◆ SpookStack

USAF STATEMEYA) proved ForRél BLUE BOOK: “SCIENTIFIC & OBJECTIVE” “Some cases arise which, on the basis of information re- ceived, are of a weird and pe- culiar nature. The objects display erratic movements and phenomenal speeds. _ Since maneuvers and speeds of this kind cannot be traced directly to aircraft, balloons, or known astronomical sources, it is be- lieved that they are reflections from objects rather than being objects themselves... Reflec- tions may be projected to clouds and haze both from the ground and air. Many things which are common to the sky have highly reflective qualities, such as balloons, aircraft, and clouds.”? (‘Fact sheet,’’ No- vember 1957), NICAP: Air Force logic ap~ pears to be that, if something is observed which out-performs conventional aircraft and bal- loons, it must not be a real solid object. The ‘‘objective’’ Air Force investigation denies the possibility that UFOs could maneuver as reported, ineffect concluding that all witnesses have been deluded. The hypo- thesis that UFOs represent a superior technology--and may be space ships--is not even considered, The ‘‘investiga- tion”? therefore consists of searching for the conventional phenomenon--or phenomena-- most nearly resembling the re- ported UFO. If none is found, complex speculative ‘light re- flection’”’ theories are invoked. “,,.the Air Force does not proceed with an investigation unless the sighting is reported directly to the Air Force.” (Col. George M. Lockhart, USAF, Congressional Inquiry Division, Office of Legislative Liaison, to Senator Harrison A, Williams, Jr., 2-21-63) NICAP: A scientific investi- gation of any phenomenon would set out to gather objective and quantitative data about that phenomenon. It would not ig- nore potentially valuable data merely because it was not re- ported through official chan- nels. “Four frames from the films taken by Mr. Diaz in Vene- zuela [Dec. 1962--See Section VII] were forwarded to the Air Force for evaluation. How- ever, the negatives of these frames were not submitted and therefore, without them, it has been impossible to make any in- vestigation.” (Maj. Maston M, Jacks, USAF, Public Informa- tion Division, Office of Infor- mation, to Richard Hack, 12- 31-63). NICAP: There is no such thing as negatives of movie film. Upon learning of this statement, NICAP had its ad- viser in Caracas, Dr. Askold Ladonko, contact Mr. Diaz again, The film was loaned to the Air Force attache withper- mission to make copies or stills if desired, and was returned intact with no frames missing. Apparently the attache did not have a copy of the film made; just four stills. “The images on the photographs which were made by the U.S. Coast Guard on 16 July 1952 at Salem, Mass., were evaluated as being due to a double ex- posure.” (Maj. Carl R. Hart, USAF, Public Information Di- vision, Office of Information, to George D. Fawcett, 2-12-63). “Phe unidentified flying objects in the photographs taken at Salem, Mass., on July 16, 1952 have been evaluated as light reflections on the window through which the photos were taken,”” (Maj. Maston M, Jacks, USAF, Public Information Di- vision, Office of Information, to John P, Speights, 8-5-63). “The Long Beach sighting of November 5, 1957 [See Section XII; Nov. 1957 Chronology] has been evaluated as possible re- flections on sheet-ice, from either the sun or from light- ning, Also there was a balloon in the area, and there were 10 aircraft in the vicinity...” (Maj. Maston M. Jacks, USAF, Public Information Division, Office of Information, to Herbert S, Taylor, 11-18-63) NICAP: A good example of “shotgun”? explanation for a sighting which is difficult to ex- plain in conventional terms; in this case, six shiny circular objects making sharp turns and maneuvers. Itis obvious guess- work, hardly a ‘‘scientific’”” e~ valuation, This is one of many similar cases during the No- vember 1957 ‘flap’? which the Air Force listsas ‘‘explained.”” ase 2001/04/02 : GIA-RBR81R00560R00R4000 1000120. scription Capt. Raymond Ryan, American Airlines pilot; ‘‘The Air Force concluded that the object viewed during this sighting was the planet Venus.’ (Air Force “fact sheet’’, 1963). “The objects which appeared in the film taken atGreat Falls, Montana on 15 August 1950 were identified as F-94 aircraft.” (Maj. Carl R. Hart, USAF, Public Information Division, Office of Information, toGeorge D, Fawcett, 2-12-63). “The Air Technical Intelligence Center reports concerning the Washington Airport Control Center sighting of July 1952 state there were radar blips ob- served and that they were caused by a temperature inver- sion.” (Maj.Gen. W. P. Fisher, USAF, Director of Legislative Liaison, to Senator Kenneth B. Keating, 6-19-59). of his sighting, Capt. Ryan states that the UFO zoomed through a 90 degree are from off his wingtip to dead ahead. Control tower operators re- ported seeing a silhouette of a UFO, [See transcript, Section v) The F-94 aircraft were observed by the photographer behind him coming in for a landing. Photogrammetric ana- lysis [See Section VIII] states there are ‘‘several factors which make such a hypothesis quite strained.” Persistence of reflection from alleged air- craft “would require a very rare coincidence of airplane maneuver.’” NICAP: Gen. Fisher failed to mention that visual observa- tions often coincided with the unexplained radar blips; that the degree of inversion was insufficient to account for the sightings; and that Project Blue Book classified the sightings as “unknown,” contrary to public announcements at the time. [Re- port on Unidentified Flying Ob- jects, Ruppelt, p. 226; also see Section XI1] “,,.the Air Force feels that public hearings would merely give dignity to the subject out of all proportion to which it is entitled, ‘The sensation seekers and the publishers of science fiction would profit most from such hearings, and in the long run we would not accomplish our objective of taking the aura of mystery out of UFOs.” (Maj. Gen. W. P. Fisher, USAF, Di- rector of Legislative Liaison, to Senator A.S. ‘Mike’? Monroney, 6-4-59), NICAP: Nothing would remove the “aura of mystery’” about UFOs more rapidly than Con- gressional hearings. Presum- ably, the Air Force believes hearings would prove its case. If so, the alleged “myth” of UFOs would be punctured. Sen- sationalists and opportunists thrive only because of public confusion about UFOs. Hearings could help to establish the facts and clarify the entire picture. Continued refusal to give out detailed information en- courages an ‘‘aura of mystery.” “The Air Force has a tremen- dous task in defending this coun- try against weapon systems which we know exist. Todivert more men and money from this mission into a greatly enlarged program for investigation of and defense against UFOs would jeopardize the security of this country against a known threat and would, in our opinion, be grossly imprudent.” (Col. Carl M. Nelson, USAF, Con- gressional Inquiry Division, Of- fice of Legislative Liaison, to Senator Philip A. Hart, 4-8-60). NICAP: These letters pinpoint the real issue between the Air Force and its scientific critics. No one denies that the Air Force mission is to defend the country against attack, and that this is an important mission. The thinking is clear: UFOs are evaluated in the light of being a potential threat to the country. If preliminary investigation satisfies the Air Force the country is not under attack, ‘an understandably lower priority is placed on the further ev- aluation of the sighting.” But what about scientific investiga- tion of the reported objects thereafter? The Air Force should not be expected to carry through a job for which it is Approved For Release 2001/04/02 :CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0