◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0 “On, December 1956 two USAF jet pilots were practicing ground radar positioned intercepts on each other in the vicinity of During one run, the report states, the intercepting pilot picked up a large unexplained radar blip; he estimated the UFO to be as large as a B-29 bomber. Radar showed it to be 20 miles away and 30 degrees to the left. “Pilot called the GCI [Ground Control Intercept] site to ask if they had a target which would correspond to the unidentified blip. After receiving an answer in the negative, he asked for and received permission to determine the nature of the source of the radar return.”” The pilot closed in at over 700 mph; at 8 miles range a round object became visible exactly where the radar showed it. The apparent size was very large. The pilot described it as “the size of a lead pencil eraser if placed against the windscreen.”’ [Using figures supplied by North American Aviation, the dia- meter of the UFO was computed to be about 350 feet.) (14.] The pilot got a radar “‘lock-on’? (automatically guiding his plane toward the UFO). As he continued to close in, his radar was suddenly jammed by a strong interference. Using anti- jam procedure, the pilot switched frequency. For 10 seconds, this eliminated the mysterious interference pulses, then they began again. But the pulsations were not strong enough to break the radar lock-on, and the jet held its course. “The jet closed to within 5 nautical miles of the object and could not close further. When the pilot was closest to the uni- dentified object, it appeared to make a shallow left turn, It had the appearance of being circular on the bottom.’” The color of the UFO was described as a golden tan, with no reflection from the sun, After the UFO began turning, the pilot’s radar indicated that the object was ‘moving up and away at from 1,500 to 1,800 knots [1,700 to over 2,000 mph].”” The Air Force report states that this is an estimate, since the UFOs’ rate of departure was faster than the jet’s radar could track. The blip ‘disappeared by moving rapidly off the top of the scope.”” The Intelligence Report shows that the jet and all of its equip- ment was immediately checked, and all systems were satisfactory. Under ‘Comments of the interrogation officers,’’ the Report states: “The observing pilot, Lt. , had many flying hours as of the time of the incident. Over half had been logged in this type of jet. He appeared to be conscientious and reported the incident in a straightforward, slightly embarrassed manner, saying that he would doubt the possibility of such an occurrence if it hadn’t actually happened to him. “The fact that no unidentified tracks were observed by ground radar should not be given much weight in evaluating this report. Both the jet aircraft involved required IFF in order that the con- trolling GCI site could plot them.” [‘IFF” is an identification code transmitter system developed in World War II called “Identification, Friend or Foe.” The fact that IFF signals were required for ground radar to plot the jets indicates that the Air Force planes otherwise would not have shown up on the ground radar.] The above sample cases contain examples of most of the recurring features of reported UFOs: yReports from competent observers such as scientists and pilots. v Flight characteristics such as a disc wobbling on its axis. V Maneuver patterns such as hovering and terrific acceleration. VPhysical evidence such as radar trackings and electro- magnetic effects. Typically, the majority of reports describe disc-shaped or el- liptical objects. [See Section XII, Patterns, for additional de- tails.] COULDN'T THEY BE U.S. OR SOVIET SECRET DEVICES? When a person who has been a skeptic first becomes con- vinced that UFOs are, or might be, real, his usual first reaction is that they must be secret devices. While space activity in the past six years undoubtedly has caused some false UFO reports, Approved For Release 2001/04/02 the activity of secret test devices on the other hand would nec- essarily be confined to restricted test areas. The arguments against the secret device theory, then, are: a. Test devices of one nation would not be observed worldwide [see Section X, Worldwide UFO Reports). b. If secret devices were operational in the scope necessary to account for UFO reports, the technology implied would cause all current jets and rockets to be completely outmoded. Yet, the direction of our research and experimentation does not reflect such a breakthrough. c. Perhaps most damaging to the secret device theory is the fact that UFOs apparently have been observed for a very long time [see Section XI, Chronology]. Soviet aerial technology through and after World War II was not impressive. German technology at the end of World War II was impressive, and this has caused advocates of this theory to attribute UFOs to captured German scientists and engineers working secretly for the U.S. or Russia, American technology was making rapid strides at the close of the war, but our hottest operational aerial devices were propeller-driven aircraft, and our few guided missiles were hardly out of the laboratory. However, NICAP examined this possibility thoroughly, con- sulting scientists and engineers (including Prof. Dr. Hermann Oberth, famous German rocket expert) and found not the slightest evidence to confirm the rumors of secret devices developed by former Nazi scientists. The antiquity of UFO sightings, especially, rules out the pos- sibility of any sort of test devices, secret or otherwise, account- ing for more than a handful of UFO reports. Explorer Nicholas Roerich, on an expedition in the Himalayan Mountains, August 5, 1926, and others in his caravan, saw a shiny oval-shaped object [15.] While watching a soaring eagle, they noticed the object far above moving south at high speed and observed it through binoculars. The UFO then made a turn to the southwest and moved out of sight in the distance. An early postwar observation by an unusually well-trained observer was reported to NICAP Board Member, the Rev. Albert Baller: [See photostat]. ANOREW A, Tircome. ARCHITECT April 4, 1985 fev. stbort patter Doar ba Balter et *Phying sauoer"atgntings She ctrouatences of the sighting of an unimomn flying coject tyne weve as foilorss= Tt was in Key 1946, at my wife's fent2y home, at La Grange, 4 miles north of Titusville, Florias, where I was spending my terminal leave as Lioutonant Jig. U-S.MeRey having just returned fron the Paeitie and Far I'hadapent over aboard a destroyer escort as sontor watch officer, gunnery officer and Padar officer, and was Vory fantiiar, both in training and practice to ship and aircratt Fecognition, night and day under conbat cirounstance: I vas picking orang 100 the house, whon'e distinct wavering whistling noise of a fas moving body through air made te lock Upr Directly overhead @-derk "Plying football" shaped fron possibly less, at the speed of a light plane ~ sey 125 ie appeared dark against tno bright cloud layer which ceiling of perhaps 1500 fect - there waa no Dive re was no. sound of any engine, st fad no wings or other pendages, no props, and no trail of gnoxe in back, {t sppeared about 18 of 20 Poet tong, perhaps ese, and curved snocthly in an are to the southeast and vanishes forever ina" Lower elova bank. y wife and the rest of the fantly heard this quoer noise Out to see wnat tt wes, and uy wife glinpsed 1t as the clouie, confirming ny of flying sme Some secret device of hed no idea what 2 ALE or blimp at the tine that could jay, in the cloada above. So that 4a the story of my "Flying Football", stil1 as mich a mystery totay ast was to ne © years ago. stneerety yours, NA fy Ay CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0