ..... . . . . . .. . ... . .. .. .. ... .. ... .. ..... .. .. ... ..... ....... ..... . "

9.

"

1ihzre ·,ras oojcct first obs~rve{l , e;; orertead, c o...i~:g from bellind a h i ll , over t:.e hor izor. , ett:: .

• . • . . . . . . • • . • • • • • . • . • ..... 'ltrt' • • QP.r.I.'Z.:~ ":" •.. . ..•...•.•.••.•....•....... ..

10 .

~nt f~rst nttrac~ed

obser,er ' s

~ttent i or.,

eg ligr.t or

nui~~ -

. ..... .~!'!Jfl.L. .. ..f:. iJ .h.~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .. . 11.

D:!.d ObJeCt appear

~s

a liz!.t or as

~

clefinitc ob,i ~~t .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1:-!.J.If~. . . . . . .............. ........... ... .... .. ' .. . 12 .

I f iiher<:: was "!!lore tnan one obj act , how whn.t WSI.C their foru~~tion .

m.~ny

were there and

.. ... .... ..... .... .. ~ ................. .......... ... .. . 13.

Ht'iht was

. ti? . ~( . sh" _.o . . . ... .R.o.4.1J~( .................. .

the colour '>f the light or objact .. . )'.e/(t?"!':

~-il.'lt wo.rJ its 3:t>pn..:e:1t de-t~~il

of s"!;:.·uctta"e o"'Jserv--nle .. ... •

N.e: .. ......... . .

15 .

v;os 'lny

16 .

Wns any method of propu:sion o7rious ...... . . fJ.c ............ .

17 .

Ia.> thcrt..! a~ soun-J ......................... N..C? .........

18-·

·· .1c1· ·h ..t, or• ar.crle o...~

19 .

Sped, or angulcr velocit:r .. ~f.'<. . P.rt.''P•.. } . '?! 1f1} •. t:r.•...

20 .

'J-:.:.s t .•e object

21 .

Y.'h:.t

1 - ~· lt .4'5' e~e,e,~on .. .'~.Po t i. r.(t,. •••••.••. 0

. . ..

/lr;. ··'::J ·e..... · ·· ·

/1 .~fS

sta-:;::..o~'"'r:T ........ . ........ . Nk ....... ...... .

y;~s the C.iraction o!: f~ig.ht .,:.-;a .:-ef.::rer;.ce to laadr::ar}:s or !)Gints c:: the com!_)as;: . ..

. . . Yrr:(~ .. I.<>:~C .. .. 4C? . .'-~~~t: ........... .. ................... .. . . . /2.


-2-

Did the object r .. main on a str'1ight puth , deviate or ~ rwno~uvr.. nt ~, l? I'LJ-'f

. .

·: .It: ..·V.V':'fl. .(~ .1? n 2) .

,

e

CXhAU3t,

Ol:

+ .'>J

t.

t

t

t

t

t

t

l~-~ ht oe ·n .. . 'VeS I' . . • . . . . . . . .

V pO"" Or '41.

dis::~ppec.r, eg ::tid-ni::::- 1 bei.ind

uhvl'C did OOject hori~o· .

2.; . t

tl' i.1.

¥iS l\n:'-1'

_

.t. . (~'. .~ . ~(,_j~t!x. t/.o.~'':'~-:a.":'.t. ·~. f:!'~ .M~.4r. . ~ : '!-ksc ui • .l, over

0

M,,J at,.,

t

t

t

t

t

t

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I,.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

t

t

tIt

t

Itt

I

I

I

tt

I

I

t

It

.c.>:istehce of m1.:r pl:ysic~:u. evidence su.c .. as fr. ~ents, "'hnto ..ra,hs , or ot:1er sup~o··ti::g evitlence .

<!5 .

. . . . . . . . :P.r~ .. !jl.1t. ..~$ •• •~. ~!?~? .. t?.~~n·y~.( .~Y..rr~. Th~j~~.. C?.:;e

fk~

.,

.. . .

26 .

rian: you observed any unusuc.l phenom~.:nn preYiously . ....N..~

27.

If so, give details of inciden~········· . ...... . .

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

e

t

St3te :..n,v ~xp..r::.ence which enabl.:s observer to b ... r<::~sonl'lbJ.y abou·t th~ answc··s giv·en to pa1•as 18 a!1d 1 ~ .

28 .

certai1~

·· ··· ······ ···· ·······~······················· · ········ ...... ... ......... .......... . ... ........ .. ... . .............. . ....... . '

Ar~ you a mc~bcr of a~: orea~iaatio~ i~ter~sted in aerial :t:her..omentl?

29.

···· ··· ··· ··· ··· · ... J>l.q ,, , . .. . ...... . .......... ... ................ .

30. •

Na~e and adc.r0ss of org~::.is~:ti~ ................ . •

0

34 .

•••••••••

..

••••••

•••••

••

•••

•••••••••••

0

••••••••••

Location vf -.ny ;neteorological st tions ir. the gc::.crn1

33. ••

!'I fL.. •

0

••

Nil .

•••••••••••••

.

co=entsf.~~~~ ~-(~~ i~r:r. :~4 .?.-t.~_.t...,t--

.~ .~~~.~ -~~- ~ - ·· · · ················

·- ~~-- ~..~~--~/~ : ....... ....... ... .~ · · · ..... . Si¥!.::.turo Q'JE3~'IONS 32, 33 :..nd 34 to

oe

,:.

l!lta~_"v

tor ..

nr.3·::..,red by intcrrogEotor .

.

.

nc.t<; ... ~in~c it is noru::1lly i~.possiblc to e.3timutt= th~ height nd spe~d of A ztr;mgo o'Jject, it ...,ill usually b0 bett~r to cndc vour to detcrmit ..) t.!.:l angle of elevation of the Goj ect the angle thl·ou.gh •vhich it moviJd nnd the time t:-k..:ll do this .

to


-

• atRr.W~PP! _.

. ~-P.A

('

lol U4 1'0t>2 1 Z

.ZN-J !N?!?l\lli R JPRPYQPZ FN HQAMB TO ,PA~wPP/DEPAIR ~~ -· .- ~•lltR OP IHQOPCOM

.....

BT

'

R E

s

T 'R I

C T E D AP4 REPORT OF OFO SIGHTING ID BETl·'EEN 04ir> 325 Z ANn

K140 3552 A SRI GHT AND sHINING CIGAR sHAPED siLVERY OBJECT WAS SI "l-ITE' BY HfAD~AsTER CMM sCIENCE MAsTER CMJ1 AND NUMEROUs sTUDENTs O• s~INT PAULs sCHOOL sTRATHPINE ROAD BALD HILLS "LD PD OBJECT AT FIJ;~sT J;lf.MUNP.., Sl'ATIONARY FOR sOME Tiiv,E CMM DRIFTED NNW Fl?Ol" BALD HILLS CMM THEN ACCELERATED TO VERY HIGH sPEED IN SA11E DIPECTION PD NIL NET R LLOONs RELEAsED IN AMBERLEY BRISBANE AREA PRIOR TO 104'051UtaZ PD ~·ILL INTERVll:.v1S WITH WITNESSES

0~JUL AND REPOPT


-'

I

zs

NNNNV DRBoq 0UD/re'r¢'V¥•

c'l .........

HH

f t-RA:!WPP n::..aYROB 45 6 05/0 ZNi ~~RR

--

R ~5<~:272 ZPO

I

_......_..

FM HQOPOOM 10 DEPAIR

BY R E S T R I

C T E D AI126/SOINTELL

-

<A> INTELLIGENCE

-<B>

U F 0 SIGHTING REPORT FROM AMBERLEY

JKC} BETWEEN 040325Z AND JPRPETTZ ABRIGRT AND SHINING CIGAR SHAPED OElJECT WAS SIGHTED BY HEADMASTER CMM SCIENCE MASTER CMM AND NUMEROUS STUDB'lTS OF SAINT PAULS S(l{OOL AT BALD RILLS NEAR BRISBANE (D} OBJECT REMAINED STATIONARY FOR A TIME CMM DRIFTED

NN ~1

FROI1

PALD HILLs CMM TRtN ACCELERATED 0 VERY HIGH SPEED IN SAME DIRECTION <E) tHTNESSES NOW BEING INTERVIEWED AND EVALUATION FOLLor•lf

FrJ'


\

v,

1

..

~

. ....... ... .

3


ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE TELEPHONE: 690SSO HEAOQU...RTERS SUPPORT COMMAND

RMF

TEUGRAPHIC AOORESS " A IRCOMMANO. MELBOURNE'

'"" IW'I.r ouon

VICTORIA BARRACKS MELBOURNE SCI VIC

5/6/Air( 57)

27 J

.~

1957

SIGHTINGS OF UNUSUAL AERIAL OBJECTS

1, Herewith reports on UFO sightings submitted by the following people . J . D. O' BRIEN, J. ROSE, 11.J . BOYD, w. RITSON, 14r POTTER,

Yarrambat, VIC East .Kew, VIC Thomastown, VIC Newnham, TA.S

Trevallyn, TAS.

2. Comments by this 3ead~uarters have been annotated at -paragraph 34 of the reports. FO:::"''arded for informatiox:;.

~~ BRO','ill) Encl

I

( L. B. ,'iing

Commander For Air Officer Commanding


•..:.i:'c:t~ o;: .AS2h.::. o:o.r:::c::' 1.

:iu~L~

2.

Address o!"

) .

. 0 cc~::-·3.t l.On O-

.&-

.~ ...

4.

L~te

~i-e

of

.

C3S:::~v..::n

of 0'bs rver . . •-f':-.0. ~\~.

ani

Y. ~!"?.: ·.-"" .. ( 1/.~ - ~ ... J..,j! . ::?.'7 Obser·.re:::- .". ~ ~ .'. n:->.'1. ~- •• /~~. "! . Y.IE./f .n: .;::_.J-. . :-J'.:':".~ ; ~"9 r. r

..,,..

.J ~"Yt.6-,t?"'r C"' server ......... . ...... . . ... .... .... . ........ . 7

O'bse~a~ ~o~ l~ine

to be gi•en ir.

?/sjtC,67

lt"?P"Yl

.

loc~L +",~)

.. ....._

. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ........... . ...... ..... .. .... ..... . ;.

.&'

'.J.J.

7.

_ 1/Pitl?o~ S-A-t""" ~L..~ 0 oser••.,~·., • .,l.o~~"" ' · .. ...... . ...... ..... ... .... . . . . . . .

i'1eat.1er Conditione at tir:e(s) o:f observ<tiou(s) ... . . . . . .... .

. . . . .~/4!'.~ .. -~· .~:1!/fft.r: ..13.'*:~~~ ... . ...... . ...... . ......... . . .

e.

.;ics tc U0Sel'1..-~tion(s) ,

t4

(:,e">Cri bejn~- e'J_Uip;..e!'lt U.S~1 in the

-

-

observP.tion)

................. f r'!.~ .. . .. ... . .. .. .. . ............. . ........ . . . ... . . .

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ' .. .. ...................... ........... .. ....... .... . 9.

li!:!er.:: Wl:lS ouject !"ir5t oi:lser""e~ , eJ o.-err.ead, be:und a hill, over the hor::.zor., etc .

cooi:~:g

from

.t:~S...-f~ ~t?.l?.~~~~!. ..C.1~ f:l.l': .~~-'~. ':'.~!. fi.-9K~~: . [';~!. fl.': .'1~ .C!¢1.. ~s S.lr..,_ 10 .

"lhat first att,. r";ed obser·· cr 's a-c-:entior:, eg light o:- noi:J..:: .

J....tc-117 ......... .. ............ .. ............ ............ ........ ..... ....... 11 .

~~c

obJect apnear ~sa light or ~s n uefi~it~ ob;z~t . r ...... ' ...... . .. ... ............ .... .. .. . ............. ...... J...tG-# .........

12 .

If t!1ere was more th.?.n one object, ho•:J many were there and what ·uar: their foru:~tion .

. . . . ... ........... p ('1:' ~ ••c. :'( !-.t.................. ........... .. ... . 13 .

i'fh&t ·mas the colour 0~ th\3 light o:- obj;;lct . .t-Y.A c r.f. 4t~/fT. ..

14 .

Yfl,::~t

15 .

i':as c.n:,· d~to::il of :;tructurc o1Js2rv·e:>b . . .. . ':i. ~ .... . .. . ..... .

16 .

\bs ~ny oethod of propuls::on o'Jvious ......

17 .

"iac thc1·c

'18 .

Height, or angle of

19 .

Speed , or angu.lcr velocity..... ~ . ~.:f:-. ~~·r. . ~.1 .lJ- .c/~rc .1 . . -...;-:

20 .

·;;... ,; the object s-;;a-:;::o-::::.ry .....

21

7lh::::t \':::.~ the C.ir~ction c:: flie;ht .it .. reference to lar.dmar}~s or IlCi!.tS cf the comrmss .. .

was it::; appa..:ent

a~..y

.

sho.:-~ - ~tffl.1:. ~. ~~.'f'-!f.T. . ~ . 9~~~~~ -~

soun::l . . ...• • •• . ...

F. .'-: . ... . ..... . .. . .

f'!<.J. ... ..................... · ..IJ -~

~,. frlf•

<frtfo

p FF .;....,._-

rc, &fs r

..,~.,,;

111'

r

r

"

~

...... .r:'-{

!'!. ~- ...... . ............... · .. .

. . . . . . . .9ouri,~A• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..q~c.r . . . . ./c. . "'" . . . .r'"~~'~~ .. . . . . . .. ..=t...-.P~ . . . . . . ._ . .We . . . .sr .. .. . . . . . . .. ...f

{)

~~LI'11'1{J

ele-..at~on.f!fk:\.C.-.. .. ~~<1-ft/1.~&-;if._ . ':~ . C. .-: .. .'"tt~

v

. . . /2 .

>~~L)


-2Did the objl? ct rcm•lin on ::1 str~ight :Path, dcvint..! or c.,noeuvrc 't '111'?

22 .

...•.. . . . . •.. P.£; Y.'I rf .t:. /-. ':".~ ':1. .11. s. ~~!.Jf. r:~ ~..."f .I!('. ~ ~'.~ .f!. ~ ·"',~ r~ 1£.-c?

/(, b I u t/1 wl1t:.•J """;,;.:£ I...·~Hri il s ~ny t1' .il of exhaust, v pour or lLht se.::n .p,. /~,..

2~ . -

.ih~re d~d 0bject dis~ppear, eg ::ri.d-ai::-, be~ind a hi~l, over

2.;. .

th.:l

25 .

..

~

~or~=-o~l .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .c... . ~

..

11 '11?.._,,,/MOWf.tfNT/fl<{,f,,

"'

:~ ~. . c:-.'. :.~ ................. .... ... ... .. .

Existet.ce of <1r.y physic'll ev:.dance sue:. as fra&nentst hotogrt.phs, or other sup::,>m.•tir-g ev·idence. . .. . . . . . . . . . ('(, . .A... . . . . .. .. . . . . . .

. . .... .. . . ... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . phenOt~ena previously ...

!:'.?'.... .

26 .

Hav.:: you observed any um1eu8l

27 .

If so, give details of i ncident(s) . . . • ...••. :~ . .. . . ... . . .. . .

28 .

St3te :'n,.V expr:rience which enables observer to b"' reasonably certain about th~ answc:;.·s g i ven to paras 18 and 19 .

. ... . .. .. ............... .. .. . . ........ . ... .. . . . . . .. .... .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ,()_ f?.~1-.~ ~':!!':~~ . f.~ . ft./~~/!Y.Jf ~ S . •(.~ P.'?". ••~:··t .t:t ;r~ ~·-. 9. ~~~ , . . . . . .I!.0/~1~ . !.~": .~ '.~ ~~~ ("~.~ .. ~ ~ ~ . (1 ff/.C. '!'..'? 1.~1 r-:::~~6?-.n:~ ,/~/1.r.n. ... 29 . •

a ucmber of an;r organisation i::ter~sted in aeri::..L phenomena?

Ar<: you

••••••

••

••••

••

•••••••

••

/'lo

••••••••

••••

•••

f

..

..

.

.

.

...... ..

..

..

.

Na~e and addr3ss of organisat i on .... ~......... . ..... . ...... .

30 .

. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .... ..... ..... .... ...... .... ..... .... ............... . 31 •

A,·'.Y

... d·t· · ......porm~:~~t l.· on ....• i c.I,•C;I<~l} w rn c,vJ. a~..: l. l.ona 1 ~l" . •.....•.•.•.......

-4"//ITo,.-, .. • .• . •.•. ,'lA&~;. .

.V':'.~~. ! . .1-;''?-• •(:f! ~. .~! ~. ~~'?~~ , ~ .':~ :V,~~.f:! , (/,T_ • ~ ~~ f>./':J:. /:1.'-f , f/..~ ft,S,O,'"f. {OA. 0

fl.;:h.Q..Tt/V'- 11'VC.tD~NT

wA-s-

13AtiJ...tfTrY~r:~ o;; ~'fi.H,- /fiV{) .J.Il<-.K

ir

op

t;.~:s.:d .' ·;..,·v · b·.q~(}:,;r~A· 'ifti.i'o' iii.sc/ ·e,i.;M·.s~o ·c· · · i:f.J.;:- ·w ";;J. ·~ ~: M-f fl<-4s Ori/VAD ObS~I?.v&'iJ Sig~ature of Observer . .• . • . ~. . ~. ,:Jt.on-, ~v,rv ow Locat ion of any air traffic i n the v i c i nit y 3t the t i me of sight i ng . ;; ~ . /

32 .

·· · · ··· · ... ....... ..... ... c~«....... ~~........ ........ ........ ..... .. .. .. .

. .. .. . . . . .... . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . .... . . . . .. .... ............... . 33.

Location of c.ny meteorolo5ical st'1tions in the gt:ncral ••rea .

~~:

....~~~~~~~ ::: ~:;.: :<~ : :~ : ! r::::::::::

• ••• •· ·~ •• ~•• ~r •••~. (?~. ~.. . . .. . . . .......... .

· ·· ····· · · ·· ····· ··· ·· · · ·· ······ ~~~~:~~~ - ~~ - ~~~~~~~~;~~~~ QUESTIO:l'S 32 , 33 and 31~ to "be answered by interrogator . note ... Since it is nort:l,:.lly i _possible to estimate the height and ~peed of a strange OJject, it will usu~lly be bett~r to cndc'l"Vour to determine the angle of elev~tion of the object 7 the :.m~le thro~·.;h which i t moved .'1nd the time

7--

/'1't. 0

t~.k..:n 1iv lo th~s . 1vo.4./f/J" ).l'}llft:

/(t/fP

0 13Ut..r

II r

o/"

p;n

TA (" f"t:lt#v'"""

Y/M~-1nJJtJI /"f/JIZAhp...

!..:!:;

~

...

11 S1MtL-'~t

~


~3PORT

OF

AERI.~ OBJZC~

O»SERVED

~?. .. (1 t • • • -::._: . "o-/• (()Age . . .'ir:J .. . Observer . .. . =?~ . ~~ .":"~ ~.C! . .• ~; . ~ • •ii/·K t::. " , }l ~ ..... . ,_.:t .

1.

Name of Obs erver . .JJ-.... Vt!Y • .

2.

Address of

4 •

3.

' tl p. • • t.- jl • • • Oc cupation of Observer ... • . • .. ..,r;h--.•. • • •• .• , , ~ ct t:.;,

4.

Date and 7ime of Obs ervat~o~ (Ti~e ~o be given in ~oc~l ti~e)

... 2.2./j.f'! ..~1~. i · ... l

J

.-J • •• \ .o.... • •

.l . ~ ....... h ./ 1-: ... ;:-..., ... L -. >-. ~~ •• • • •••• • •• •

e ' "'

I •••••• • • • • , •• I • • -••~ ",_·..J• • • • •

5.

-..Jurau~on ... ' . (-) of Ob servat~on <> •

6.

Ol.serv·er s Locetion at Time of Sighting (Give details of ovm

• •• • • • • • • •

r c l't l I~ . /l I II .tJOSition by msp r eference .h~ ... ,l ;V~t- S . .t:v.•. i. .f[c:.L.~.W~."it; . , . fi 1•• •t.t ":t •. •. i f possible, or by known r I ..., n ~1andmar~ ) ,. .\..J .b . Jtr. .T. J,IIJ'. .ll<. \ J- :~ ;,_\I Pt:.. ~.~l.~t:._ .\!:V):rt;. .I. ~~~~<:• • • :r. .C! \ . ~~~It, t. .-: >I.J.;[ 4

11' .,

1.

~ #I'

Luv~

I

w T•~ !ct..tv/tPI""l ·J IGv~ C -r"( A'"' •ICI.i1(.. '?teath~.;r Conditions at ti~re(s) of observation(s) . : tr !- .' ?~ . .....

0 I=

\-VI" L.

.fg ~~.ftL ,,; ~!\ .£ ~5.1.... ~!{J ~.1. .. (!.tp,v,1~ ... ~ C; (.'1 .11 • • ~/< J (. .. ...... , , . .. 8. .

Aids to Observation(s) .

(De~cribe any equipment used in the

observati on) ~ Ttl · ,.: f r"'···• "'~"'·~ li:~D7 / A<.: c. £.1 - rw-•• P (. (••)..1p,., ~""CJI'I •- ~ J\··'.. J • • 'A., r r ,,,. _t '•"•• -.~.-AF , ,,,1.:;>j ....... •, ••• ••••• ~ •• / '""' I'

'

\

'f

T "'

.P;_ .0~

t t>~. f • "f"'• •• :·•~t:..• , 1\ .••• . •i. , • <.:.~t ..., .-") y= ,7._LA • • 1 ~S 0 l> t L f IV 1 S ' <- "'1.1

9.

(f

')/'~'" r , •,"· .

• • • • •~

t. ~ ~

1

._. ~

~- ,Av, (,) , ••• (l~·, . .T , L, J. •...• ~ P. · •• .--. 'I • £:I VI-i 7 A(;"(; 1.. t. ,;J •

d?" ,, .; (. , ' ; '· ,;...-· ~;

Where was object first observed , eg o1er head, c oming from be!lind a hi ll , over the horizon , etc .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l .. "· ~ ~. lf1.t;" ~ .t:::> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 .

iihat f irst attracted observer ' s attent i on , eg light or noi s-:: .

. . . . .'Tte. l-.' ~~~-::r.. ~. f! :{JF;.c.;.'? . . ~.T. .. !."~.'-.. ft.'!f/n... L >.. ~.. P.-.- ..... . 11 .

"> 71'"P{ ),_p ~ 1. • v .. ~ e.-rl ...t Di d obJect appear a~ a l i ght or as a def i nit~ object .

. . . . . . . ~ :1 Cj ~ tC.~L. .. I . ~.". . .l'?JfI ( ll-:f .1. .... ?! I{~. . .. 4. . S:r. II. ~ •...•...... 12.

If tnere was mor e than one ob ject, how many wer e ther e and what was their forma t ion .

. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .r::. N.~......c. !'!. ~(· ... .......... .. ....... 14.

What was t he colour of the l i ght or objec t .... .\1... 1:1.1.T£ • .•.•.. . appa:-ent shape .... . ... =:r•fJ. ' What was ~ts . Ht'-~•/(...4 ............. .. · ..

15.

Was any detail of structure observable . . ....

16 .

Was any method of propuls~ on oi:lvious ...... . ... l .l.......•.•.•••

17 .

Was there any sound ............ . ............ . -r:

13 .

18 .

1\.c., .......... . I

ft ;--.... ....... · ·

· J) Height , or angle of ele;;ation .. .... ;-. • ... l ~ •• rt·, ...- .-r. ... ..... .... .

+.

19 .

Speed , or angular veloci~y •. . ..•.";:>.• ... . ~ ....1-? ,r. I

20 .

Tto.s the object stationary .... . f..'-: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ..

21 .

'Nhat .1as tne direction of fligh"t v:it.w reference to landmarks or points of the com~ass . .. fY.~

..· .~. . t; ... -

• •••••

.... ..................... ..... .... ........ .... ....... ................ .. . /2.


-2-

22.

Did the object remain on a straight path , deviate or· manoeuvre at all?

..... ... f.t?! M. /{H .. 5:~·.. A (V.Q •• Tt-t.~t, . . .IJ r>r~,.·,~~E.Q . <9. -:lixv/. P.V.L. . ~JVIII 23 .

\Vas any tra i.!. of exhaust , va pour or light seen . .. ..

No .·..... .

~h~re did object disappear , eg mid- air, behind a hill, over the horizon . • . . . . . . • . • • • . . :~.~. H'!).• JHt;. . .. k<:.Zt~ ... t.\1•• 1i 'YP.. .;Nrc... . •C. J.... Q t. .~ • .•• •

24 .

25 .

Exister1ce of any physical evidence such as fragments,

•• • ••••

~~~~~~~~~~1~ ~ . ~~. ~~~~~·. ~~~~~~~~~N:~~~~~~~: ....................

26 .

Have you observed any unusual phenomena previously ..•. J'iC . \ . ,

27 •

I f so, give details of incident(s) .. .... . ...... .

28.

St ate ~ny experience which enabl es observer to be reasonably certain about the answers giv en to paras 18 and 19 •

NC.. ...... ...

..... ..... ............. . ..... ............... . . . ............ . ...... . .. . . . . . . . . .V.\ ~.Q •• :r:o ... R~r-.c,r;.v.tN.<t ... .tN) f!(.r,.'.f'Yl fNT . .1?~.4 P.'ft/C.~ .••• . .. .. .. .. ~ ~·)P..... P.<.- ......1: ?.~t;.)i f/'iD .... :-::7.~.17 ~~J\1~'·..... . . . ..... 29.

Are you a member of any or ganisation interested in aerial phenomena? 1

................. ......... ................. .~v..L.~ ...·... .... . ... .......•. 30 •

. t 1.on . IV ,. Name and a dd ress of organ1.sa .... (\ . . ~ .............. . . . ...... . .. . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • •I • . . • • • • • • . . . . . . • . • • . • .

additional informat i on .•....•... . ~~'. •. fE.. ~(e.r: r.

31.

Any

32.

Locati on of any air traffi c s i gnt i ng •

.... .0. h'?..

.. . . . . ... ..... .. ............ ... . . .... ...... . . .... . . . . .. . . . . .. ... ..... ... . . ........ .. ....... .. . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . . .. . . . 33.

Location of any meteorological st ~t i ons in the general area . I

... .. .... ...................~A-................. . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 . Comments .li?!. ~~-~. ~ .~.7f't. -:{.~~ f:-:.'?'.~~ . ~ .~~ ~"-'

~.A.--.51 ~ ~- ~

.K-31-o/.&, 4-u~ /l'a.> - lfto

~ ~ ~~

.1

.,UJ4·1c:~ '{:-.:J.~:,.;.-~'lf.¥ ~~ . '19' ;a,.;.;,; ~· ;.:.:,ff :..:./: ...

,~. ~..~f~7'· ~·~~~~:~~~ . ~~· ~~~:~~~~:~~~:·& ~ :::: QUESTIONS 32 , 33 and 34 to be answered by interrogator .

~t-T

note ... Since it is normally i mpossible to estimate the height and speed of a strange object, it will usually be better to endeavour to determine the angle of elevation of the object 1 the angle through which it moved and the time taken ~o do this . 1 o.

e


OF Al~iiUL 013Ji:..'C r

RS.."O~T

ons:::.nvsn

,.w\1...... ...... .................. ~ .......... ... ..

1.

N9.111e of: ObRsrver . ..... . .;-•.t-t,J

2.

Addres.:~

3.

Oocup .tion of: Obse1-ver . . .. ':" ... • . , . •. .• .. . . , . .• , ...•. . .•.. . •.••. . . .. , .. .. •. . .. ..

-1 .

Date md Tiu•e 01

o:

Observer . . • 1CI.Fopl ar. Street , .'ftloi.1Utowu ••••• . •••.• e e.

ft

t

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

~b:;e rve.tion (Time -co be given in loc'lJ. time)

.... ' 7/5/?7. :-. I'PJ•m, . ' ?9./rJOI!. !'-!>~~ .. . . . . . . .. ....... ... .... . .. . .. .•..... . .• . . Duration or Observe.tion~s) • .. APp~•. J .~9~, . .. . . . . . . .. ... .. .. ..... .. ... .. .... . 6,

Observers Location at Time of Sighting (Give details of own position by map reference if possible , or by knovm • . •• , ,._t, p.,bpr~• •edd.re .•. . !J!Jt . •••• •. •• • · • • • · • • landmarks) I

1.

I

f

f

I

t

I

I

t

f

t

I

t

I

I

I

f

I

t

t

t

I

I

+ I

+

+

t

+ I

I

I

t

I

+ +

I

t

t

t

I

e + •

I

+ I

t

t

I

f

I

I

I

I

I

+ + t

t

I

I

e 1

t

1

I

e I

f

e I

1

+ I

It

t

I

I

+

t

f

I

I

t

I

I

+ • e

t

t

~C\C))~.. . ••••• e •

•• t

I

I

I

+

I

t

I

I

e I

I

I

I

+ + I

I

+ I

I

e I

e t

e

t

I

+ I

I

I

I

e I

I

t

·f

f

+ I

f

I

I

I

I

f

I

I

I

+

t

I

I

f

(Describe any equipment used in the observation)

e

f

I

••• •• t

t t

f

I

I

I+

f

I

e. t

I

f

t.

I+

t

I

I

I t t I+ I

I

••••• e •• e

f

I

t

e f

+ +

f

f

e t

t

e •

t

e I •

eee f

•• t

f

I

I. I. Itt t

t

e t

••• t

t

•• I •• t

t

t I

••

e ••• •

e e.

'flhere was object first observed, e . g . r-ve:rhead, colllin8 from behind a hill, over t he horizon, etc . •

e • e

-'~ ~ -~ .w. ."\ Q .\~ _qq~'t!-:11!~£!~...

e •

e •

t

t

e. e e. e

e

• t

t .

e .

e

.

t. I •• e

t

e. t .

e t e. e e.

What first attracted observer's atten-cion, e.g. light or noise . S~W1ke •

11 .

t

t

Aids to Observation(s) .

I

10 .

I

It f

leI+

~.

t

Weather Conditions at time(s) of observa.tion(s) ........... . .. .... . ........... .. Cl ear sky - nil ol oud . f

a.

f I

I

e t

I

•• e •• t

e

e e e

flaahin8• I

I

t

e •

e t

e e •• •

•• I

t

t

•• e e

t

t

t

I

t

e

e t

t

t

t

t

t

••• t

t t

t

e e •

e •

t

e •• t

•• e ••

~d ~bject appear as a light or as a definite object . ike star• .....Detini ......te.... .....' l........................................................ . objeo~

12.

If there was more than "ne object, how many were there and what was their formation .

•.••• Ql)t.9~t • • .•.• • .. . ••••.••• . •

ll···················l·······················

13.

~at wa~ the oolour nf the light or object • .. .• ~q ,qt4; , .....•.•.•• , •..••.••..

14.

·.That was i ts apparent shape •.. tt"wO. •.. . •..••• . . ••• . . . •.•.•.•... . · • · •· •· •· •· • · •· •

15.

Was any detail of structure observable •... . . \ft

16.

Was any met 10d of propulsion nbvious . . . . .. . . ~? . .. . ... . . · · • • · • •• • • · • · • · • · • • • •• · •

17.

";7as

18,

Height, ..r angle ?f elevation, • • • YP~. Wetl.

19.

Speed ~r angular velocity . . . • ~~. ~t~~~- ~~.~?~~~~~~

20.

..•• , ..•.•...•..... • • · • · • · • • • · • · •

thet-e mzy sound, •.• •• • 1'9••• . ••• • •• •. • ••. •••• • • ••• · • • • • • • • • • • • • · • • • • • • • • • • • •

, .•.•• •. • .•.• · . · · · • •• •• • • • • •• · • · • •• •

... ........ .... .. ... ... .

1o Was the " bjec t stationa-lj' . . .. . ..... . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. . ... · • · • · • · • · • • • · • • • • • · • • •

... /2.


- 2-

Wha.t was the dil:'('lction of flight with reference to landmarks or pointa comp11.ss • ••

"'J..' thfl

~roD •

north-west to eouth-eaat • •

t

•••••• •••• •••••••••

Did the obJeot r emain on a straight path, deviate or manoeuvre at all? ov.d elo'fly 1n eb:a.isht line •

22 .

............................................... ................................

2) ,

Was any trail

24,

Where did

No..•.• . . . .•... .. • , .•.. . .•.•. , exhaust, vapour or light seen .,, ..

~f

~bject

disappear, e . g . mid- air, behind a hill, over the horizon.

............................................................................... l l.id-air

25,

photograph~,

Existence of any physical evidence such as fragments, supporting evidence .

or other

Nil ." .......................................................................... ... Nil

26,

Have you observed any unusual phenomena previously . •.•• .••.••• ••••• •••••.••••••

27 .

If f

28.

I

so, give details of incident(s) ................. .. ........................ .. t

f

t

t

t

I

I

f

I

f

f

f

f

t

t

t

f

f

f

t

I

t

f

t

t

f

'

t

I

I

t

f

t

I

I

I

e

t

t

t

I

I

t

t

I

I

t

I

t

t

f

t

I

f

t

t

t

f

f

e

t

t

t

t. '

f

I

t

t

f

State any experience which enables observer to be reasonably certain about the answers given to paras . 18 and 19.

Nil ............................................................................... ............. ....... ......................................................... . '

29,

A:re ynu a member of any organisation interested in aerial phenomena?

30 .

Name Blld add.ress of orgarri.sati\Jn, •••••.•