◆ SpookStack

proved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA- -RDP81R00560R000100010001-0 pecembel PP 1959: Air Force Inspector General brief Operations and Training Commands: ‘‘UFOs Serious Business." ” Stated that UFO investigators on base level ‘‘should be equipped with binoculars, camera, geiger counter, magnifying glass and have a source for containers in which to store samples.’’ August 15, 1960: ‘‘Air Force Information Policy Letter; For Commanders,’’ Vol. XIV, No. 12, issued by Office of Secretary of Air Force. Under title ‘‘AF Keeping Watchful Eye on Aerospace,’’ stated, ‘‘There is a relationship between the Air Force’s interest in space surveillance and its continuous surveillance of the atmosphere near Earth for unidentified flying objects--‘UFOs.’”’ 1960-1961: Through its spokesman in the Pentagon, Lt. Col. Lawrence J. Tacker, the Air Force began answering critics of its UFO program publicly. Late in 1960, Col. Tacker’s book Flying Saucers and the U.S. Air Force (Van Nostrand) was pub- lished, with a foreword by General Thomas D. White, Air Force Chief of Staff. Col. Tacker went on a public tour to publicize the book, appearing on radio and television, and giving lectures. Examples-- December 5, debate with NICAP Director on Dave Garroway’s network television program. December 18, interview on Westinghouse network radio program, “Washington Viewpoint.’’ March 17, 1961, lecture ot Aero Club of Buffalo, N.Y. March 1961, article in Argosy magazine. Col. Tacker used the strongest language to date in denouncing critics of the UFO investigation. Their claims were ‘‘absolutely erroneous;”’ ‘‘a hoax;’’ ‘‘sensational theories;’’ the work of ‘‘ama- teur hobby groups.’’ NICAP’s evidence was ‘‘drivel,’’ its claims ‘‘ridiculous’’ and it was making ‘‘senseless accusations.’’ In April 1961, after being associated with the UFO project for over three years, Col. Tacker was shipped to Europe on ‘‘routine reassignment.’’ June 1961: The outspoken new policy, if that is what it was, apparently backfired. Angered by Col. Tacker’s attitude, NICAP members and other citizens deluged Congress with requests for an investigation of the Air Force project. Congressional hearings were contemplated [See Section XIII] but never came about. Instead, Air Force Congressional Liaison personnel briefed key Congressional committees in private. February 6, 1962: The Air Force issued the last ‘‘fact sheet”’ (No. 179-62) of the old style, then dropped that format. 1963-1964: In the past two years, packets of information-- including some details of specific cases--have been substituted for the generalized ‘‘fact sheets.’? The unexplained cases for each year are briefly described, (In the new ‘‘fact sheets’, the ‘‘unknown’’ category has been rendered meaningless by the inclusion of vague and imcomplete cases. Formerly the term ‘cynknown’? was applied to the most detailed and inexplicable cases from the best observers. Now the distinction between ‘“cunknowns’’, and cases which lack detail or apparently have natural explanations, has been blurred.) SUMMARY 1947-1949: Serious investigation, conclusions UFOs real and interplanetary... 1950-1951: These conclusions challenged on basis of lack of proof; ‘‘explain-away’’ approach adopted by investigators. 1952-1953: After review of situation, new serious investigation started; evidence uncovered led many high-ranking officers to conclude UFOs were interplanetary. 1954 to date: Evidence again challenged as ‘‘proof,’’ this time by panel of scientists. Conflicting versions of whether ex- panded investigation was recommended (and adopted) to obtain more data. Public relations program adoptedtoassure public UFOs posed no danger, or threat to national security. C. Air Force Statements/NICAP Rebuttals Over the past ten years, the Air Force has had considerable correspondence with citizens unsatisfied by the official conclusions and attitudes about UFOs. The letters have reflected Air Force thinking and the philosophy of their investigation at various stages. The letters often have been more specific than the ‘‘fact sheets,’’ but fewer people are aware of their contents. me ie’ Approved For Ret about its UFO investigation, general and specific. The right- hand column contains NICAP rebuttals, comments, or other data refuting the Air Force statements. (Note the recurrence in these letters, and the detailed cases following, of certain types of answers given by the Air Force. These include counter-to fact, ‘‘shotgun,’”’ and ‘‘zig-zag’’ answers. “Shotgun’”’ refers to a fusillade of explanations given for one UFO sighting, e.g., that it was either a balloon, an aircraft, or the planet Venus. ‘‘Zig-zag’’ answers are those in which the press is given a quick explanation for public consumption; this explanation is later quietly changed one or more times. These techniques result in a sort of patchwork explanation for a given case. If Venus cannot explain one aspect of a sighting, then perhaps a balloon or aircraft can.) “NOTHING WITHHELD” “The allegation that the Air Force is withholding vital UFO information has no merit what- soever. The press release approach is considered censor- ship by some UFO organiza- tions, because they do not re- ceive individual attention from the Air Force, they contend that we are withholding vital information. The Air Force was compelled to adopt the press release approach because in the past when factual infor- mation was furnished to certain writers of UFO books, upon their individual request, our action was interpreted as grant- ing approval and clearance for the books in which the infor- mation was used.’’ (Maj. Gen. W. P. Fisher, USAF, Director of Legislative Liaison, to Sen- “‘As stated in the material rec- ently forwarded to you, limited resources preclude the distri- bution of case summaries toin- dividuals and private organi- zations. Summaries of findings are published only when deemed necessary. (Maj. Maston M. Jacks, USAF, Public Informa- tion Division, Office of Infor- mation, to Charles R. Culbertson, 8-1-63). NICAP: These letters admit that specific information is not given out; only generalized summaries. Conflicting rea- sons given for this: ‘‘limited resources’”’ or alleged ‘‘mis- use’’ of the material. The use of public information is no con- cern of the Air Force. It is standard procedure in the De- fense Department to stamp dis- claimers on factual material stating DOD is not responsible for ‘‘factual accuracy or op- inion’’ in the use of the ma- terial. ator Harry Flood Byrd, 1-20-59). “No reports of unidentified flying objects have been with- held. . . AS Director of this Committee [NICAP], Major Donald E. Keyhoe, Marine Corps, Retired, has already received all the information in the hands of the United States Air Force...’ (Maj. Gen. Joe W. Kelly, USAF, Director of Legislative Liaison, to Rep. Peter Frelinghuysen, 9-12-57). “The Department of the Air Force does not ‘edit’ or ‘splice’ film submitted by private citi- zens. When the Department receives such a film, it does make the necessary studies, analyses, and duplication of the film. When this work has been completed, it has been the con- sistent practice of the Depart- ment to return the film to the person who submitted it.’’ (Major Lawrence J. Tacker, USAF, Executive Officer, Pub- lic Information Division, Office of Information Services, to Eli Asked to provide data on speci- fic cases which had not been furnished to NICAP, General Kelly replied: ‘‘I assure you the Air Force never intended to turn over ‘official use only’ files to your organization.’’ (11-15-57) NICAP: This has been standard practice; public announcements that UFO infor- mation is not classified, but refusal to provide specific in- formation when requested. Photographs which the owners allege were either edited, spliced, or not returnedtothem by the Air Force [See Section VIII; Photographs]: Aug. 15, 1950, Great Falls, Montana. Nick Mariana: Reported best frames of color movie film missing when returned by Air Force. July 2, 1952, nr Tremonton, Utah. D. C. Newhouse: Reported frames of movie film showing a single UFO moving away over the hori- zon, missing when film returned by Air Force. July 29, 1952, feiss 2601 W402" GIA-ROPBIRVG ¥boROoO1MEOT0bO1 BU Mer